So let's say hypothetically that marriage is actually about romance and has nothing to do with reproduction. Are you okay with gay marriage in that scenario?

No, that's not what happened.

So either you were saying that non-US countries do not standardise marriage according to consenting adulthood because they do not share the US standard of what a consenting adult is, or you were saying that the US does not standardise marriage according to consenting adulthood because the US does not share the non-US standard of what a consenting adult is. Or maybe you were saying that nobody anywhere standardises marriage according to consenting adulthood because the specific ages vary. None of it makes any sense or 'proves' anything, and it certainly bears no apparent relation to how you're spinning it now.

OK. Why can't you marry a two-year-old girl?

I don't understand what you mean. What legal status of which pre-existing agreements will be changed?

So it's just a question of legal sanction?

Ahhhh... I understand now. I was attempting to point out an internal consistency of tpir's thinking. In the same post he said

and

I was indicating that the logic he applied in the first case does not apply in the second case, and therefore that logic is not the underlying reasoning.

Does that clear things up?

I would think it would be because the state would not issue a marriage license to a two-year-old girl.

The idea that a marriage is a license administered to a a man and a woman.

Why would we need to have a big legal battle over social contracts? If two gay people agree to love and cherish each other as people (ie, form a social contract), what does it matter to the government? (Quick aside, yes I'm againt anti-sodomy laws. And I also don't think that polygamous couples should be prosecuted except for child endangerment concerns or if they apply for some sort of legal privilege based on legal marriage.) It only matters because there are legal ramifications involved.

Not really, no. You would need to be sure that tpir lives in the US.

And why ever would they refuse to do that?

Off the top of my head, I'm not aware of any country (government) that designates a category of "legal adult" that is below the age of 18, but I could be wrong.

Edit: I do know that Jewish culture designates adulthood via Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, but I do not believe that this attains any legal status.

There are lots of reasons. Among them, the failure to be classified as being of marriageable age seems the most obvious choice.

The entire definition you're using for marriage is an appeal to tradition and more or less irrelevant to the entire gay marriage discussion. Past societies had a myriad of traditions that I want no part of in our society. The fact that marriage carried the connotation of man and woman in the past is irrelevant to how we treat it today.

It's not that I care what label is used. I care about the equality guaranteed in the Constitution and individual freedoms and liberties.

No one can provide an argument against homosexual marriage that doesn't boil down to a religious stance or "it's icky." Neither of those are legitimate arguments. No one can illustrate how gay marriage would adversely affect their marriage or affect them in any way, for that matter.

I'm not seeing any change in legal status to pre-existing agreements.

Did giving women the vote 'change the legal status' of a man's vote?

As I said, intestacy issues, hospital/hospice visitation rights, all of the legal rights that marriage currently entails. These rights are not granted by the 'social contract'.

You seem to think the problem would be resolved if gay people would just quietly pretend to be married. They can do that just fine, but they want the rights and legal status that actually being married provides.

Might I then make a suggestion? Just mentally replace 'consenting adult' with 'consenting person of marriageable age' in all previous posts. That way you won't get so confused.

It's not and there's no reason that it should be.

Is this a serious question? It is recognized by state and federal law and provides certain privileges and rights under those laws. Not extending those laws to homosexual couples, especially when there are absolutely zero legitimate legal reasons not to do so, violates the 14th amendment.

Appeal to Tradition again. You haven't said why the historical "purpose" of marriage is at all relevant to how we treat it today. It was quite common throughout history to own slaves. Such a shame we lost that institution.

The meaning of marriage today is closer to two people committing to building a mutually beneficial life which may or may not include children. If you want to restrict the meaning to reproduction, then there is no reason to allow infertile people to marry. But that too would be unconstitutional.

I think the governor of NY put it aptly :

Mr. Cuomo invited the Republicans to visit him at the governor’s residence, a 40-room Victorian mansion overlooking the Hudson River, just a few blocks from the Capitol.

There, in a speech the public would never hear, he offered his most direct and impassioned case for allowing gays to wed. Gay couples, he said, wanted recognition from the state that they were no different from the lawmakers in the room. “Their love is worth the same as your love,” Mr. Cuomo said, according to someone who heard him. “Their partnership is worth the same as your partnership. And they are equal in your eyes to you. That is the driving issue.”

In the late hours of Friday night, 33 members of the State Senate agreed with him.

If it is necessary to change the documents, one must ask whether the change is substantive enough to make it a different document. In particular, this change requires a substantial re-interpretation of many laws and other legal precedents.

Did it require the law to go back and re-interpret/re-define other pieces of law in order to accommodate the changes?

I feel like you're arguing with someone else because the things you're saying has nothing to do with any of the positions that I have put forth.

You asked:

And I answered in the affirmative. It's all about legal sanction. The fact that there is a legal battle proves it. If it were just a social contract, there would be no reason for government involvement.

Why is it not or why shouldn't it be? What do you think a marriage is?

So he's putting forth the position that marriage is a legal contract of love and partnership, and that the driving issue is legal legitimacy.

Apparently, the obvious is not obvious enough.

There are legal issues involved, which is why this is an issue taken to the government. Therefore, we are clearly working primarily within the legal framework of marriage, and not the social one. This means that we must address the issues from a legal standpoint, not a social one.

Well, of course it is.

What else would it be?

Wat.

Also I do live in the United States, Aaron just doesn't know the laws or what he is talking about. Parental consent lowers the marital age of consent to 16 in most states and even lower in a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriag...#North_America

Can't wait to see parental consent tacked onto this trainwreck of thinking.

+infinity

Name five.

As I see it, the demand is fairly simple; an extension of everything marriage currently entails to include same-sex couples - ctrl+f 'man and woman'; ctrl-v 'consenting persons of marriageable age'. I don't see anything so substantive as to result in major cost of time or money, and you'll need to be specific before that objection is even admitted, never mind treated seriously.

Probably. Feel like answering the question yet?
I am arguing with numerous people. You simply happen to be the one talking (BTirish appears to be ignoring me). So I probably will throw out the odd line here or there that seems irrelevant; all I can tell you is I've argued the issue several times before and I am really just pre-emptively putting out various fires when I do that.

I wasn't clear. What I meant was, would the objections you hold currently dissolve if the issue was decided in favour of same-sex unions? Once that happens virtually everything you're talking about will either no longer be true or will be happening/have happened. Will you then support the institution?

The only thing that matters is what it is legally, not what it means to you, or someone else.

In general, it has also taken on a much broader definition than in the past. It is a method by which two people legally work together under certain privileges granted by law to build a mutually beneficial life, which may or may not include children. Allowing gays to marry in no way affects your, or anyone else's, marriage or life.

It is obvious, at least to people whose views aren't clouded by traditional discrimination, definitions or bigotry. Not a single legitimate reason against gay marriage has been provided. Nearly every single one can be distilled down to a religious justification or "eww, it's just too icky." Neither of those is a legitimate legal argument.

There were obviously unconstitutional laws all over the books throughout this country's history that took time to overturn. The 14th Amendment made an enormous amount of laws unconstitutional, yet it took a suffrage movement and an additional amendment to grant women the right to vote. It took the Civil Rights Act to actually guarantee the equal rights the 14th Amendment provides.

Because prejudices and bigotry have delayed the implementation of equal rights, doesn't make them any less obvious.

Exactly, for the purposes of our country, the only issues that matter are legal ones. Your or other's religious opinions and/or bigotry as well as "traditional" definitions of marriage are completely irrelevant.

People's attitudes towards thing change over time. Over time, our laws may change to reflect these attitudes.

This really isn't too difficult.

Careful your kids are going to catch the gay.