Yes. That is an extraordinary claim unsupported by any available evidence. “Intended” by who or what? Cite that any part of biology or the universe has any “intention” to it?
You are conflating biological urges with some kind of higer “intention?” Cite that anything is “intended,” and specify who is the “intender.”
Three daughters.
Over my dead fucking body 
The “norm” for human beings appears to be serial monagmy. Not just one partner throughout a lifetime, but generally one partner at a time.
This is horsehit. There’s nothing “anomalous” about them. It is a normal orientation. Calling it “abnormal” is like calling left-handed people abnormal. Homosexuality is ubiquitous not just among humans, but among mammals and other animals in general. It’s not anamolous in the slightest. Read some fucking literature.
There’s nothing biological about polygamy. Polygamy is a cultural practice, not a characteristic.
So your attempt to say that same-sex marriage bans don’t deprive gay people of rights is specious, fatuous sophistry. Just as with miscegenation laws, they deprive people of being able to marry the person of their choice, absent any rational basis for the government to do so.
there is no such thing as “meant for” in nature
What the fuck makes me a “militant atheist?” In what way am I “militant?”
Marriued gay people in South Dakota, in fact, do not exist and therefore cannot be a protected class. Unmarried gay people exist in South Dakota and are a “class,” but unmarried polygamists do not exist, by definition, and cannot eb a 'class."
I don’t give a fuck about polygamy one way or the other. I don’t care if it’s legal or not. The merits of polyygamy are not germane to the point that polygamy bans don’t discriminate because there is no class of people who are affected by it any more than any other class.
Why should I be in favor of same-sex marriage again?
[/quote]
I don’t care if you’re in favor of it or not. I’m just trying to explain that it’s discriminatory in a way that laws against polygamy are not.