"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.
Weird. You quoted me and then you responded to something completely unrelated. You were supposed to try to poke holes in the logic of "marriage = gay marriage; marriage != polygamy". Instead, you responded that there are tax filings and estates and such. That's not in dispute - the issue here is (i) is gay marriage just "marriage" and (ii) is polygamy just "marriage". In fact, as you note, there are a whole bunch of "implementation details" that have to get worked out for polygamy but don't for gay marriage, which is why polygamy is not the same as marriage. But let's try again, just in case you got your wires crossed:
gay marriage is marriage. There is nothing different about it, except for the genders involved. Therefore, it's not a "new" right outside of our traditions, but the same exact and existing right. One can say "marriage is a fundamental right, and gay marriage is marriage, so therefore gay marriage is also a fundamental right."
Polygamy, however, is different than marriage. As noted above (remember, the part you keep trying to dismiss as administrative convenience?), there's a whole bunch of substantive issues that are different when there are two people compared to when there are three or more. It's a different institution than marriage, with more than just a simple gender difference. Accordingly, one cannot simply say "marriage is a fundamental right, therefore polygamy is a fundamental right" any more than one can say "marriage is a fundamental right, therefore driving a car is a fundamental right." They're different things.
Now, feel free to try to poke some holes in that.
That's like saying, well.. a lot of forms already have Mr and Mrs on them and we'd have to change them
And once you do, there are literally no other changes to the laws. Not so with forms that you have to add "spouse 1", "spouse 2", "spouse 3", "spouse 4", etc.
... or child custody in many/most states favor the female/mother.
Nope. It favors the primary caretaker. That frequently happens to be the mother, but not always. The laws themselves, however, make no distinction between stay at home dads vs. stay at home moms. The "stay at home" is the important part, not the genitals.
You can't just say "x is marriage" and use that as a persuasive reason why it should be so.
Maybe you missed the two paragraphs explaining that. Not sure how, considering I've now quoted them twice so they've appeared in their entirety in three separate posts now. I have some theories, but... well... they're not kind.
As I stated in that context, I can also say "poly is marriage" but you'd refute that apparently.
"Apparently" you didn't read the post you replied to, twice. It's not that I would refute that, apparently, but that I did. Twice. It's quoted above a third time. Will you respond to it FINALLY or just admit you're a troll?
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.
Yep, trolling. Or an imbecile. One of those two. My money's on the former, since you appear to be able to use a computer.
Seriously, you're arguing that recognizing that a large group of people has more votes than a small group of people is "pretty much hate speech". Well, that's "pretty much idiotic."
I can't imagine what's going through your mind to come up with that gem.
Well, first I counted to two. Then I kept counting. Then I realized that I had a number larger than two. That's "pretty much hate speech" in your world, apparently because anything beyond base 3 is tyranny or something.
Seriously, are you proud of your post? Because anyone who reads it is just going to shake their head at you.