You're missing the point. It isn't recognized as a legal family form either.

Earlier you praised democracy being the system by which the "population" decides "their own political matters." You go on to cite this democratic system where "46,000 neighborhood meetings" determine family law as being exemplary citizenship involvement and democratic process.

Then you take a viewpoint (legalize polymarous marriage, basically) that goes against the democratic majority in the US and Cuba. Wanting to force an anti-democratic solution while praising democracy as the solution is contradictory.

Do you want polyamorous marriage, or do you want democratic decision making on family law? Until the public opinion changes, you can only pick one.

Human rights aren’t something that should be voted on.

We can't vote on human rights, we can't vote on economic policy, we can't vote on foreign policy, then what is left to vote? How can you call this democracy?

I'd agree that your argument at least has merit, and I'd point out your argument is counter to 'pastacacioepepe' glorification of democracy as the tool for settling these rights.

Of course down in the weeds is 'what are human rights' which is often settled by democratic process. It turns out to be a nasty problem determining who decides what human rights really are.

It might surprise you but I want both. I want civil rights and I want a strong and partecipated democratic process. The democratic process will always win tho. Any right that is "imposed" rather than conquered will not last.

> that goes against the democratic majority in the US and Cuba

Maybe in the progressive US, not in Cuba, where 54% of the voters are in support of the proposal. The contrarians are not the communist by the way, but the Cuban catholics.

54% of Cuba is in support of polyamorous marriage? Citation please.

Did you just spend lots of time debating me without even taking the 10 minutes necessary to read the article?

Wow. This tells a lot about the quality of this discussion.

Read the reuters article that was linked. It's all in there.

I'm done debating with you, this is just a waste of time.

I read both articles but I went back to re-read them, as I'm willing to be proven wrong. Neither mention anything about polyamorous marriage, and definitely nothing about 54% support for it. They mention traditional (2-person) same-sex and cis marriages.