I guess we found each other. The things that irritate me the most is that people believe that marriage is a right. It is not. It is a government granted legal status privilege. The privilege grants those recognized as married numerous benefits. Now, with that said, I can't see why allowing any two consenting adults who wish to extend the government recognized benefits to each other should be infringed. One question though is, what benefit does the state/government gain from [recognizing] marriage? I think the quickest and easiest answer is that a) two people sharing and taking care of each other is beneficial [to society] and b) should a divorce occur, the state can get involved ensuring that a[n ex-]spouse is treated fairly and taken care of.
ADD: Also, people keep mixing love and marriage. While the two often go hand in hand that isn't always the case.
Marriage is not about love. It is about property. The government/state doesn't give two flying ducks about whether two people get married because they love each other, are in love (infatuated) with each other, or just like each other. Love is not required to get married.
Marriage involves determining and transferring property rights (before, during, and after a marriage).
A marriage license and a state recognized marriage is a three party agreement. It's an agreement between the two spouses and the government. It gives consent to the government to arbitrate marital issues and in return the government gives benefits to the individuals getting married.
ADD: Due to a marriage being a three party agreement, state recognized polygamy gets really complicated really fast, especially when multiple states might be involved.
About polygamy: If I can share a company with two other founder, share its money and profits, share the building, etc. why can't I do the same thing with my private life if I want to? Instead of dividing by two, you divide by three, four... sixteen... why not?
My best response is, because currently one of the parties (the state) to the original agreement doesn't want to nor currently agree to allow that? So I suppose if the state changed their laws and allowed it then it would be possible. My assumption is that the first state that is party to the first marriage would, in its best interests, require that all subsequent additions to the marriage be under that state and only that state.
ADD: Adding a joint tenant to an agreement can get complicated. Some current joint tenants (the state?) might not wish to dilute their rights?
ADD: More thoughts. The ADD above is poor reasoning. You can currently setup an organization with many people as you describe above. With marriage, what's different about a marriage than a company or business? Perhaps the state doesn't care to get involved in trying to determine paternity for children when/if things dissolve. To prevent potential future complexities the state opts to avoid them.?
Makes sense when you remember that the first point of mariage was for children. Whose children is it if there are 4 people in the mariage? The biological parents? What if the biological parents split up and you end up with only the two remaining non-biological parents. Do they keep the child? If they were all equal as parents except... argh. I give up. My head hurts. I am happy not to be the one who makes laws.
ADD: Also, people keep mixing love and marriage. While the two often go hand in hand that isn't always the case.