If we change the definition of marriage, so that it is more inclusive, what would it include?

At present, marriage is the pledged, lifelong mating union of one man with one woman. Any unmarried adult may marry, but the eligible partner must be one willing unmarried adult nonrelative of the opposite sex.

If marriage were redefined to mean "any relationship," then logically government would have to grant marriage recognition to any relationship, including polygamy or incest. The special pleaders for calling same-sex relationships "marriage" could not logically or legally exclude polygamous or incestuous unions.

The problem is that calling any relationship marriage defeats the purpose of marriage, which is to encourage mating couples to build a permanent, nurturing, educating home for their children, who require decades of attention and resources from a mother-father team.

Cheers,

Bruce

Marriage and a civil union should be separated in my opinion. Marriage should only be performed by clergy and in accordance with that religion, but it should have no "force or effect under law". If you want a legal union, then that should be "performed" by the government, etc. The problem is marriage started out as a religious rite and then was taken over by the "government". We need to have the gov't "butt" out, but at the same time, every one has a right to "equal" treatment under the law, including any "marriage" laws. But of course, this will never work as long as everyone is trying to tell everyone else what to do.

How do you come to that conclusion? Letting gays marry is one thing, allowing incestual marriages, etc is something else entirely. It's a matter of equal rights, NOT morality. They don't have to be "married" in church, but they should be allowed to be married in a civil union and have equal benefits, etc.

Marriage is about the committment between to people pledging their lives to each other, no more, no less. Anything outside of that is between the two people involved and has no bearing on the rest of society. The basic premise of it is NOT changed by the sex of the people desiring to be married.

i'm frequently adversarial to gay marriage with the aid of fact it fairly is any such trivial difficulty this is being inflated to create controversy the place none is mandatory. the subject is which you're employing the be conscious "marriage" that's traditionally defined as a heterosexual dating. call it something else. the rationalization i detect this difficulty ridiculous is that homosexuals represent an exceedingly tiny minority. I see no reason their schedule ought to be on the vanguard of politics aside from the undeniable fact that it replaced into created to the two piss off non secular people, or positioned homosexuals interior the spotlight (i'm guessing it fairly is the main reason). the subject with progressives is they constantly could desire to locate something to "progression" on. the place their thought of progression is dismantling all of our previous values and traditions. I comprehend that it fairly is the U. S., yet with the aid of fact the Civil war the U. S. became extra of a centralized united states of america. in the previous then it replaced right into a genuinely a loose conglomeration of States and territories. If people had diverse existence or non secular ideals that have been unlike of their locality they relocated to a place that suited them. hence Utah and the flourishing of Mormonism there. it would be super if homosexuals could desire to establish their own community someplace the place they could frolic in peace and team spirit and no-one might difficulty them, yet lamentably, that dreaded 14th modification defeats that probability. I abhor the undeniable fact that maximum folk of people could desire to bend over to assuage a tiny yet very vocal minority team. even yet it fairly is the USA and democracy is our meant government. So then if maximum folk disagrees with something for in spite of reason and places it to regulation, the minority could desire to discover ways to stay with it instead of ad infinitum complaining approximately how their rights are being violated. you notice the will of the people could desire to be respected. If some decide makes a decision to overrule the will of maximum folk with the aid of reality it fairly is "unconstitutional" then we don't in all probability have a functioning democracy, yet a judicial dictatorship. for my area, those divisive themes will in basic terms carry approximately extra social problems. If adequate all and sundry is displeased, the Union could desire to be threatened returned. I see secession of numerous States as a diverse probability interior the destiny.

Marriage should be for the love shared between people.

For health we shouldn't inter breed.

Companionship can family but marriage is the combining of souls in spirit.

I cant really talk, never married at mid life, but that's just me.

Start messing with the definition of marriage and before ya know it, even the sheep herders will be complaining about not being able to marry their...

okay, never mind.

Consenting adults. It really is no ones business. I know too many hard core conservatives who are gay and will quickly tell you it is not a matter for the government and say that as a conservative value. I agree with them.

Marriage should be permitted between any and all consenting adults.

Although polygamy DOES get kind of complex when you talk about divorce.

I find nowadays everything goes.

I just want to make sure my miniature schnauzer doesn't feel left out.