[jwalsh07]

It need not be limited to anything a priori. What did you have in mind?

I'm interested in whether or not you would limit the redefinition of marriage to couples or extend it to any number of people, be it a sexual or platonic relationship.

If you would extend it, then that is a principled position though one I would take a dim view of.

You're also conflating issues as regards marriage. The fact that there are people who do not practice marriage as it should be practiced says little to nothing about the institution of marriage. Similarly, the fact that marxists abound in our Constitutional Republic says nothing about the worth of our Constitution.

[BikerNYC]

Since many marriages stop being sexual, I would not restrict marriage to sexual relationships and have the people to be married somehow verify that they have sex with each other.

As far as who should be able to get married, I will take those issues as they come. I am convinced that there is a sufficent number of relationships between gay people who hold themselves out to be everything but married, that to deny these people the means to get married is to teach young people that it is not necessary to be married if you have a serious loving relationship. That does not help marriage as an institution.

David Brooks was right. We should insist that gay people in committed relationships get married to each other, so that it becomes quite clear to young people that people in serious relationships get married. To act otherwise is to provide an alternative to marriage that is too atractive to ignore.

It's not just that there are some straight people who are not practicing marriage the way it should be practiced, it's that close to half of straight marriages end in divorce. The exception, in a sense, is gobbling up the rule. If it gets to 90%, what's the point?