There is no 'natural' definition of marriage: it is whatever our society chooses to regard it as. In the past many societies have applied the word 'marriage' or its equivalent to polyandrous or polygynous relationships and no disasters, divinely-ordained or otherwise, overtook them as a result. One of the ways in which society makes progress towards a better, fairer world is by recognising that some of our legal and political definitions are contributing to unfairness and injustice, and need to be changed for that reason.

It wasn't all that long ago that the definition of 'property' included one's slaves. More recently the definition of 'minors' included men and women of nineteen and twenty, and the definition of 'Australian citizens' excluded Aboriginal residents. We managed to change those, because we as a society decided it was right to do to. Changing the definition of 'marriage' need be no more difficult than that.

......agree

More! More!.

I don't think OLO has adequately covered the same sex marriage debate.

we’re used to anti-gay arguments based on the logical fallacy of circular argument (“gays can’t marry because marriage is between a man and a woman”), but this one introduces a new refinement - the logical fallacy of equivocation:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html

"discimination" can indeed mean choosing between options in perceptive and discerning manner; it can also mean unfairness, prejudice and bigotry. Just because the first form is ok, doesn’t make the second form ok

Isn't it always the same.

To be kind, you give these fringe dwellers an inch or to, & let them into civil society, & what do you get? The buggers wanting the whole bloody world, & to totally change your way of life to get it.

Should have kept it illegal.

Of course it will be again, under sharia law, in say 15 years time.

thanks Bernard. Well written.