___LS
Jesus....are you really THAT literal?
___
No, but I like to carry arguments to absurd limits.
___LS
No, that is not a valid corrolary. The issue is GAY marriage. Not marriage to relatives, pets, or more than one person (if you want to do that, become a Mormon). :p
____
By altering the marriage law from being exclusively for one man and one woman into something else, you are saying that whatever reason exists behind that law is invalid. This is no small change.
If we are talking about changing definitions, once you allow that the change is possible, you have to ask how far the change should go.
Troubleshooter has a good approach. Maybe government has no place setting marriage laws at all. Maybe people should write up their own nuptial agreements that detail exactly what the partnership will entail for all inolved parties.
____LS
You can't marry a doorknob or any other inanimate object, because it can't consent
____
But it doesn't have to consent, it's inanimate and has no opinion either way.
Okay, I was being silly.
____LS
Besides, we can't marry relatives because then we'd have to worry about rights for two-headed children with gills
--at least the ones who survived, anyway.
____
but they are consenting adults... would you stop two non-related adults that have serious genetic defects from trying to have children? How is this different? And again, I'm being intentionally obtuse, but there is a point floating around here somewhere.