Just a note; The issue is not whether ss couples would harm marriage. The fundamental question is do they equate to marriage. The only aspect is in number. That means marriage would then mean 'two people in a committed relationship'. Restricting marriage to only two for that reason is discriminatory. Again, it leaves your mother and father, and your family without distinction. I find that sad.
I didn't reduce marriage to it's 'original definition', I reduced marriage to it's fundamental purpose. That is so important, social scientists assert that if procreation were not a product of mating behavior, marriage would not occur.<quoted text>
Ok, my bad for the lack of clarity on my part. Yes I do know words have specific meanings. I do think that applies when talking about people, but, again, the point was you can't just be all quasi-logical and reduce everything down to original definition when there are emotions involved. Marriage is more than just function, it is love and companionship too.
See your point about taking away the man/woman in a marriage. For my part I'd prefer it for selfish reasons as would SS couples. Back at one time part of the vows was to 'obey' which many dispense with now. Would it not suffice to keep the man/woman part in the vows in some way. The service is often tailored to the couples, so the only real difference would be the legal definition; and the gender part could still be on the license. I do also see why it can be sad. But, change is part of progress. At one time a woman was not called a woman but as a wife (and the man still man as opposed to being husband) was chattel. Do we/they really need such distinction, will still be a hetero marriage and family, documents will still no doubt specify the gender of those involved. It seems a little like an exclusive club which is set to opening itself up the a wider variety of members; except the esteemed exclusivity of the club is more in the minds of some than it is in practical effects.
Thank you for answering my query about chimeras and mosaics. Like I just said yes I know words are specific but often what one person calls one thing appears to be different because of the word they use but actually it's the same thing, especially between Countries (eg. America and England). Wrongly, I thought that was what the case was here. The twin thing I've heard about, happens quite often, but usually the lost twin is totally absorbed physically and their individual DNA lost. Not for you though, lucky you; why have either/ or when you can have both is what I say. I want to add a little smirkey smiley face to that but it may be taken as mocking.
I have never denied that many other aspects are a part of marriage. However, love and companionship are a part of almost every relationship. They certainly don't need marriage to exist.
Sorry for being picky, but I see it as being accurate.
I noticed you avoided addressing the issue of 'equating'.
Perhaps it is because of my condition that I embrace engaging life in the union of both genders, instead of as one. There is a vast difference that requires distinction. The degree is often described as the union of Mars and Venus.
At the most intimate level, there is clearly a design where male and female 'fit' together. In gay intimacy that union has to be manipulated to even be marginally safe.
The marriage union can even be seen as restoring us to our earliest roots, a genderless, simple life form.
Enjoyed the subtle humor at the end...