So why do people conflate them together?

Unless of course we are talking 80 year old men marrying 26 12 year old boys. Then it is pretty much a gimme.

Mostly because of the "slippery slope" argument.

You know, you allow two people of the same gender to get married, then one thing leads to another, thereby setting up a chain of events, bringing about something else entirely -- and pretty soon you end up with, oh, a fire truck getting married to the theory of plate tectonics.

Basically, it's easier than coming up with a valid argument against same sex marriage.

However, SSM does equal the phenomenon of Viagra commercials on TV during the dinner hour — a general loosening of standards.

I figure, with polygamy why stop someone, if it has consent from all adult age parties, who am I to tell a fella he can't be miserable?

And I agree with Billy about virgins versus whores http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdNqUW5wwTE

Of course gay marriage does not equal pedophilia-- Catholic Priests can't get married!

And while Republicans like to use the "slippery slope" argument, it turns out that in logic, the slippery slope argument is a fallacy, which means SHUT UP.

If you'll notice anytime it's used, it's usually done so when there are no real arguments to back up their case.

There is an argument that can be made for why gay marriage isn't harmful to society whereas polygamy is.

Human beings are naturally 50% male and 50 % female. This is the result of us being sexual beings with females who discriminate in whom they mate with.

In polygamy, older males tend to take for themselves all the choice females, leaving younger males as societal outcasts. This produces social instability.

With homosexuality, it's actually a fairly constant percentage of the population, and the number of male homosexuals is generally equivalent to the number of female homosexuals. Thus, if they pair off, it does not diminish the number of available heterosexuals of either sex for mating.

On the other hand, if homosexuals are not allowed to marry, they often enter into sham marriages with a heterosexual partner who is invariably going to be taken advantage of, hurt emotionally, and often left devastated. Also, unmarried men of any sexual persuasion are often a destabilizing force on society. You often have the persecution of productive members of society simply because of their sexual orientation. Alexander Hamilton established the banking system in this country, paid off the debt of the Revolutionary War, was an accomplished mathematician, and was as queer as a Godly man at a Republican convention. Had he been persecuted because of his sexual orientation, our country would have suffered a great loss.

In this way, the argument is made that gay marriage is actually a stabilizing factor on society, whereas polygamy is not. Polygamy is a selfish grab for power by the stronger from the weaker. Again, the slippery slope argument is only made because there are no real arguments to support one's position.

Show your work.

That's a fair comment.

If I put my scientist hat on, I have to admit that it's really impossible to know, as culture has a lot to do with it, and therefore, obtaining any kind of serious count generally acknowledged to be nearly impossible. Let me point to recent killings of gay men in Muslim Iraq as a reason why.

On the other hand, when I talk to gay people about it, especially educated folks who take this a lot more seriously than I ever will, and study the issue thoroughly, I get a pretty consistent figure of 7% of the population as being homosexual.

Some do argue that male homosexuality is more prevalent, but both gays and lesbians that I've talked to personally, and whose work I generally trust, tell me that it's a fairly even sexual divide.

Anyone else here know enough to weigh in on this?

Anecdotally, I would guess that while there are probably more men who are 100% gay (not at all attracted sexually to the opposite gender) than women, there are probably more women who are bisexual. And if I hazarded a further guess, it would be that the reason for the previous trait, if true, would be that men have to be fully aroused to enjoy sex, while women can enjoy the intimacy aspects of intercourse with either gender without having to command full arousal.

Hope that makes sense. Don't have any data to back it up though.