Who is fighting for under aged marriage?<quoted text>
1.) Don't confuse the fight for same-gender "marriage equality" with any other marriage movement. We're not fighting for under-aged marriage.
Adult U.S. citizens can choose their partner, if they desire a partner or just a friend, without state involvement. What you asking is for the state to label a same sex personal intimate sexual relationship, "marriage".We're not fighting for incestuous marriage. We are fighting for the right for consenting, unrelated, adult U.S. citizens to choose their partner.
That's is the objective. Monogamous conjugal marriage of husband and wife is no longer the legal standard. I'm not arguing that opposite sex couples will no longer marry, but the standard will no longer be the standard. Why maintain the number of the marital relationship, two, if the nature, opposite sex, no longer matters?2.) Where do you get the ridiculous idea that our movement's goal is to shatter the monogamous (husband and wife) marital standard forever? Clearly, heterosexual couples will continue to marry. And they will outnumber homosexual couples who marry.
It simply means society recognizes the monogamous male female, husband and wife, above all other adult intimate relationships.3.) "Privileged union"?!? What the heck is that? Are you seriously whining about losing a special label? Could you get any more immature?
"Fathers marrying their daughters"? " Men marrying furniture"? Who is claiming man and sofa must mate.....well.....maybe man's female mate thinks he spends too much time with the sofa so he might as well be married to it.4.) It does not stand to reason that if SSM is legalized throughout the country then fathers will be marrying their daughters, men will start to marry furniture, or any other such ridiculous claim.
Uhhhhhh huh....so you have a crystal ball? Social movements have a tendency to travel in directions the movement's proponents might not have intended, or anticipated.If same-gender marriage is legalized, then that's all that's going to happen. Period.
Let me see if I understand this. You argue that the standard, of one man and one woman joined together in legal matrimony as husband and wife, is discriminatory, arbitrary, and/or should be "expanded" to include same sex unions, and yet state that no other changes should be made to accommodate others, such as plural marriage practitioners. Yes? We both know the polygamy issue has been raised in relation to the issue of SSM, even at the Supreme Court. So why do you think it won't or can't happen? I don't understand why you don not embrace the "expansion" of legal marriage to included it?Heterosexual marriage hasn't led to plural marriage or any other silly union. Why would homosexual marriage lead to such things?