Politics and Religion
Every guy knows how badly courts treat guys in divorce, and how biased they are. It's so bad that now 22% of single men between 24 and 35 are committed to never marry and 53% have no intention of doing so. (These are disproportionately the brighter and higher-earning males that many women can't find or can't get to commit.) It's called "The Marriage Strike."
In Germany, it is being called "the Reproductive Strike" because guys are just getting vasectomies at age 21 and then sticking out their tongues at the women and basically saying "nanny nanny boo boo you can't get me."
I don't want to debate that particular issue at the moment; but I can see where homosexual marriage could give courts a real problem. Usually it's really easy: screw the guy. When it's two guys -- who do you screw? Do you try to figure out who is the top and who is the bottom and screw the top? How about when it is two women? Do you just screw whichever one looks more butch? What if you can't tell?
I suggest that in same-sex marriages, one must assume the role of "designated male" so that s/he knows up front that s/he is the designated "fall guy."
In this fashion, the normal running of our courts won't be disrupted or confused. 
Yea probably with Soto you are right
RightWing, you are 100% correct.
It's a cold hard fact that the best way to raise a child is with a female mother and a male father. Removing the biological father from the home even causes female children to menstruate earlier. It causes enormous damage to children psychologically and intellectually. Even among European-Americans, fully 1/3rd of children are born without a biological father in the home; and of the remaining two thirds, half of those end up that way. It's a monumental disaster.
However, you must understand that the Marxist agenda of of the medium-tan United Nations person of indeterminate sex would be derailed by your concerns. Everybody knows that the traditional family stands as a bulwark against tyranny; which is why one of the first laws passed in the USSR was no-fault divorce; and why the traditional family has been a constant target of the Frankfurt School Marxists and the Culture of Critique.
We can't allow your concerns about children stand in the way of progress because the collective is all and the individual is nothing! It must be true, because I learned it in Cambridge.
Keep in mind that, as a whole, polygamy is good for women, but bad for men -- that's why we have monogamy.
Consider female hypergamy(1)(2)(3)(4). I've noted some sources (below) for folks who are interested. Hypergamy refers to the natural female tendency to prefer men of high social status, dominant male traits and controlling as many resources as possible. While not ALL females exhibit this trait, it is sufficiently widespread that it is a socially significant phenomenon.
Further evidence of female hypergamy is manifested in rates of nonpaternity; that is, the rate at which husbands wind up devoting resources to raise children who are not their own without their knowledge. (i.e. raising the children of the wife's infidelity.) This is about 10%. In the overwhelming preponderance of cases, wives cheat with men who they perceive to be of higher social status than their husbands.
This phenomenon has been socially significant enough throughout history that men have developed two concurrent strategies to keep it in check: guarding behavior and high rates of In-Pair-Coupling. How often have you ever heard of a woman complaining that a man is "controlling?" This is male mate guarding behavior intended to stave off cuckoldry. High rates of in-pair coupling, particularly near the woman's peak of fertility, are intended to allow the husband's sperm to saturate the woman's reproductive tract to enable competition with the sperm of other males. (There are lots of studies on this kind of stuff.) A man's behavior in this regard is determined by how desirable he believes his mate is to other males, how receptive he believes her to be to the overtures of other males, etc.
(While, within a monogamous setting, male perception of the attractiveness of the female declines, his activity in terms of initiating sex remains high -- even 3-4 times weekly after 20 years. On the other hand, female initiation of sex declines to near zero within five years and receptiveness to male advances declines as well. While there are exceptions this is the general rule.)
Now -- here's the kicker that throws off all the male daydreams of polygamy.
What does hypergamy predict women want? They want the male who controls the most resources. Ideally, they want absolute 1 on 1 commitment from the most physically attractive, dominant and wealthy man in existence. However, if they cannot get 1 on 1 commitment; they would rather be one of many women being serviced by this man than the only woman served by a man they find undesirable. This is why you find both sugar babies and escorts in existence. Such women will not settle for what they consider a "lesser" man; and would be happier to share a "greater" man's (or group of men's) resources.
Now, think about this. WHO controls the relationship between client and provider? The provider. Why? In simple terms, because demand for providers exceeds supply. Even in an essentially polygamous situation, women are in charge. So don't even imagine that under overt polygamy women would be any less in charge.
In fact, the more legal power women have, the more polygamous our society becomes; because polygamy favors women. (Examine, for example, the economics of no-fault divorce. 70% of such divorces are initiated by women and another 20% are instigated by them. The women want divorces, the men don't. Now, imagine a divorced man remarries another woman, but is also sending money to his ex-wife. What do you have? Economic polygamy: you have one man supporting multiple women.)
Under polygamy, the top 1% of men controlling resources would have 20% of the women. The 20% most attractive women, of course. The top 5% of men would have probably have the next 30% of women. So, in essence, the top 5% of men would have 50% of the women; leaving 95% of men to compete over the remaining 50% least attractive women.
In other words, under polygamy, MOST men will not have women -- period. And those who do will end up with generally unattractive women (think 500+ lbs with warts on their nose and abrasive voices); and they'll be danged happy to have them. In fact, under polygamy the 500+ pound woman with warts on her nose would secure a far better man than she could secure under monogamy!
Historically, we have been polygamous. This is provable by the fact that men are 20% bigger than women on average. Polygamy is a system that engenders lots and lots of wars to get rid of excess males, castrations to foster social stability, etc.
It's a really really bad deal for men overall.
While the hobby is most assuredly a form of underground polygamy; bever imagine for one minute that overt polygamy is in your best interests as a man.
Social monogamy and covert polygamy exist in a very delicate dynamic tension. You don't want to tip the balance too far or we'll find our sons getting castrated.
As for so thoroughly satisfying a man that he hasn't the time or inclination for anyone else; that is certainly possible. Harems usually have a "dominant" wife. However, most women can't sustain this for more than 5 years -- that's why it's called the "7 year itch."
I'll admit, though, that I once was touched by a pro so ... thoroughly ... that I had no desire for sex for the next three days. That's the only time that ever happened; but I guess then that it is possible!
(1)Devlin, R. (2006) Sexual Utopia in Power, The Occidental Quarterly, Summer 2006
(2) Bereczkei, T.; Voros, S.; Gal, A.; Bernath, L. (1997), "Resources, attractiveness, family commitment; reproductive decisions in human mate choice", Ethology 103 (8): 681–699
(3) Buss, D.M.; Barnes, M. (1986), "Preferences in human mate selection", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (3): 559–570, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559
(4) Gilles Saint-Paul (May 2008), Genes, Legitimacy and Hypergamy: Another Look at the Economics of Marriage, CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP6828, University of Toulouse I - GREMAQ-IDEI; Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)