Again, you're not giving a satisfying objective answer to why polygamy is immoral. You argument is basically "look at polygamists. They're bad". This is like conservatives who make the argument that a disproportionate number of serial killers are homosexuals, thus making homosexuality the cause of serial killing. We live in a country where polygamy is illegal, and thus only underground groups, who tend to be outside of mainstream norms, practice it.
I have not attempted to state whether polygamy is inherently immoral. I don't believe it is. It's practice, however, among the groups most likely to practice it is inherently immoral.
I think your analogy is a bad one. Homosexuality, as far I know, is not more or less likely to lead to behavior that harms others than heterosexuality. It's not inherently harmful in any normal, reasonable context. Just because conservatives make a bad argument (if indeed they make it), doesn't make me accountable for it.
Polygamy, however, as practiced by fundamentalist religious groups (where the practice is likely to be concentrated) is inherently harmful as practiced within the groups most likely to practice it. Thus it IS inherently harmful in a normal, reasonable context.
And you keep bringing up choice, for some incomprehensible reason. Choice has nothing to do with anything. Gay marriage shouldn't be prevented not because "aw, poor things. They can't help what they are. Just let them get married if they want. It's not like they're hurting anyone". It is because nobody has the right to decide for someone else who they're allowed to **** or spend part/all of their lives with.
I was just in DC and visited the National Archives. In the basement is an exhibit on civil rights. It includes a loop with Dr. King speaking, and he argues that (paraphrasing) that it is wrong to withhold rights to someone based solely inherent, immutable attributes, such as race. I agree with this argument, and I think the argument is equally valid for sexual orientation, which I see as equally inherent and immutable.
There are, in contrast, any number of valid scenarios in which society can legitimately constrain rights within the context of chosen behavior.
For example, the law of the land currently is that one cannot choose to withhold public services to gays based on religious beliefs. The former is an immutable part of self, while the latter is a choice.
That such things as sexual orientation, race, etc, are immutable parts of one's self is critically important to how we view this issue. I'd bet that if you go and read through the arguments for same sex marriage by its advocates, that you'll find this principle evoked with some prominence.
Right now polygamy is illegal, and so is having sex with a minor under a certain age. Fundamentalist groups you mentioned ignore both laws anyway. Making polygamy legal, while making it so that you have to be above the age of majority to get married (as it should be anyway), does not change how these fundamentalists operate. They can still get prosecuted for marrying an underage person, and they wouldn't be for marrying more than one adult, because there is no objective moral reason that they should be.
It's not just an issue of underage girls being forced into marriage. The practice of polygamy within fundamentalist communities violates the very principle/assumption of people entering into mutually beneficial arrangements by comment consent. Abuse, coercion, etc. are part and parcel of the transaction, regardless of age.
Another thing I want to say about the choice argument, is that it's ******** anyway. Marriage is a choice. Who you marry is a choice. For MANY people, even the sex of those you marry is a choice (called bisexual). And even if the whole thing was a choice, it CHANGES NOTHING. Homosexual marriage should still be legal even if homosexuality was a choice.
Again, go to the legal arguments for same sex marriage, and I'll bet you'll find the immutable essence argument made. I'm far from the only one asserting the relevance of this.
I agree that same sex marriage should be legal regardless, I am not disputing this argument.
This argument, however, only works with like minded people (like us) who are inclined to support same sex marriage in any case. It is not a compelling argument to try with someone inclined to oppose it.
