"The idea of same-sex marriage is troubling even to some homosexuals, let alone those who hold a biblical conviction that marriage is intended by the Creator to be between a man and a woman."
I can attest that here in France when we had our fundies protesting against the marriage equality legislation that was being discussed, one of their leaders (a harpy going by the alias Frigide Barjot) had found a pet anti-gay-arriage homosexual, so yeah, they do exist. I don't exactly know if he wanted homosexuals to remain abstinent/celibate or if he just had a weird objection to the marriage part, but anyway, the only thing this kind of people is evidence of is the existence of nutters/brainwashed morons/people with more issues than the NY Times, which isn't exactly Earth-shattering news.
And they can be quite easily dismissed by pointing out that nobody is forcing them to marry anybody, male, female, transsexual, intersexual or whatever, but that just because they do not want that right doesn't mean that they get to deprive others of it if they want it. As for the fundies who try to use these disturbed individuals as a gay-caution to support their agenda, you can point out that by that logic heterosexuals who for some reason oppose marriage would have just as much ground to push for the ban of straight marriage :P
"It is hardly a secret in England that many Muslims claim welfare benefits for multiple wives while the British government turns a blind eye to the hemorrhaging of taxpayer money."
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your claim is factual: so what? A couple can apply for welfare, and nobody sane object to that if they qualify. Why should it be any different for a trio, a quatuor or a quintet? As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly what transpired when we had a little brouhaha about a radical Muslim and polygamist a few years ago, one of the most common ways to cheat welfare (at least under the French system) is for both members of a couple to file for welfare as if they were single/lived separately, as the combined welfare money paid to two singles is greater than what a couple gets. By that logic, welfare authorities could probably use shared expenses as a justification to give an official polygamous family proportionally even less than a couple, so Michael should be clamoring for polygamy to be recognized and given a legal framework :P (on a side note, the polygamist I mentioned took great pleasure from pointing out that he considered himself religiously married to the two women but that he was only legally married to one of them, and, well, as long as the wife doesn't object, it isn't actually illegal to have a mistress, was it? I had no sympathy for the guy, but I must admit that this was a neat little use of a loophole. Which more is, it was a slap in the face of our then-president, Bush-wannabe Sarkozy, who had made the story national news in an effort to prop his flagging popularity by appearing tough on Islam :P)
To prevent misunderstandings (genuine or deliberate [meaningful look at a certain troll]), I'll make my position on polygamy clear: I have no problem with genuine polyamory or open marriages, as long as everybody involved is an adult giving informed consent, and taking the appropriate precautions. Of course, the more people involved the more complex things become, but if people can make it work more power to them. As long as the UN doesn't have to send peacekeepers, everything is fine by me. What I do have a problem with is the form of polygyny practiced by Muslims or fundamentalist Mormons where the women, often brainwashed, uneducated and/or underage, are given into marriage by their parents with little or no choice on their part. These marriage, where the man has all the power and the wives none, these are obviously unacceptable in a modern country.
"I'm wanting Hasan to fly a flag. A crescent moon maybe. His 'realism'"
Hasan is JEWISH, you schmuck!