Either between a man and a woman or it is inequality unless it also includes marriage between-
-a man and a boy.
-a man and a girl.
-a woman and boy.
-a woman and a girl.
-two men and one woman.
-two women and one man.
-two men and two women.
-three women and five men.
-every conceivable numerical permutation.
-a man and an animal.
-a woman and an animal.
-a man and an inanimate object.
-a woman and an inanimate object.
-a man and a dead person.
-a woman and a dead person.
Now about here people who shout loudest for what they call marriage equality will suggest that both parties in a marriage have to be consenting. So, I ask, how do they know a 5 year old boy doesn’t mean it when he ‘loves’ his special older 45 year old mate? Or how do they know that the dog presently ‘loved’ by a woman doesn’t ‘love’ her back in whatsoever ways a dog might love? Are supporters of marriage equality also readers of minds?
Marriage is a social contract, construed as a boundary marker within a society so as to delimit as much as it prohibits. It isn’t now nor has it ever been nor can it ever be a borderless frontier which anyone and everyone may inhabit- else the fabric of society itself is undermined and society unravels into lawlessness and anarchy.
So I have a series of questions for the supporters of marriage ‘equality’- and I hope that someone among them is able to answer questions directly without equivocating and/ or demonizing:
1- What sorts of ‘marriage’ would you deny?
2- Given your claims of questing for equality how do you justify your exclusions?
3- If all love is real love (as you suggest) then why doesn’t the love of a man for a dog qualify the two of them to marry?
4- How do you know the dog doesn’t love the man?
5- Define love.
6- If marriage is such a serious matter, why is promiscuity so widely practiced?
Feel free to respond in comments- but if you just ramble and don’t answer each of the 6 questions, I’ll presume you have no answer and you’ll just have to vent elsewhere.