Does the standard definition of marriage end with the legalization of gay marriage?

Marriages are intensely personal. They're defined not by court or by voters but by the people who live inside of them. That's traditional marriage-- people making a private, daily, life-long commitment. We can't make any kind of marriages you mentioned illegal because incestuous/polygamous/homosexual marriages are already happening. It has been happening, in fact, for as long as human beings have been pledging themselves to each other but tragically in most of the world we deny people the rights and obligations that are associated with their marriages and that is just discrimination.

Their are going to be marriages you don't like and married people who do things that you don't think married people should do. But whether a brother is marrying is sister or his brother, a man is marrying three wives, or it's just a woman and a woman, their marriage won't affect yours.

So to answer your question, legally there is a concrete definition of marriage. A commitment between two people- a male and female and maybe soon a male and male or woman and woman. But other kinds of marriages have been happening for years and years. King David from the Bible was married to eighteen woman. Greek Emperor Nero married a very young boy, Sporus, with a wedding ceremony and everything and rode with him on horseback, occasionally giving him kisses. Five percent of the human population is intersex and a portion of those are in committed relationships. Do you see how hard it is for anyone to define marriage? If we use today's standpoint, are these people any less married? Maybe the documentations of these marriages don't exist, but they're just as married as any other partnership.

Marriage has a definition. Most common dictionaries and certainly law books define it.

If people were ACTUALLY allowed to marry WHOMEVER they wished then polygamous and polyandrous marriage would be legal. Marrying first cousins, ones widowed or divorced parent would be legal. Marrying a person with Down Syndrome would not be an issue. One could marry if one failed a blood test for an STD. None of it would be a problem if the courts decide it's all a free for all.

As it is, if you marry in many places other than a church, there are no questions in terms of fidelity, exclusivity or permanence. Just that you wish to marry THAT person as opposed to anyone else. But as it stands, marriages, whether we like it or not ARE regulated by states and localities.

You sound scared about this.

OK, take a deep breath and tell yourself "Gay people getting married is OK. Gay people getting married is none of my business. They love each other just as much as I love my husband/wife."

I don't believe the sacredness of marriage isn't "who's getting married to who," it's more like "are they right for each other?" Someone only getting married to gain money is selfish and isn't sacred at all. Someone getting married because they are in love and want to spend the rest of their life together as a family is sacred.

Besides, just because YOU are not attracted to a relative/person of the same gender/more than one person doesn't mean that other's aren't. I think the sacredness of marriage falls on the personal couple, not the world watching them and saying "EWWW!"

I think that anyone should be able to get married as long as the people getting married are all agreeing that it's the best thing for them.

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination. Some countries have the limited same-gender freedom to marry. Some others have the freedom to polygynous marriage but not same-gender or polyandrous marriage, some have polyandrous marriage but not same-gender. Sweden will marry half-siblings. In the US, we're supposed to have equality for ALL.

Some people only care about monogamist gay rights, not the rights of anybody else. There were African-American civil rights supporters who didn't care about Latino-Americans, and vice-versa. This is nothing new. There are polygamists who support gay rights and polygamists who don't. People typically try to pin pedophilia on gays, polygamists, and those involved in incest, but I'm addressing CONSENTING ADULTS only. The 14th Amendment never lets an adult abuse a minor child, so pedophiles are out of luck.

I support FULL marriage equality. That includes 30-year-olds marrying 60-year-olds. That includes African-Americans marrying Anglo-Americans.That includes two men marrying, even if they are brothers. That includes one women marrying two men. It is ridiculous that in most of the US, it is perfectly legal for a woman to love, have sex with, and have children with two men at the same time, but she isn't free to legally marry both at the same time even though they all agree.

Equality just for some is not equality. Don't like it? Don't do it. As with interracial, adult intergenerational, or gay sex/marriage, there is no rational reason for keeping laws or taboos against polyamorous or consanguineous sex or marriage. Personal disgust or religion is only a reason why one person would not want to personally engage in polyamory or consanguinamory, not why someone else shouldn't do it.

Some people try to justify their prejudice against consanguineous sex and marriage by being part-time eugenicists and saying that such relationships inevitably lead to “mutant” or “deformed” babies. This argument can be refuted on several fronts. 1. As I noted, some consanguineous relationships involve only people of the same gender. 2. Not all mixed-gender relationships birth biological children. 3. Most births to consanguineous parents do not produce children with significant birth defects or other genetic problems; while births to other parents do sometimes have birth defects. 4. We don’t prevent other people from marrying or deny them their reproductive rights based on increased odds of passing along a genetic problem or inherited disease. For example, it is legal for someone with Huntington's Disease to marry and have children. Look that one up.

Some say "Your sibling should not be your lover." That is not a reason. It begs the question. Many people have many relationships that have morethan one aspect. Some women say their sister is their best friend. Why can’t their sister be a wife, too?

Some say “There is a power differential.” This applies least of all to siblings or cousins who are close in age, but even where the power differential exists, it is not a justification for denying this freedom to sex or to marry. There is a power differential in just about any relationship, sometimes

an enormous power differential. To question if consent is truly possible in these cases is insulting and demeaning.

Some say “There are so many people outside of your family." There are plenty of people within one’s own race, too, but that is no reason to ban interracial marriage. So, this isn't a good reason either.

Yes, there are patriarchal societies that have gender inequality and allow religion-based polygyny only, and people cite problems in those societies, but the problems are not caused by polygamy. They are caused by sexism and gender inequality under the law. All the paperwork issues can be resolved. And if paperwork issues could be an excuse to deny fundamental rights, we wouldn't have the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Victims of abuse and coercion would be MORE likely to work with law enforcement if we had relationship rights for all adults.

Y'know, same-sex marriage has been legal in a lot of countries, and so far none of these straw-man situations has come up.

Calm down.

NO. Because it's always been a civil act in the US. My grandparents had a civil wedding in 1946