wolfishmusings: We can reverse everything you said:
Why?
Why can’t marriage be looked at as a man-woman partnership?
One can make a good case for saying that marriage should involve a man and woman (and only such). 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 man and woman.
(Again, I’m just pointing out the error of your reasoning.)
______________
One key point of yours deserves it own comment:
You wrote: “All that gets “blown up” with plural marriages but not by same-sex marriages.”
Incorrect. All of those points you mentioned CAN work within the framework of plural marriage. You that argument of yours doesn’t hold water.