Applying the definition of marriage to real life application.

I'm really disappointed at you old man.

These soldiers gave their life for true democracy, and you still think democracy is entirely tyranny of the majority.

I guess if you were living before the 1920's you would go with the "majority" and oppress the black race.

I'll speak for all the gay proponents who it seems that the cat has gotten their tongue.

With the definition that is used with gay proponents, that Val mentioned in his original post, Incest couple relationship is not illegal, as long as it is of mutual love and consent.

See what you gay proponents have done?

Ruined marriage is what you've done.

I hate to break it to you, but in the states where incestuous marriage is legal, gay marriage is not. Funny that...

Shut up L1n1o, slave of the church.

There are such states? That is interesting.

So I'm still wondering why those college kids were so close minded for introducing a taboo, that is possible with the definition that they were flinging around in their "philosophical chatter."

They were quick to change the subject, but one lady did mention that there seems to be a "vague contradiction" in illegalization of consenting incest couples (homosexual or heterosexual) to marry.

You are an asshole beyond words, Val, beyond my ability to criticize you. You are stupid, ignorant, and opinionated on top of it. It's unbelievable the tripe you can post in the useless belief that some of it makes sense. I'm with Setanta on this -- **** off, shithead!!!

The truth hurts, but it's not too late to change old man.

Being a human is about being opinionated. Some opinions are better than others. Sorry you cant see that.

I sure as hell wish social ethics was an exact science, but unfortunately it is not, because the variable termed human is unpredictable; If it was an exact science, and a one answer solution, I wouldn't be making this thread.

It's unfortunate that you are with the blundering bratty imbecile that Setanta is.
Making one mistake after another in your bouts of rage...

Sorry, wrong thread buddy, this is not about God.
I'm questioning the gay proponents definition of marriage.

You're not questioning anything. You're just running off at the mouth. You've been given perfectly good definitions of marriage. Buttrflynet and ehBeth have tried to be reasonable in their explanations as have a number of other people. But you don't listen to reason. You just keep on keepin' on, with no sense or logic to most of your statements. You've got some idiotic notion about incest somehow related to gay marriage and, like a puppy who's got ahold of an old slipper, won't let go of it. I pity your lack of reasoning powers.

ROFLMAO...

I guess you can just declare an ipse dixit and we can all go home. I find it funny that you would spout off about how the kids around you display no critical thinking skills when you clearly do the same thing.

There are some problems with your incest scenario Val.
Gay couples want to be counted as family members for several reasons

Lets look at some of them. Marriage has certain legal aspects to it that give state recognized benefits. Those benefits are achieved because after marriage the state recognizes the married couple as being related. In your incest scenario, the couple is already related so many of the benefits gay couples want are already recognized for family members even if those family members aren't having sex. You are doing nothing but proposing an outlandish, socially repugnant scenario that you think is valid when in fact it really has little to no relationship to marriage and it's benefits.

Forget benefits, based on the current gay proponents definition of marriage, incest is allowed.

Give me a moment to formulate my thoughts, I think I have come up with legit definition that doesn't give reason for incest.

I must admit this place does attract strange one!

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?

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.

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?


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.

Relative to what?

I'm normal compared to my step-brother in jail.

That's all this thread is.

So we should forget WHY gays want to marry and let you formulate what ever the hell you want to?
I think you've now moved to wanting to create a strawman.

So, you are arguing that one partner has to have clear power over the other?

Or is power so vague that it allows every structure to exist?

clear is the important key word.
In an average family, the parent is more respected than uncle, aunt, or a brother in law, by the child, for example.

There must not be an element of coercion, as I see that may happen in a close incest-couple family.

There must not be bizarre warping of primary relationships.

As I said I wouldn't want my dad to be also my uncle. I can't comprehend such a relationship.

It's not whatever I think it is.
It's what family means to everyone.

I'm saying with that the simple definition in the OP used without thought, by "gay advocates" does not capture what they mean.
Family and marriage is intertwined, even if the couple doesn't have kids, thus potential is also a keyword.