Quote:
|
Why should government be involved in defining marriage, at all
|
It's a question of externalities. Economically, there are benifits when people marry. Stable households withstand economic shocks better, provide better health care to their members, etc...than single person households. This is a known. Children also turn out better with 2 parents. These economic benifits are not rewarded by the free market, and so left alone, there would probably be a sub-optimal number of marriages. Artificial economic incentives raise the number of unions to the effecient quanity. Since they're giving out goodies, they start defining.
Quote:
|
They both equally fail to meet the qualifications, they are both equally nonfunctional, they are equal as far as how close to be qualified for marriage they are.
|
Assumption, assumption, assumption. If you define "marriage" as one man, one woman, then yes...you have a point. But, the fact that we're as a nation, talking about gay marraige, means that thos couples can have a relationship that's close enough to recognize as being "marriage like." As a nation, we are not talking about bestial marriages...nor are there claims that person-animal relations are "marriage like."