I only use it to counter people who are stupid enough to use it as a reason for denying polygamist marriage to others. I agree with you that it is a stupid phrase to use. It was also used to deny black/white marriages.
It is just that people STILL use it to deny polygamist marriages as if it is a good argument to use. I simply throw it right back at them...they then stammer that it is "different"...because, well, because it harms their position instead of helps it.
In the case of polygamy is does work, but the difference is subtle (and I don't think it's a good reason to deny someone from doing something, but it's still there).
As I showed prior, I can give you an example where one person has less rights than another due to their gender (so it's not equal rights based on gender). If you were to try to do the same thing with polygamy, you would find that they were not granted equal rights due to marital status.
At least in Canada, it is enshrined that all genders are treated equally under the law. There is no such distinction for marital status. Since you do not have a right to equal treatment under the law by marital status, you are not being denied rights. And the argument can even be made that it's simply based on contractual commitments, and it's a contract set up by the government (the civil portion of marriage at least). That's why the equal treatment does work for polygamy but not for gay marriage.
In summary, at least in Canada, if you can show that males and females are treated unequally under the law that is not allowed, but there is nothing guaranteeing that you will be treated equally based on marital status.
I can only say from my own reasoning, but I do it because if we are going to rewrite the laws, we might as well go the whole way. Beasility is stupid to bring up because it involves a non-human. There definately must be age limits still, and sound mind limits as well. All those are non-starters.
However, why should we jail people for wanting to have a three person union? Is there something evil about it? Something which will destroy the fabric of America? Basically, every reason for changing the laws to include homosexual marriage apply perfectly to polygamist marriage. Since they do, and we are discussing the expansion of rights, it makes perfect sense.
Obvious there must be limitations on the polygamist union size, it must remain unweildly. That is why I propose a union of no more than 5 people.
I disagree with this line of reasoning. You do not need to re-write marriage laws to allow gay marriage, you simply have to approve more marriages. You DO have to fundamentally rewrite all marriage laws to allow for polygamy. Should gays just have to wait to join a system that is perfectly capable of having them while people figure out how to accommodate a completely different set of people?
No, every reason for changing the laws to include homosexual marriage do not apply perfectly. As I've said before: current marriage laws discriminate against people based on their gender. How does that apply to polygamist marriages? The current marriage breakdown and taxation systems cannot handle polygamist marriages, but they can handle gay marriages. There's two arguments for each one that don't apply to the other.
I do not see why it is obvious that there should by limitations on union size if it is seen as a right people should have. Every argument you make to extend unions to 3 could and should be made to extend unions to 6. The fundamental issue is changing laws to accommodate more than one spouse. Going from 3 to 4, 4 to 5 and so on are easy once that's figured out. In my opinion, in our current environment 2 spouses would already be unwieldy, so if that's a legitimate reason to limit it there's no reason to make a change.
I'm fine with people fighting to legitimize polygamy, but tying it up with gay marriage is wrong. There are practical considerations with respect to poly marriage that simply do not exist with gay marriage. There is no reason that gays should continue to be denied rights on the back of some false equivalency that is typically only made by those who never plan on seeing either happen.
Do you also feel all those deeply religious people who are fighting for polygamy should also be fighting for gay marriage?
you dismiss the proof you are wrong because it shows you as wrong! 
Facebook
Twitter