>>>>I'm surprised that you equate a bond between man and a man equal to that of a bond between a man and a woman.
>>>
>>>So marriage is genital-based?
>>
>>It's a biblical thing. We wouldn't understand.
>
>I'm trying to be on your side. I'm for marriage of all kinds. Why just stop at gay marriage. Lets allow all kinds of marriage (gay, polygamy etc...) with some minor restrictions. After all, who are we to judge?

I agree. Though, I think you aren't really trying to be on my side. ;) I think you're really mocking the concept.

Anyway, as long as the partners are all of an age that they can reasonably understand the ramifications of their decisions, and it doesn't affect my life, then any objections I might make would really be just so much personal dogma. I'm not much into dogma. I think that rules out marriage with children since just about every place has laws that mandate the age a person must be to make legal decisions.

Marriage between siblings? I think we already know where procreation between siblings leads, so the legal rule should be about procreation, not about marriage.

I know the bible says that marriage is strictly for procreation, but in this day and age, I think that's no longer true. As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of marriage is to make sure, as much as possible, that certain legal rights are accorded to the partners.

Having said that, I can't really see any point to marriage between a person and his or her pet. I doubt the pet would be able to make use of such legalities.

As far as polygamy is concerned, again, if it really is a workable idea (which I kind of doubt), then I say let them have their fun - my life won't be changed by it.