[quote name='Ultima Ratio']The definition of the institution of marriage has stood for over 4000 years. [/QUOTE]
It has? Across all cultures and civilizations? "Unmarried male" is not an arguable definition. Unmarried is a fact that can be proven or disproven. Ditto male. This is not the same kind of premise as - "Marriage is for procreation". I'd argue there is every bit as strong a financial transaction component to marriage historically as it is about procreation.
In fact, here is a simple definition from wikipedia (I know, not the best source, but where it comes from is reputable. You can find literally thousands of similar definitions if you'd like):"A nonethnocentric definition of marriage is a culturally sanctioned union between two or more people that establishes certain rights and obligations between the people, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."
Goes a bit beyond procreation - no? Your Socrates argument only works because we agree on the premises. You can "explain" the definition until you're blue in the face, but no one need accept it when there is significant evidence that your definition is incomplete and, dare I say, conveniently simplistic and with a high degree of historical omissions, to help your point.
[QUOTE]Why don't you tell us why the definition should change? [/QUOTE]
Marriage serves two purposes: To facilitate a stable environment to raise children and to stabilize economic partnerships. Gays are living (or want to live) in stable economic partnerships and it benefits the state to have this. Check. Gays are raising children. (In many places, including Minnesota) Check. It also benefits the state, as Brock said, to allow children otherwise not being raised in stable environments more opportunities to do so. Downside? Well, it might mess with dubious definitions, but I guess I'm not too worried about that.
[QUOTE]The institution of marriage holds a mother and father accountable to each other and to provide for the well-being of any progeny from that relationship, regardless whether the relationship is or continues to be amorous or not.[/QUOTE]
No, guardianship/family laws do that. One need not be married to be "accountable" to the well being of their progeny. Or do you contend otherwise? If I have a baby with some woman and don't marry her....I'm scot-free on my responsibilities? In fact, a gay man who impregnates a woman is responsible to his child, even if he marries a man. I could go on about how ridiculous your notion is.
You've got an awful lot of pretentiousness in your presentation for such a shallow understanding.
Edited by TheLeviathan, 15 May 2013 - 09:36 PM.