Well, looky there. It's yet another unsupported -- and demeaning -- assertion made in order to justify untested assumptions about others and to support untested assumptions about one's own moral superiority. Wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not.
No, you're pretty clearly indulging in attempts at smug put downs based on unchallenged judgements about others
and yourself. But don't sell yourself short, you're a master at intellectual gymnastics. One of the best on these boards, in fact...
And you base this conclusion on... what? I'm betting its another judgement lifted from the book of "Duh, it's obvious to all right-thinking people." Gotta love those...
Now that
might be true in the sense that the nature and level of commitment required to sustain an intimate relationship among three or more individuals may be rather different than what's required to sustain a similar relationship between two partners. But of course you've offered us no reason other than your say so to think that the former
can't properly be termed a "marriage."
Cheers.