Applying the definition of marriage to real life application.

Only if you agreed to that. What about open marriages?

The state doesn't require that married people not cheat. In fact laws that attempted to do that have been found to be unconstitutional.

no


wait? is the Bible a feminist document?

Gay marriage is NOT about "moral" marriage. It is about state recognized marriage. When you created your argument by not restricting it to state recognized you did nothing but build a huge strawman that is now burning down around you.

Of course you do. But any such moral obligations are a matter of personal choice and conscience. You're twisting and convoluting two entirely different subjects here. You're not even talking about marriage; you're talking about one's personal moral views and obligations. Those are always subjective and not subject to legislation. (There's an ancient legal dictum which law-givers often ignore at their peril: "You can't legislate morality.")

if you're dating someone you have a moral obligation not to cheat on them

what does any of this have to do with whom should be allowed to marry who or what

nothing

anyone should be allowed to marry who or what they want

I think it is a "moral" marriage.
Isn't it the greater good for everyone?
Homosexuals are happy, and they are not hurting anyone (unlike incest couples, even if they adopt).
This maximizes happiness, utilitarianism in a way.

who are incest couples hurting

how does their relationship affect me

Continuing to beat your burning strawman?

Their kids.

Now you're changing the subject again. Whether or not they have kids is a subject separate from marriage.

But is it purely contractual?
That's where I'm getting at.
Isn't it both morality and contractual ideas in the works, marriage is?

there's a kid right now somewhere being knocked about, abused in some horrible way or neglected by a heterosexual couple and there's nothing i can do about, except ban hetero marriage

I suppose...

personally i think marriage is a mugs game any way, but i still think anyone stupid enough to want to do it should be allowed

You are claiming the gay marriage argument is bad because it doesn't cover all scenarios you consider bad. But then your own argument doesn't cover all scenarios.
Do you think a brother and sister should be able to marry if they are over 60 and obviously can't have kids?
What about if they are in their 20s present evidence that they are incapable of having children?

Your "kids" argument is as silly as the rest of your arguments when we simply trot it down to the end of the lane like you attempted to do with the gay marriage argument.

It may be for the persons in the marriage. But each marriage is different and different moralities exist in different marriages. One may be purely a financial morality and another a religious morality.

In the eyes of the state it is purely contractual. There is nothing moral about it for the state.

The state by its very nature is amoral.

exactly, at one time everyone more or less said the same vows, lots of folks now right the vows that better suit their lives

Or lots of folks now wrong the vows that better suit their lives.

Thanks for clearing that up.

So then marriage is like capitalism?

Capitalism is amoral and It does what its users demand of it??