Let's start from here again..
Val Killmore wrote:
I'll make my definition, as the grand finale.
However, I have a thought to convey regarding marriage as a whole.
When someone defines marriage to include same-sex unions, then something that today seems repugnant can years down the road be considered acceptable. 50 years ago, very few people would ever have said same-sex marriage was acceptable. If incestuous relationships are today considered repugnant, what happens if in 50 years there are enough and people become more "open-minded" to the point where incest is considered different, but acceptable?
I say that we need a definition of what marriage is that works with consistency.
Which most of y'all gay proponents are oblivious, and can't even think straight, and go on to talk about economics of finding a mate, government tax deducts, and other benefits?
Is that even relevant to ethics, parados, and Lustig?
This is about legality, not ethics. While some people might think it unethical to marry a first cousin, several states make it legal. Other states have to recognize that marriage then. The entire point of marriage according to the state is it doesn't grant some ethical status to a relationship. It grants a legal one which comes with economic and other benefits. If you ignore the benefits then you ignore the idea of state recognized marriage.
I advocate the term marriage must mean something. The term "marriage" must be represented as something of an institution in this country that must stand the test of time.
Gay proponents who make the argument that an adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults, without prosecution, persecution, or discrimination is plainly not taking into account all scenarios, and just hetero and homo.
You are free to make that argument but it's only an opinion. First of all, why should anyone have to take everything into account. If we did that, we as humans would never take any action.
So I thought of marriage and what it leads: family.
Now, I've thought about this, and it's a logical possibility (A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction) for two brothers or two sisters to have a couple relationships of love and of consent. Now when they adopt a child, the child can't comprehend the family structure. Mother or father is also uncle or aunt?
Why wouldn't the child be able to understand the relationship? The child would see both as a parent. It is only your outside looking in that creates confusion for the child. If I married my 14th cousin on my mother's side, how does that create confusion for my child? We would both be parents. The rest really has little in that relationship.
So a better definition: A union of love between two consenting adult that has the potential for a family with a clear power differentiating structure.
No incest possible, and plain and simple.
Except has been told you by more than one person, your definition isn't clear to anyone but yourself. No child is going to be confused by parents no matter what their relationship is. Are children confused by parents of different races? religions? And yet some people would claim it was clearly confusing to the child.