let me start with: polygamy is illegal because when it was being practiced, it was often used to bring underage girls into marriages against their will. polygamy also relied upon sex trafficking, and raised questions about whether the women/girls were being married against their will and therefore subject to statutory rape laws among others. for these and other reasons, the US government made it illegal IN THE 1860s. i'm sure a case could be made for allowing the practice to continue since we supposedly have better enforcement of sex trafficking and statutory rape laws, but the fact is that it would be a much harder case to prove than allowing same-sex couples to enter into marriage since polygamy is by nature not the established method of marriage in this country, but yet couples marrying is.

you cannot legally marry a corporation because a corporation is not a single individual, it is technically a group of individuals. most property laws do not provide for a means of establishing ownership to a single individual in such a collection as a corporation. for this and other reasons, there is no legal framework to determine community property in such a marriage, and therefore no legal path to marriage. i.e. -- if you divorced the corporation, who gets the car, who gets the house, and who gets custody of any children you might have together? how would a corporation provide for a child's well-being in such an arrangement? how would the corporation's assets be divided when the spouse does not technically own any part of the corporation?

if you can settle these questions, you could very well make a legal case for marrying a corporation. in the meantime, all you have are fallacies which are nothing remotely approaching a logical argument no matter how many times you try to say otherwise. we get that you don't like that gays should be able to marry each other if they so desire. the problem is that you can't legally justify your belief so you resort to creating straw-man "logic" and attempt to use that straw-man to prove that the practice should not be allowed. no matter how many times you try to say you're using logic to argue the point, you're still not offering any justification for discriminating against a sizable portion of the population. and this is still a discrimination issue, whether you want to believe it or not.