I have no problem with any voluntary contract between adults one wants to call "marriage" including polygamy and polyandry. There are already laws to protect minors from exploitation. My point is that to restrict free association of this type the state needs to demonstrate there is a necessity other than adhering to a religious teaching or the weight of precedent. I have always been in favor of adults attempting to make distinctions between the customs of one's tribe and the laws of nature.

So you are saying that once gender is removed as a restriction on marriage, there is still injustice in limiting it to a two person contract. Okay, I get that. I would say that changing just the gender restriction is a good start and far less complicated as expanding marriage to more than two people would imply redesigning some of the legal structure that goes with it - inheritance without probate, child custody, divorce etc. Not insurmountable, but would require a more complex legal underpinning.


>It is implicit in your argument that special status for heterosexual marriage is improper and/or unjust. But how does adding homosexual relationships change that? Are those the only sorts of stable relationships that benefit society? The current Prime minister of New Zealand grew up in a solo parent environment where he enjoyed considerable protection. Shouldn't such families receive protection too? And what about communes or extended families? Those sorts of stable relationships can be fantastic for society. where is the justice for them? The whole argument seems to be that adding another group of privileged will erase the injustice. it is self-evident that this is only true if you happen to be in one of the privileged groups. This unjust goal is inescapable by the logic of the argument. Whereas erasure of the special status certainly removes the injustice completely. Somebody needs to explain why it is fairer to shift an injustice than to remove it.