I don't see how the logic of Gregory J. Sullivan's article can be disputed.
Proponents of same-sex marriage invariably wonder what harm would
be presented by allowing couples of the same sex to marry. Of course,
by ignoring sexual complementarity and violating the 
natural law, the
common good is undermined; in other words, our moral ecology will be
damaged. But our intellectual elites who dominate the courts, the
universities and the editorial offices of newspapers are animated by a
radical individualism on social issues and they have no concern at all
for public morality and refuse to acknowledge any such harm. Then what
is the case against polygamy? Allowing a man (or woman) to enter into
plural marriage will not prohibit others from marrying in the
monogamous tradition. It would not interfere with that arrangement in
any way. Churches would still be free to marry couples in conformity
with their own teachings.
What is more, it should be acknowledged that, unlike same-sex marriage, plural marriage has a long and established tradition throughout many parts of the world. Finally, with the easy availability of unlimited divorce, serial polygamy is already thoroughly commonplace in Europe and America. What is the difference between taking three or four wives at once or one after the other? [more . . .]
What is more, it should be acknowledged that, unlike same-sex marriage, plural marriage has a long and established tradition throughout many parts of the world. Finally, with the easy availability of unlimited divorce, serial polygamy is already thoroughly commonplace in Europe and America. What is the difference between taking three or four wives at once or one after the other? [more . . .]