Mirroring moondazed's question, and...
Okay. So you don't want to dig through piles of statistics, despite the fact that you're getting a degree in them. (As a fellow student, I want cosmic credit for not commenting on that one. I'll ask you why you're minoring in something you don't enjoy some other time.
) But where is your advocacy for more stringent multi-sex regulation? Where is the cry for a waiting period or a screening process for giving birth? The civil union debate brings in the spectre of good ol' Jim Crow, but you're not even advocating separate but equal... you're advocating stricter standards for someone based on orientation. Not drug use. Not parental competency. Not patience. Not love. Not any of the qualities one needs to give a child a safe and happy home.
As for 'transient nature', I have two words for you: Britney Spears. How about some more words: 24-hour marriage. How about the extreme overload of the foster system in the US? The point I'm trying to make is that multi-sex couples are just as transient, just as volatile, and they currently have the legal right to marry, have children, then bruise, cut, molest, and cut down their children until someone catches them and steps in. How is that anywhere close to fair and impartial, which is what our legal system swears
it strives to be? If you're arguing for the sake of the children, how do you protect all of them? And on what basis do you say they won't get a good home if they live with two women (or men) instead of a man and a woman? You say you've seen it firsthand, but you must have seen the results of broken multi-sex homes, as well. Does that mean you just don't want people together at all? Where is the line?
Among married individuals, yes. The entire point of marriage is to swear yourself to that person, and that person alone. If you go into a marriage with the understanding that you'll both be seeing other people, or somehow marrying more than one person, then it's not a big of a deal. On the other hand, I wouldn't call that a true marriage.
Are you trying to say that open relationships aren't 'real' marriages? Should they still then have the right to marry? Because they do, right now, under the legal system. The individual vows are also determined by the people getting married.
I ask again, where is the line?
Edit: Typos, typos, everywhere.