[Boundless]

Questions to have handy for those advocating that "marriage"
be legally re-defined to accomodate same-sex unions
(and this is an entirely separate issue from the same
relationship under other names, e.g. "civil union").

• What is your proposed new definition, precisely?
  
  
• Does it exclude consanguineous partners?
  Can someone marry their sibling, child, parent, cousin?
  If not, why not - there's no risk of genetic defects in the
  offspring if the partners are the same sex, after all.
  
  
• Does it limit a person to one partner?
  If so, why? That sounds pretty arbitrary and discriminatory.
  There's a lot more historical precedent for polygamy than for
  same-sex marriage. The polygamists await the answer.
  
  

And before laughing at the following, keep in mind a recent
nuptial in France wherein a bride was wed to her deceased finance.

• Does the new definition require a living partner?
  
  
• Does the new definition require a human partner?
  Any number of lonely sheep-herders await an answer.
  
  
• Does the new definition require any partner at all?
  Since this movement is in part a benefits grab, why bother
  requiring a partner at all? Just marry yourself.

[breakem]

I wanted to marry myself, but found out I was dating someone else.

[Jim Robinson]

You'll go blind doing that.

[cwb]

Great point about polygamy having a much older...an even previously sanctioned, history. When homosexuals hear this question, they scoof at it as rediculous. Yet, not only has it existed in the past, some religions openly endorsed it. Don't these extended relationships have the same rights as homosexuals...expecially on the grounds of freedom of religion? Homos are such intolerant people:)