wolfishmusings: If someone supports toeiva (either as “marriage” or as “civil union”), any logic they attempt to muster for it, means they must support polygamy to maintain intellectual honesty.
Why?
Why can’t marriage be looked at as a two-person partnership?
One can make a good case for saying that marriage should involve two (and only two) people. Laws that currently exist defining property rights, inheritance laws, the ability to make medical and life decisions, the structure of insurance policies, etc. all exist on the basis of marriage being a two person partnership. All that gets “blown up” with plural marriages but not by same-sex marriages.
(Again, I’m not arguing for or against same-sex marriage in this post. Just pointing out the error of your reasoning.)
The Wolf