Let me clean tht up....your principle, nature, etc argument was designed to omit homosexuals because no matter what else is true, homosexuals by their nature cannot (it is impossible) reproduce on their own.
Not a single one of your premises is impossible (strictly speaking as you have been) for any polygamous relationship. Hence it fits with "traditional" marriage as meeting 1-5. You are welcome to show an "impossibility" but they don't exist. The best you can show is difficulty not impossibility. It passes your argument with flying colors.
Not that it matters, because I'm as ready as anyone to stop, but the "in principle" I used to explain the essential difference between SS and Hetero relationships was chiefly concerned with whether procreation were possible. I hope Chief reads this when he says that maybe we shouldn't allow two 70 year olds to marry. Fair question but I've answered this so many times I don't know what else to say. Age is accidental to one's nature. Some 30 year olds are infertile. 70 year old women can no longer bear children. "In principle" kinda means what is the case "generally" -- I purposely don't use this word though, because in principle is stronger but maybe that will help.
You see, it's not just that most, any or a few homosexual relationships can never end in procreation. It's all.
Horribly, some babies are born with mental disabilities. The fact that some humans are mentally disabled does not change the nature of man as a rational animal. Man is, in principle, a rational animal. Marriage as one man one women is, in principle, a union that begets children. Unions of one man to one man are, in principle, unions precluding procreation.
Now that I think about it, using the word "unique" is better, and definitely better than "in general" which connotes likelihood and empircal counting to see what's the case. So scrub that.
Moving on. I can't agree with you more than I already have. Some polygamists may very well meet some, most or all of 1-5. Will all, once we look at he nature of this relationship? Can it in principle? I agree its at least arguable, where the simple fact of procreation or not is a physical impossibility. I agreed that some homosexual couples may very well out-parent single and some heterosexual parents. Great. We don't, at least I don't, argue from accidents and exceptions.
Ok, I'm bored.
It passes your argument with flying colors
Fly those colors brother.
Edited by Ultima Ratio, 17 May 2013 - 02:35 PM.
Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.