Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
Disagree. Many people in support of gay unions/marriage insist that it should be allowed because marriage is between two people that love each other and wish to make a lifelong commitment. They argue that the sex of the two people in question is irrelevant. It is, then, fair to ask if the species, age, quantity, or previous relation is relevant, because it is a test of their definition of marriage and their reasoning for it.
|
It’s de-railing the argument and distracting from the issue. People marrying animals, their children or multiple partners are separate issues. Even though these issues have a common theme we cannot tackle them at the same time because each one has its own set of circumstance.
As far as the definition argument goes, I really don’t understand the whole point of it in the first place. Definitions are not carved in stone. Definitions differ depending on culture and religion and change all the time.
Changing the legal definition of marriage to accomodate same-sex couples does no damage to society, retains the essence of the word and alleviates alienation of a social group. I see absolutely no reason not to change it.