you are assuming its unequal. without any proof. you cant just assume, some one will love one more than another. if that were the case, all marriage should be banned, including gay.

and as kaz said, it could easily be 5 girls, 5 guys.

and for your last point a guess people with with heart disease shouldnt marry, fat people shouldnt marry, people with aids, smokers, shouldnt marry, etc. all those should be banned, right?

1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.

2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.

3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.

Marriage is an institution that is designed to create the ideal environment for raising children, you do not require children to be married.

Personally, I'm against international adoption (in general) at the moment because it is not particularly ethical; essentially, a large portion of children that are available for international adoption are being sold to wealthy westerners, and I have heard it suggested that this is against their parents will. I believe the correct approach to deal with "unwanted" children in developing nations is to increase the standard of living, and to encourage the use of birth control; whether it is artificial birth control (the pill/condoms) or more natural methods (the rhythm method). I don't necessarily have a problem with homosexual adoption, but with there being a massive shortage of children available for adoption I think we should be able to place them in the "best" environment possible; which could potentially discriminate against people for countless reasons. As an example, you might want to place a baby with a family that most closely matches their ethnic background and, since there are far more black babies than white babies available for adoption, the waiting list for black adoptive parents might be shorter than white parents. Of course, this would not preclude white parents from being given a black baby; after all, any loving parents (including parents of different ethnic backgrounds, or homosexual parents) are better than being a ward of the state.

1. I'm not assuming it's unequal. Three women and one man is unequal by definition. 3 doesn't equal 1.

2. As I replied to Kaz, the chances of those 10 people all being equally in love with and committed to each other is 0%, which is why it wouldn't be an equal partnership. This also seems like a moot point, since groups of 10 bisexuals are not lining up to get married.

3. As I said in my previous post, then children should not be at risk for a negative outcome *that is not shared by the parents*. So people with heart disease etc. would meet the criterion.

@killerzX

As I stated above, "Polygamy is not okay because it creates inherently unequal partnerships. For example, situations where multiple women have to share one man." That argument DOES NOT apply to same-sex marriage. Therefore, same-sex marriage and polygamy are logically and ethically different. I can support same-sex marriage without also supporting polygamy.

Here's an affirmative statement of my position: In my view, two people should be allowed to marry as long as (1) they are both consenting adults, (2) their marriage would create an equal partnership, and (3) their marriage would not put their children at substantial risk for a negative outcome that is not shared by the parents.

Same-sex marriage would pass this test. Polygamy would fail, due to criterion (2), and same-family marriage would fail due to criterion (3).

you keep defaulting to multiple women, one guy. that is not the only polygamist relationship. but going along you logic, you would be fine if the law was 5 women and 5 men can get married.

the chances of a homosexual couple completely loving each other and no one esle is very unlikely. so therefore, by your logic they should not be married.

but most of all, you have a completely ridiculous premise that marriage should only be legal if everyone loves each other 100% equally. you cant legislate that, you cant enforce that, there is no way to determine that. its impossible.

you have a very arbitrary definition of marriage, one that is often not met by both gay and heterosexual couples.

But what if a second woman WANTS to marry the man?  Should we stop them?  There is no liberal principle to which you can appeal.  What if the two women are okay with the "exploitation" that you cite?

1. 3 doesn't equal 1, however there is a huge flaw in the arguement that 1=1 in regards to "love and time spent."  Unequal level of affection is highly likely, and honestly probably more likely then not.  In most relationships one person tends to give up far more then the other to make the relationship work.  Or, not work for that matter. 

I'm reminded of a short story.  I want to say Ernest Hemmingway... maybe Stephen King I dunno, I read it in a class.  Describing himself as a man who didn't see himself as a cheater because he had an overwhelming love for all women.

To just assume people married share equal levels of love is a bit naive.

2. I'd disagree with your statistics here.  It's unlikey, but is totally possible.  Also, I'm actually pretty sure there are some groups that would like to be communally married.  It's just less popular then gay marriage is.  I mean gay people werent lining up to get married in the 1940's.

Outside of worries of legal fraud, who cares if people are polygamists.  There are some abusive polygamists, but it seems like you should be targeting the abusive people.  The parrelels with the anti-gay marriage stuff is fairly stirking.

3.