"Logically, wouldn't it make sense to argue that polygamy is just as justifiable to be considered 'marriage' to consenting adults who love each other and desire that - based on the same arguments used for same sex marriage between two loving and consenting adults? To me, this is showing the need for a higher source of what defines marriage, then left to our own to determine it. But if we aren't using the New Testament as our basis for defining marriage then why not include polygamy as an acceptable definition of marriage in addition to same sex marriage? Wouldn't that make rationale sense using the same arguments for extending the definition of marriage between the same-sex? Could this possibly be a future discussion regarding the definition of marriage and future vote we will have vote on too one day?"
Read his whole post and responses here http://www.dankimball.com/
my response was this:
I guess there would be no reason, if you weren't using the New Testament, to deny polygamy. But I bet you could find some good sociological reasons and some other good reasons why that wouldn’t make sense. But I don’t think that those who are pro same sex marriage are necessarily ignoring the New Testament. That’s a bad presupposition. One could take the New Testament very seriously and still come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not a “sin.”
I personally take the New Testament very seriously and am pro same sex marriage on the state level. Why? What’s legal in the State does not necessarily have to be legal in the Church. By the state’s definition of marriage, including the financial benefits, doctor visits, etc. homosexuals should by all means be given those rights. The church, however, had a different definition of marriage that involves sacrament, revelation, and a covenant with God. Only committed followers of Christ were eligible for that kind of marriage. The church gave up the definition of marriage when they handed it over as a State ordinance. Therefore what we are truly voting for is not marriage at all, we’re voting for something the State calls “marriage” which is nothing more than a civil union. The church can still view marriage however it wants outside the State’s perspective but the State should still offer equal rights.