Love is not the only factor, although it is of course important. Children should have both a male and a female role model, in a loving marriage. That would be ideal, and shouldn’t the law strive to create the ideal situation for children, instead of legally establishing a less than ideal situation?
How about marriage is simply about two people who love each other who wish to raise children? Two is ideal even in a same sex relationship for many reasons, because it allows for constant contact with the children, and the possibility of a breadwinner/caregiver split just like the traditional family. Any more than two just causes problems, ‘too many chiefs’
A doubt those in a polygamous cult would agree with you. They would probably say more parents allow for more contact with the children.
Is the traditional family prefered? Sure, but with a 50% divorce rate not even the children of straight parents get to see it all that often.
How does this relate to gay marriage? If heterosexual marriages are having problems, shouldn’t we be working on that instead of redefining marriage?
This is why I would prefer some sort of civil union. I think the government should completely remove itself from marriage. It can setup civil unions, and a marriage can also count as a civil union ceremony legally speaking, this means that it is impossible for the government or the ‘gay agenda’ to ever force marriage on a church, because it won’t even be in the business of marriage at all, only in the business of civil unions. Marriage will remain where it matters, as a religious ceremony and vocation.
Well, good luck with that. You’ll be told you’re not allowing equal protection under the law. I imagine atheists would squawk at this, claiming they can’t get married since they don’t believe in religion.
I don’t care about the word ‘marriage’ being attached to my partner and I’s relationship. I just want to be able to visit him in the hospital when he’s in a coma, I just want to be able to share my insurance with him, and vice versa, I just want to be able to do our taxes together. All of our money, spending, income, savings, retirement is all jumbled together. It is absolutely a nightmare come tax time.
We simply can’t do things that people take for granted. Loans don’t work right, even simple things like shopping for a car, or a house turn into debates and paperwork flying back and forth with lawyers involved, thousands of dollars wasted just because there is no official recognition of our eight year relationship.
Sorry you have problems, but redefining marriage will create another set of legal nightmares, as pointed out in posts above. Personally, I don’t have a problem with anybody, gay or straight, legally establishing another person as a beneficiary, a person to oversee medical care, a person to jointly own property, etc. I do have a problem with calling it a marriage.
BTW, you didn’t address my point about incestuous marriage at all. That was my main argument! Marriage has to mean more than just two people in a committed, long-term relationship, or else why not allow incestuous ones?