[kobe]

There's no reason to record relationships in any official capacity anyway. However, given the current system is as it is, gay marriage is much more analogous to "traditional marriage" than literally any other form of marriage that would supposedly be legalized if gay marriage was legal. Consider:

Marriage to a child: makes no sense, children can't consent.
Marriage to an animal: makes no sense, animals can't consent.
Marriage to an inanimate object: makes no sense, objects can't consent.
Marriage to a family member: danger (psychological and physical) to the children produced.
Marriage to multiple partners: needlessly complicates inheritance laws, tax laws, custody battles, basically our court system is not set up to be able to handle it at all.
Marriage to a same-sex partner: change "one man and one woman above the age of consent not related to each other" to "two people above the age of consent not related to each other".

See the fact is that same-sex partnership is so analogous to "traditional marriage" and the stated reasons behind supporting it. The problem comes from the fact that people think it sounds icky because they wouldn't personally do it. The criticism towards same-sex marriage applies just as much to traditional marriage, besides the biological inability to produce a child between the two people within the marriage (although there is no shortage of children without a home in the world, so I'm not sure how great that logic is anyway).

[Godstud]

Technically, every marriage is same sex.

Same sex marriage in many countries have been introduced with absolutely ZERO negative effects, and many positive ones. I think polygamy, while it's not my thing, if carefully monitored, could be introduced without too many problems. I think most of the problems associated with polygamy, come from exploitation.
See Bountiful, BC, Canada
Bountiful sect members face polygamy, child-related charges
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.2735785

[kobe]

I agree, somewhat. I think it's possible to allow polyamorous arrangements, but not possible under the current legal frameworks. Divorce law, custody law, common law marriage, it's all predicated on monogamous relationships.

[Godstud]

Divorce law regarding polygamous marriages would be a nightmare...

[kobe]

exactly, and I didn't even mention tax law. In fact the legal framework is so difficult to imagine changing in the United States, that I imagine it would take a constitutional amendment to change. Ie it's not going to happen.

[Godstud]

Tax law is simple. Remove all benefits for being married, and having kids.. That should already be done, for everyone, regardless of the marriage.

[kobe]

Oh, I completely agree with you. I'm talking about the practical realities of actually having that happen. In a perfect world, that's the solution. Remove all government ties to marriage and then no one can say that any particular belief or lifestyle is being encouraged or favored.