An interesting debate which I'm sure no doubt will decend into oneuping and the time honoured tradition of rejecting other's opinions based on fear and misunderstanding
My WIFE to be and are expecting our first child in Feb and we have all but accepted the fact that we might end up being perpetually engaged because the country that we both been born and raised in is unable to extend to us the same basic human rights as our heterosexual peers. We have the same rules imposed on us in every aspect of our lives together as a married couple would, yet we are unable to say we are married or even able to plan for a time when we will be married. And don't get me started on the unions...
I would much rather be able to say "we got married" as oposed to "we got unionised". A civil union or a civil partnership or whatever you want to call it doesn't exactly conjure up images of white dresses and cake toppers... more likely of boardrooms and binding contracts. A marriage is not a business trasnaction and a gay marriage does not deviate from any of the characteristics of a heterosexual marriage so why is there a need to call it something different?
As for the polygamy debate - open relationships aren't illegal. A man or woman can be married and have as many mistresses or boyfriends as they like, wouldn't it be better if it was all done above the board and out in the open? Who cares.