we're not in rome, therefore there's no need to do as the romans do. we're in the United States of America, and our legal codes recognize a very specific definition of marriage.
I don't get it. You said "underpinnings of human civilization," did you not? I responded to the idea that opposite-sex marriage is one of the underpinnings of human civilization. I'd say the laws of Ancient Rome fit a lot more neatly into the "underpinnings of human civilization" category than the laws of the United States.
And the legal codes of the USA do not recognize a very specific definition of marriage. Never have. Most states don't give licences right now, sure, but most had to recognize such marriages until fairly recently.
all people are treated equally under the law. all people, straight or gay, have access to marriage as our legal codes define it. anyone can marry any one consenting and unrelated adult of the opposite sex they like once they have obtained license to do so. who's being marginalized here?
Anyone who wants to marry someone of the same sex.
There's a reason the other person has to be consenting. There's a reason the other person has to be unrelated. There's no reason why the other person has to be of the opposite sex.
again, what sort of societal imperative is there for rewriting the rules? how will society as a whole benefit from legalizing gay "marriage"?
The same societal imperative that allowed blacks and women to vote, I suppose.
Now a question for you: What if I can show you that society will benefit from allowing more marriages? What then?
I'm asking a serious question. it's called a social contract for a reason; it was arrived at through careful negotiation among the people and if anyone wants to change it, they need to negotiate (through the channels recognized by the letter of the law) to do so.
What just happened in California
was a negotiation through appropriate channels.
