[colorcountry]

But as G.K. Chesterton points out, people who don't see the use of a social institution are the last people who should be allowed to reform it:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

[Dead Corpse]

Using the force of voluntary association to influence society at large is one thing. Using government to enforce arbitrary edicts is EVIL. I don't care how high minded your goals are, human history more than points up ample evidence to prove out that giving a select body of people POWER over everyone else is a really BAD idea that WILL be corrupted.

Look at it this way, what if the polygamists become the majority and make single man/single woman marriage ILLEGAL?

Don't presume to tell me to "go away and think" when you so obviously are clueless yourself.