Questions to have handy for those advocating that "marriage"
be legally re-defined to accomodate same-sex unions
(and this is an entirely separate issue from the same
relationship under other names, e.g. "civil union").
- What is your proposed new definition, precisely?
- Does it exclude consanguineous partners?
Can someone marry their sibling, child, parent, cousin?
If not, why not - there's no risk of genetic defects in the
offspring if the partners are the same sex, after all.
- Does it limit a person to one partner?
If so, why? That sounds pretty arbitrary and discriminatory.
There's a lot more historical precedent for polygamy than for
same-sex marriage. The polygamists await the answer.
And before laughing at the following, keep in mind a recent
nuptial in France wherein a bride was wed to her deceased finance.
- Does the new definition require a living partner?
- Does the new definition require a human partner?
Any number of lonely sheep-herders await an answer.
- Does the new definition require any partner at all?
Since this movement is in part a benefits grab, why bother
requiring a partner at all? Just marry yourself.
