No, that's simply more of your circular reasoning. Plus it ignores both current and historical reality across time and cultures.Agreed.
Yes it does. Marriage establishes a man and woman as husband and wife.
A reality that included animus and discrimination directed at gays that prevented them from historically participating in the institution of marriage.That is the historic, cultural, social, legal, at least in thirty plus states
Religion is irrelevant to civil marriage.and/or religious understanding of marriage.
What a coincidence; so is the removal of the legal impediments constructed by straight people that have historically discriminated against gays and prevented them from marrying someone congruent with their sexual orientation.Creating kinship between two unrelated, first cousins excluded, men, or women, is an alien concept, a recent legal creation within American marital jurisprudence.
That's what makes it the slippery slope fallacy: advocating against a change now because "something" >> might << happen "sometime" in the future. Or not. Which inherently means the change being contemplated can't be a causal effect if the feared future change isn't a certainty.True.
Simply because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't not eliminate its plausible possibility.
It recognizes such marriages in cases where the marriage was contracted outside the UK and the people involved are now residing in the UK. The UK still doesn't issue multiple marriage licenses to those living in the country that wish to marry multiple partners.The UK does recognize polygamous marriages for welfare purposes.
It still doesn't address the full gamut of legal benefits and privileges conferred by marriage so it isn't a substitute for marriage and not relevant to a discussion of marriage.Nor did I claim it did. However it does establish legal kinship, and some same sex couples have used I in the past to do just that for financial purpose, as the article from the link had revealed.
None. But then I don't have two left or two right feet. But for someone whose feet are differently oriented than the norm, a pair consisting of a left and a right shoe wouldn't work. However, you'd just demand they go shoeless.How many pairs of two left, or two right, shoes do you own?