Polygamous relationships/marriages, have existed for centuries, and are sanctioned, legitimised in some cultures? Arguably, only amongst heterosexual couples.
Until fairly recently, Homosexual relationships/love, dare not breathe its name!
Even today, I believe, some ultra-religious gays, hide their true feelings and desires behind a butched up heterosexual mask?
Arguably it is the latter group, closet dwelling gays, most opposed to gay marriage?
Which would make utter nonsense out of their lifetime sacrifice and personal hate-filled revulsion?
In my view, the sham filled anger filled self hating price they've paid, to have conventional families, replete with kids and social acceptance/political/religious opportunity etc/etc?
Nonetheless, I believe, they seem to self identify, as micromanaging workaholics?
A strategy, along with, a look at me, look at me, victimisation of their own kind?
Which then allows/enables them to avoid looking within, or at their own true, if personally reviled, feelings and desires?
Little wonder we have witnessed in recent years, a veritable army or conga line, of child abusing paedophile priests be outed and or exposed for who and what they are?
Rhrosty.

@paul "Or perhaps some of the morals police could do an internal investigation and work out what/why it is, this compulsion to meddle, judge, control and superintend, in the private lives of others."

We already know this, paul -- it's called 'religion'. It's motivated by the nasty irritating feeling that somebody, somewhere, might be having more fun than you are, and should stop it immediately.

@CARFAX: "I have sympathy with those who can not meet the basic requirements for the formal arrangement defined as 'a marriage' but I prefer the description 'civil union' for homosexual couples or polygamous gatherings rather than redefining the word marriage."

What you 'prefer' is immaterial.

"I 'want to be ' is not an established basis for legislation."

It's a perfectly well established basis for legislation when there are absolutely no sound arguments on the other side -- which is the condition we find ourselves in with regard to gay marriage, at least, if not (yet) polyandry.

Morality is a symptom of it's time and changes as required.
It has never been frozen in time indefinitely.

Not so many years ago I recall the utter shame many felt at the very notion of divorce, tales of young girls going away "on holiday" to secretly give birth to their illegitimate children and the horror of people "living in sin". Families and individuals were destroyed by such scandals and for what?

What goes on in my neighbour's house is of no concern to me and vice versa.

Maybe some of the arguments seem to be coming from people who are just tired of getting all the guilt and none of the sex.

the posts about this subject by the religous right are becoming more shrill every day. Truth be told though Runner and co only have our best interests at heart. You see if gay marriage is allowed then everyone will have to go gay over night. And if there is one thing I know about being gay it's all the dancing you have to do. You see runner knows most of us don't want to dance, but you have to when you're gay.

I'm against same-sex marriages because marriage is there to provide the legitimate avenue for engaging in intimate relations with the opposite sex. As society this is what we should be teaching our children. People who want to engage in intimate relations with the same sex can do so without destroying an institution that can serve as the foundation of more civilised relations.

I'm not against polygyny provided women are treated equally in everything: from living conditions to sexual relations. It's a con to say on the one hand that it is permissible for a man to have as many partners as he likes OUTSIDE OF WEDLOCK (and therefore with no commitment) while forbidding more than one wife. A legally binding marriage contract would protect the wife against exploitation.

But grateful, who decides what's 'legitimate' and 'civilised'? In pre-Colombian Central America it was 'legitimate' and 'civilised' to conduct human sacrifices; and no doubt they looked forward to the day when they could impose their enlightened views on the rest of the world.

Come up with some clear evidence that your views are more 'legitimate' and 'civilised' than, say, mine, and I will embrace them cheerfully. Till then, you're just attempting to disguise a personal preference as an objective fact.