Joshua Kronengold

This is a combination of straw man and "it has always been that way" that makes it hard to respond sensibly.

1. I never said you shouldn't be able to get the advantages of marriage legally. Just that it shouldn't be (legally) called marriage, which is a loaded word, and that not all rights should necessarily always be bundled with other rights.

2. I never said that, unbundled or no, said rights should be unconstrained. Clearly, our current system for dealing with pair bonds would probably work just fine for triad bonds, and break down disasterously if, say, 1000 person "marriages" were allowable. But "The System" can be adapted to give benefits decreasing as the number of people in the "marriage" increase, or alternatively, things can be limited in other ways.