> The difference is critical as it pertains to discrimination against a certain type of persons.
How do you define "type"?
> Prohibition of poly-marriage has nothing to do with whom you choose as a partner.
Does it matter? It's still hindering people from being in the relationships they want.
> There is no whom, the only factor is how many, a quality completely detached from the qualities of any individual.
There is a whom: People who have multiple partners. The important quality of those individuals is the fact that they want more than one partner.
> The structure of one's union is not a trait of an individual.
If it were not a trait, then we'd see no preference one way or the other, and yet we do see preference; preference strong enough to lead to prohibition.
Your argument is absurd. My point is really very simple. Poly-marriage is a function of the marriage structure while same-sex marriage is a function of the sex of individuals.
persons_table: person_id, name, age, sex
marriage_table: marriage_id, person_id
If I drop "marriage_table" it is impossible to identify any poly-marriages in the database.
If I drop "persons_table" it is impossible to identify any same-sex marriages in the database.
No amount of pedantic quibbling will allow you to escape the fact that poly-marriage is defined by the TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE in the marriage, it doesn't matter how many partners an individual prefers, the only question is the number of people, not WHO THEY ARE.
I understand that you're trying to suggest that "number of people I want to marry" is the individual trait that factors into the prohibition of poly-marriage, but that argument is disingenuous as well tautologically absurd; it's akin to saying "speeding laws target people who like to speed" which is obviously true but misses the point that the law is based on your actual speed not on your personal predilection for speeding; it's not discrimination because it's not about you.
I don't have to know anyone in the car to know that a car moving at 70mph in 50mph zone is illegal, just like I don't have to know any of the people in the marriage to know that a 3 person marriage is illegal.
> No amount of pedantic quibbling will allow you to escape the fact that poly-marriage is defined by the TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE in the marriage
Obviously.
> it doesn't matter how many partners an individual prefers, the only question is the number of people, not WHO THEY ARE.
I should think that peoples' preferences and drives for partnering and sex does in part define who they are.
> it's akin to saying "speeding laws target people who like to speed" which is obviously true but misses the point that the law is based on your actual speed not on your personal predilection for speeding; it's not discrimination because it's not about you.
It's a prohibition against specific conduct, much like the now defunct prohibition against homosexual sex. One should not stop at the law itself; one must examine the law's effect on those negatively impacted vs everyone else.
How do you define "type"?
> Prohibition of poly-marriage has nothing to do with whom you choose as a partner.
Does it matter? It's still hindering people from being in the relationships they want.
> There is no whom, the only factor is how many, a quality completely detached from the qualities of any individual.
There is a whom: People who have multiple partners. The important quality of those individuals is the fact that they want more than one partner.
> The structure of one's union is not a trait of an individual.
If it were not a trait, then we'd see no preference one way or the other, and yet we do see preference; preference strong enough to lead to prohibition.