"Now, feel free to try to poke some holes in that. As of yet, you've simply ignored it."
I addressed that already, as have others. Inheritance, child custody, hospital visitation, all of that, all of your "substantive" issues can be addressed in a manner not unlike what is done for couples. We could have group tax filings. It's just more names on the forms and more W2s and/or 1099s. Estates can be split as with children when there are no surviving parents. Etc. Those are implementation details, those are not justifications for continued discrimination. That's like saying, well.. a lot of forms already have Mr and Mrs on them and we'd have to change them, or child custody in many/most states favor the female/mother.. so it's just not the same thing as marriage. Don't you understand that?
"No, you used the term bigot because you're projecting."
Projecting what? I'm suggesting that we treat all groups the same. That's the opposite of bigotry. What the hell?
"1. You are against gay marriage. Evidence for this is you saying my statement that gay marriage is marriage 'is wrong'."
Out of context. My point was that if that were the consensus, there wouldn't have been any issue for the court to consider. Clearly there was. You can't just say "x is marriage" and use that as a persuasive reason why it should be so. As I stated in that context, I can also say "poly is marriage" but you'd refute that apparently. The argument I'm making is that discrimination continues, I'm not arguing against the court decision.
"2. You think that the arguments against gay marriage and polygamy are identical. Evidence for this is the fact that you've been arguing they're identical."
The justification that traditionalists were using, yes.
"3. You think that I am against polygamy."
No. I think you're against acknowledging that poly marriage is as much marriage and as deserving of the right to be recognized as marriage as the way that hetero or gay couples are considered married.
"4. You think you can catch me being hypocritical because I'm against polygamy, but not against gay marriage, and the arguments are the same."
Against poly marriage, yes.
"It's like you got your talking points from Rush Limbaugh."
I don't listen to his show, but I'm pretty sure he's not in favor of anything except traditional man and woman marriage. Are you not paying attention? I'm calling out the fact that while gays can now marry, the law still discriminates. Why do you keep ignoring that?
"Large groups and couples are not similarly situated. The number of people in a group directly affects its ability to contribute to or participate in society. Large numbers of people have more votes than small numbers. They consume more resources. They can be in more places at once. "
Wow! Polygamists don't contribute to society the same way that a couple can? That's pretty much hate speech right there. They're people, just like anyone else. I can't imagine what's going through your mind to come up with that gem. Again, that sounds an awful lot like the rhetoric against gay marriage. Two guys could never raise a family, therefore they're not contributing to society the same way. That's my beef against your "logic". It's bigoted. There's no way you can justify making a statement like that.
"They consume more resources."
Actually, it's probably the other way around. Let's say it's a group of four. Those married four are likely to live in the same dwelling whereas two married pairs are almost certainly going to be in two separate dwellings. Again, I can't imagine what you're thinking.
"They can be in more places at once."
Are they cloning themselves?
You've got something going on, but it's not logic.