1.) Same-gender couples do not want to legitimize their relationships through legal marriage to boost their self esteem. As you very well know, there are many protections and benefits that come along with marriage. Many of these benefits and protections have nothing to do with children. Do you agree?<quoted text>
Hmmmm this is where things get murky. So far its "normal"....and "homosexual intercourse" is legal....although the latter is somewhat ambiguous as to what constitutes "homosexual intercourse". So what does that mean?
"Legitimize"? So marriage is a self esteem program? Simply because "....expression of the physical and emotional attraction that millions of tax-paying, law-abiding, U.S. Citizens engage in....", doesn't mean the state has to scrap the standard of marriage as a mongamous union of husband and wife. We don't call a veggie patty a "burger" to boost the self esteem, of vegetarians, or so as not to hurt their feelings.
Suppose some of "these people" wanted to marry their first cousin, which is legal in several states? By your definition, they could not do so? Why does it matter, if the two individuals are of the same sex, and related by blood, that they be barred from marrying? You wish to change the definition of marriage to suit your needs/wants/desires, but are, apparently unable or unwilling, to change the definition for anyone else?
Marriage is a union of husband and wife, period. Its the means by which society connects men and women, and what ever children they produce. Its about the sexes, both of them, what they do, have sex, and what that sex produces, children. Seriously, VV, if sex didn't produce children, would it matter who married who, or didn't marry who? At what point does it become pointless? If its nothing more than a means by which consenting adults organize their intimate personal relationships complete with a government beneifits package, then there's no rational reason to deny all sorts of combinations. I cannot fathom why society cannot continue to honor, recognize, and/or privilege marriage as a unique mongamous union of husband and wife. WHY? What is the issue? So society says, "we"ll recognize same sex relationships via 'civil union'....but the gay folks, some not all, say,'oh no....you have to call it marriage'! WHY?
2.) Regarding marriage between certain relatives... I didn't think that I had to spell it out for you. I am obviously talking about a marriage between siblings or a marriage between parent and child or between a grandparent and grandchild. You know exactly what I mean when I say "unrelated".
I don't know that I need to explain why it is that same-gender marriage is completely different than incestuous marriage. If you seriously do not understand that there is a vast difference between a someone developing an emotional/physical relationship with a non-relative and someone developing an emotional/physical relationship with a relative, then I don't know that I can help you.
Suffice it to say that we are not here to discuss incestuous marriages. Any attempts to lead this discussion away from the primary topic--i.e.: same-gender marriage--is nothing more than a distraction. I won't entertain it.
3.) A marriage is a contract between two consenting, adult, unrelated people. It is not a contract between two people and their offspring. That is why there aren't two separate definitions set aside for people who intend to have children and those who do not intend to have children.
And with regards to term "civil union"; there are no other identical contracts that provides identical protections and benefits but have different names.
If legally joined same-gender couples would enjoy all of the benefits and protections as legally joined opposite-gender couples, then why should there be different terminology?
If you have a red rose and a pink rose, they are BOTH roses with only subtle differences.