Fair point. I had never heard of the concept of "just-so stories." Discarding everything and creating a new framework from the ground-up would be great, and perhaps the best way of doing things. It appears that "just-so stories" are the quick retort and dismissal for arguments from evolution and nature. ("Humans, great apes, etc. naturally form bond pairs" statements and the like.) Despite this, I think that we both accept that the state should regulate contract agreements for the benefit of both parties involved (e.g. ensuring enforcement, reducing exploitative contracts, unless you go full-on anarcho-capitalist). If we want to call a type of contract, between two parties, for a specific purpose (financial interdependence, possibly rearing children, etc.), a certain "m-word," then why is it absurd for the state to regulate this special type of contract, but not any other contract? The state regulating contracts has benefits (that I think we both accept), the state regulating marriage shares many of those same common goods, such as ensuring fulfillment, ensuring an absence of duress, and the like.

As for the question of "why dyadic?" but not poly... the complexities built into poly marriage are intrinsically different than one-one marriage. Our current legal system isn't ready to handle poly marriage, to bite the bullet that you've offered me. It is hard to separate out the impacts of polygamy from other cultural impacts, but some speculate that polygamy has some unique negative impacts on childrearing. [1]

I would still ask that my question from above be answered. Given our current frameworks and regulations, was the denial of the civil acknowledgement of SSM a form of discrimination?

My flippant attitude in past comments notwithstanding, I am terrified at the backlash that you continue to receive. Frankly, I didn't realize how all-pervasive it was, nor do I ever personally feel the need to get on Twitter to insult people (a la your link) or call for a third party's head (a la your personal story). Criticism and questioning for fitness of a particular role is one thing, but public evisceration is another. I can acknowledge and accept a opposing position whereby one seeks to abolish the civil institution of marriage altogether, for gay, straight, whatever, alike, which is what I'm coming to understand your position to be. But, I do find it hard to fathom how one can decide that "today's line" gets drawn before gay marriage, while also somehow respecting and acting fairly towards gay people in their day-to-day lives (which is where I thought your beliefs laid before this exchange). My sympathy ends there. Personally, I won't be one to crusade for the personal decimation that you seem to think I enjoy. I do believe that creating a culture whereby one is building up "pseudo-reasons" against gay marriage, like talking about looming bestiality and pedophilia, is as despicable as those that are using their sexuality to create misery for others. (Like the culturally vindictive lesbian woman in your article. By no means am I a prude: her path to children doesn't make me cringe, but her quote-on-quoted attitude does.)

Implicit self-righteousness regarding illumination aside, I break the TWS article into a couple of mish-mashes of fearmongering, mixed with some valid points about malicious intent amongst specific members of the SSM/LGBT movement:

- Statistics that attempt to minimize the weight that is, or should be, given to the "homosexual agenda," as this article would imply that there's such a coherent and unified front, by the mere fraction of LGQ people in the population. Civil rights are civil rights, no matter how great or small the magnitude.

- Statistics and quotes that attempt to criticize the way of life of LGQ people by implying that there is something wrong with less-than-monogamous relationships while married.

- Highlighting questionable behaviors and attitudes co-opted by people who also happen to be LGQ (people using impregnation as a tool of retribution are idiots regardless of orientation)

- Some really outright fearmongering about state interference in direct religious ceremonies. (Requiring that religiously affiliated employers give out birth control is pretty sane, thinking that somehow the state will turn to mandating that priests must marry gay people in a church/synagogue/etc. is not sane. What might be sane is to say that all marriage license clerks, regardless of religious affiliation, must adhere to the federal law. That's not a hindrance to whatever a particular religion's beliefs are.)

- Highlighting particular cases of activists that are pushing the cultural envelope for the definition of the "m-word". I don't understand the need for this here... the author doesn't exactly state why this person is doing a bad thing, but merely is preaching to a choir that must already think 3+ marriages are distasteful.

- The entire last page is one big "begging the question"...

The article doesn't answer what "culture" will explicitly be destroyed by the legalization of gay marriage. It speculates that cultural change may abound and be desired by the LGBT movement. The article is hypocritical in that it is seeking a "live-and-let-live" approach to be taken by LGBT supporters ("let the Catholic Charities adopt out to whomever they want"), while at the same time implying that LGBT people shouldn't be allowed to marry one another ("let two people get married if they want to get married"). There is bad faith on part of some of LGBT activists; some want far more than equality. Let's not kid ourselves though, bad faith on the part of some LGBT activists is no excuse for not working within the pre-existing legal and cultural frameworks that the West has, and striving for equality under those frameworks.

This is perhaps the biggest whopper of all: "Support for traditional marriage stems from many sources, including respect for natural law and the prudential concern that holding any line will become impossible once the core definition of marriage is tampered with." What is "traditional marriage"? What is "the core definition?" For this articles audience, presumably the "core definition" is that it's a man and a woman. These are the exact same arguments that you are criticizing me for, and they are a shift of the goal posts. How can one argue for the legalization of anything, if all one wants to do is point to this line that we supposedly must maintain? It's not fair to have to argue against a slippery slope.

[1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020925123016