I know we tend to like intellectual discussion, but regardless of what you call it, people generally understand the debate when you refer to it as “gay marriage” because that is what they are calling it at Ground Zero in San Francisco.
Removing the moral/religious implications from the discussion leaves one to wonder what would be so bad. But this issue is as much about incrementalism as it is about the definition of Marriage.
If this is accectable from a legal standpoint, why would a marriage of three not be acceptable if they “have a loving relationship”?
If three, why not more and then we have a bigamy situation over the next twenty years that will make health-care benefits/child support/divorce and other social situations a nightmare.
But, if we keep the proposed definition at “two-persons”, why not brother and sister or brother and brother?
Hmm, another nightmare because they can legally be consenting.
One would have thought it ridiculous that smoking would be banned in cities thirty years ago, but that same incrementalism happened when they banned smoking on short flights, then longer flights, then buildings, restaurants and now public places.
Marriage has meaning, both religious and legal. Ultimately I still believe the intended good was for the benefit of children. But in a society that continues to place personal gratification and victimization above responsibility and character there will be no end to incrementalism that started with the legalization of “same sex” marriages?
