The line is drawn legally, it stops at religious definitions.Judged:111
Could someone, a SSMer, please explain where do we, as a society, draw the line, in defining marriage? At what point, does it become pointless?
Monogamous conjugal marriage proponents advocate maintaining the legal definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife.
SSM proponents advocate defining marriage as a union of (two) spouses for life, regardless of gender composition.
Plural conjugal marriage practitioners advocate for the inclusion of plural marriage in the legal definition.
Where is the line drawn?
For example there are quite a number of marriages performed by one religion or another that are not actually marriages legally.
That is why this question is before a court of law, not a religious pow-wow or conclave.
That is ultimately up to the will of the people, and the rule of law. Prop 8 was passed by a small margin, but was challenged on constitutional grounds, overturned but a stay put on the results.
The situation is now reversed, put on a ballot again today Prop 8 would be overturned easily, and it is actually the courts that are the blocking point.
Ultimately if there was not large public support for Same Sex marriage this would not be happening.
Not based on history, not based on tradition, not based on pseudo-science and the often misguided references here to evolution, or any ancient books, but by the rule of law, and ultimately the will of the people.
That is why even your most famous right win pundit has thrown in the towel on the issue.
All your concerns about Poly and Incest and so forth are at the same whim, the will of the people and the rule of law.
I cannot predict the will of the people in the future, all I have there is opinion.
Poly… probably at some point
Incest… doubtful in the foreseeable future
But it isn’t up to me to decide what future generations want to do or not.