What are viewers saying - and, how are they arguing?

The discussion of whether the Sister Wives “marriages” are in violation of laws against polygamy, seems to hinge on the definition of marriage for both sides. I have previously posted a link to a news article about the possible legal repercussions toward the family that has decided to open their polygamist lifestyle to the world. The comments from viewers in the preceding link feature an interesting arguments from multiple points of view and I would like to explore a few of these in relation to our class discussions:

(thesevenveils, 2010) Why don't we call call [sic] this what it is. It is a communal house, an upscale version of a hippy commune. There is a married couple who openly practices free love. They have no high ground to be spouting about morals. The only thing missing in this picture is the pot garden in the back yard (or is it there?).
This respondent is not giving credibility to the argument for a “spiritual” marriage. His or her response comes after a discussion about how plural marriage should be legal as long as nobody is getting hurt. I feel like this respondent is taking any kind of religious significance out of the argument from the Brown family and squashing the idea of a “true” plural marriage. He or she is now bringing the family down to the level of a hippie free-love commune and stating that they do not have any room to talk about morals.

(Wendyjob, 2010) That's right, mormons who know their religion (which includes my grandparents, Uncle and Aunts and cousins - many married in the mormon temple and active mormons - are just awaiting the day they can once again practice polygamy). The only difference between "official" mormons and those in break-off polygamous groups is that the unofficial mormons are more "honest" than their official brothers and sisters. Study up and you'll discover all mormons to be deceptive and mostly... stupid.
I find this argument interesting because it is grounded in authority and gives the respondent a sort of credibility. Part of the post that would not fit above explains that her great-great grandfather was the 7th president of the Morman church and she knows for a fact that polygamy did continue after Utah was made a state. She speaks from a place of credibility and grounds her argument in fact. However, she ends with an ad hominem attack on all Mormans as “deceptive” and “stupid.”

(fromthebackofthebus, 2010) I dont see anything wrong with what Kody and his family are doing. Everyone assumes they are living off of the system but it hasnt [sic] been proven or stated yet…If you havnt [sic] noticed in the news, foster care isnt [sic]always the best option. If you think Sister Wives is promoting a bad example...watch Maury and see all the unwed mothers on there that sleep around.
So, this respondent is not discussing the definition of marriage in the polygamist family as much as the lifestyle they are trying to lead. He or she comments on the comparison between a happy looking family and the “unwed mothers” on the Maury Povitch show. Essentially, using a counter to a previously stated ad hominem argument implying that a family that big must be on welfare. I realize this is not as much an argument of definition as it is pointing out fallacies in a previous argument, but I wanted to include it.

What all these arguments tell me is that the controversy over plural marriage does seem to stem from the definition of marriage. Many of the respondents have commented that the Brown family should be left alone to live their lives, but then there are the former fundamentalist Mormons that are commenting and saying that the plural marriage is a sad and lonely life for the women involved. And, the sense of “family” is not always as cozy as the Brown family makes it out to be – especially when more wives means less of a chance of everybody living under the same roof (as was seen this season on Sister Wives when Robin, the fourth wife, joins the family).