Applying the definition of marriage to real life application.

I meant multiple partners. Not multi-sex couples.

Your first post says the definition of marriage had been edited to mean a union of love between two consenting adults. Next you said that you thought the definition before 2000 was a union between a man and a woman and that it had to be out of love and consent.

I'm just trying to get you to clarify what it is you are questioning.

Are you questioning whether the definition of marriage is a union of love between two consenting adults? of any sex? only between multi-sexes?

What about multi-sex couples who get married because the woman is pregnant and not because they love each other? Is that a union of love? Is it between two consenting adults?

Genetically mutated kids don't ring any bells?

Okay, let's go back to the question of exclusive privilege. Who is it that is seeking exclusive privilege and what are those exclusive privileges?

I'm not questioning the definition, the current definition works well better than the past one.



Maybe love, and maybe consent, yes.
If no love, then definitely consent from the circumstances.

I just wanna know if gay proponents are in favor of incest couple relationships?

That is not specific to related sexual partners.

There are a number of people who are carriers of disease. Is everyone now going to have to have genetic-testing before you allow them to marry?

do you want people to campaign on your behalf?

They wouldn't be "gay proponents."

They'd be "incest proponents."

Gay does not equal incest. Incest does not equal gay.

No, I just want to know if I'm wrong in saying that if gay marriage is alright, is it ok for incest couples to marry?

Why are those college kids looking at me like an alien?
Is there a fine clause that says such definition do not apply for incest relationships?

I'm not sure how that would be hypocritical. You can like strawberries and not like raspberries (which makes about as much sense as a concern as the proposition in your opening post).



or perhaps they are young and still in the process of determining the implications of some of their statements

From the definition, does it matter?

If an extraterrestrial alien (martian princess) from Mars who can speak English, is mature with intelligence equal to or above human standards, loves me, and I love her back, and we both consent to marry, under such definition can't I marry the martian princess?

Or will we have to pass though specist, just like racist before that happen?

They are probably looking at you as if you were an alien because in your question, you seem to be equating homosexuality with incest.

Until very, very recently the concept of 'love' had practically nothing whatever to do with the institution of marriage. Until the late 19th or early 20th Century in some pleaces, it had nothing to do with mutual consent either inasmuch as women had no legal rights. The concept of marriage as we understand it in Western society has always been a business proposition, a way of insuring a continuity of blood-lines (hopefully) while enlarging family holdings. Originally these holdings consisted primaily of real estate and livestock, later cash and other securities.

When we speak of 'marrying for love' we are probably speaking of a tradition not more than -- at most -- 100 years old. In a larger sense, the human species has never had anything that could be described as 'marriage.' It is essentially a system of pair-mating, sometimes voluntary (these days), sometimes enforced (historically). The major reason why same-sex marriages were never historically sanctioned is because they cannot lead to progeny. In was ever the woman's duty in these pair-matings to produce heirs to take over the estate. This "oversight" of not allowing same-sex marriages did not mean that some hubands might not take male lovers the same way that their "straight" heterosexual counterparts had concubines.

In the long run, nothing except llegal definitions have changed.

I'm not talking about gays exclusively, I'm talking about the definiton of marriage.

How does the definition apply to incest couples who want to marry?

Thank you Lustig, that is what I meant by the old definition, the one prevalent before the year 2000.

You sicko.
There a higher chance for progeny to be mutated by offspring sprung from an incest relationship.
Inbreeding is BAD

What are the statistics on that?

If such a new word were created, would that new word that represents gay marriage have equal legal status as the word that represents multi-sex marriage?



What customs and traditions of the people are not being thought of when same-sex marriage becomes legal?

Gay proponents stands for a prevalent definition as I mentioned in my original proof, that allows for gay marriage.

So just tell me clearly if this definition has a "clause" that incest is not supported?

http://www.healthcentral.com/encyclopedia/408/219.html