That's sounded like a bunch of conjecture. On what grounds should a person be excluded from legal union aside citizenship?
You're asking the wrong question. Again, the State extends numerous legal privileges to marriages that it recognizes, because it wants to encourage marriage; it has
reasons for doing so, and thus the argument should focus on whether or not allowing homosexuals to marry helps serve those reasons.
On what grounds should the legal definition of marriage be expanded to include homosexual marriages?
A functional society wouldn't be so distracted with such nonsensical, petty questions. Children are allowed to marry in some states, for Godsakes. It really isn't that important a question, and it has far fewer implications than you're suggesting.
This issue is neither nonsensical nor petty; in fact, I'd argue that the number of people who agree with you, that the institution of marriage is legally and societally trivial, is indicative of the exact kind of moral decline that Jerry is concerned with.
The institution of marriage, in its role of cementing the bonds between families and lending legal, financial, and social stability to couples-- especially couples with children-- is the bedrock of society, and as it has crumbled in esteem, so have the moral values of society at large. The declining respect for marriage has led to broken homes, fatherless children, and three generations now of children who have grown up not understanding how vital it is for their own children to grow up in stable homes.
I actually agree with you that marriage ought to be legalized for homosexuals-- but it is
because marriage is so important, especially for parents, that I believe homosexuals ought to be included in it.
That is because incest is illegal in most states. Of course one cannot be legally bound illegally, wtf kind of argument was that?
Actually, to my knowledge, it isn't illegal to have sex with your first cousins-- only to marry them.
How is that relevant to gay marriage? Once again, this isn't because we necessarily want to exclude married people, but because bigamy is illegal.
And in 47 States, so is gay marriage.
Oh, a country can't legally bind and acknowledge the union of someone who isn't a citizen? GTFO! Dude. Honestly. That's like saying "We should make air illegal because attempting to breathe it underwater can kill you."
In which case, people who are citizens of this country are denied the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice-- if that adult happens to be a citizen of a different country.
Bold=100% false. The state imposes no limitations on marriage itself, but only nullifies it on the premise of oblique illegality.
The State doesn't prohibit homosexuals from getting married, either-- it only refuses to recognize their marriage as legally binding. A friend of mine has been married twice, to two different women; thankfully, because of the law, she's been spared the indignity of divorce court both times.
For that matter, the State does not prohibit plural marriages or cousin marriages, either; bigamy is only a criminal offense if you attempt to legally register the second marriage with the State, unless you live in Utah. (Utah will actually declare plural spouses commonlaw married in order to prosecute for bigamy.) So, if that's your argument, homosexuals aren't being denied the right to marry at all.
Of course, I'd imagine that they see it differently, since they're still fighting for legal recognition of their marriages.
---
A couple that can bear children? No, try again.
Plenty of homosexuals have children, one way or another, and are raising them. That's the main reason I'm in favor of allowing them to marry.