Because that's the commonly held definition.

So, in other words, it matters because we say it does. This explains nothing - I asked why it matters here.

So they are different. You said they are the same and they aren't. Equal means equal. You can't say that two things that are different are equal. They can be treated as equals in certain contexts or despite their differences but that doesn't actually make them equal.

If their differences have no relevance to their equal treatment here then there is no reason for you to bring them up.

They do have relevance, and that is why men and women aren't treated equally in all contexts. In the ones where their differences matter they aren't. In the ones where it doesn't, they are.

Both men and women are already equal in that they can enter into marriage. I don't know why you keep bringing up differences between men and women as if they matter. Here, they don't.

No, just because one can do something doesn't mean that one should do it.

If there is no reason to prohibit something then there are no grounds to stop people from doing it.

We could do a lot of things that would make our lives or the world a much better place, but we don't. The absence of a reason against is not a reason for.

This is not a matter of expending some extra effort to do something, it's a matter of simply no longer prohibiting something. There is no "impulsiveness" there.

You just have to accept the possibility of being wrong, I guess.

And I'll do so if there's a reason to. Apparently most people can't do this.

This doesn't have to do with rights. Marriage is not a right.

False. Marriage has been established as a fundamental right in numerous supreme court cases.

How so? How do two men, for example, that are married and get tax relief but have no children to support benefit society? It's not like there is any reason that society is better of with them getting the money than somebody else, or the government keeping it.

How do a man and a woman that are married with no children benefit society? (It's funny that you would ask this about childless gay couples, but not straight couples.) The answer is that marriage is beneficial in itself and promotes stability in relationships. Better stability in relationships, more happy and productive people, better for society. Many of the benefits of marriage don't have anything to do with children at all.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that those couples are still not the basic reproductive unit for our species. They might be able to raise children just like any other, but they still aren't that. They still aren't that which many people still find sacred in various ways, whether it is spiritual like Christians, for example, or purely pragmatic like the government.

Marriage isn't about being a "basic reproductive unit" and hasn't been for some time. As evidenced by all the marriages that do not constitute "basic reproductive units". This is irrelevant. What other people think is "sacred" is also irrelevant to the law in this area; law isn't made based on what people imagine to be "sacred". Pragmatism also would not apply because there is no practical difference between Aaron marrying Joan and Bob marrying Lisa and neither of them having kids, and Aaron marrying Bob and Joan marrying Lisa and neither of them having kids.

And if any two (or any number as it would have to be to truly be fair) of people can get married then the government would be giving tax relief to everybody and they might as well just lower taxes in general.

According to the arguments you've been making, any two people can already get married, since, you know, gay people can just marry someone of the opposite sex (as if creating fake marriages is something to promote).

When married man and woman adopt a child, there is still a mother and a father. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

It absolutely does. Why do men and women marry each other? Because they're gay? I don't think so. Pretending that a definition which excludes gay couples has "nothing to do with sexual orientation" is blatantly deceptive. Most opposite-sex couples are straight. Most same-sex couples are gay. It has everything to do with sexual orientation.

You can't compare two men raising a child to a man and a woman raising a child. It's not that the two men can't do it or that the child will be inherently fucked up. It's just that they aren't the same.

Well, yeah, you can. Since the differences aren't relevant. Parenting studies confirm that. The fact that they "aren't the same" thus doesn't matter.

While you might not care personally, other people do. Other people, the general population as well as the government, prefer one over the other and so they favor it.

That's nice and all, but if there is no actual basis for doing so, then this is just discrimination without cause and there's no reason for it. "People think you're less than preferable even though you aren't" isn't a valid basis for law.

It's not about the fact that they must. It is about the fact that they can, are encouraged to and probably will eventually.

Why is this never articulated in any marital law, so as to easily allow people who have no intention of doing so to marry? There is no "you can most likely have kids so you should probably go do that eventually" clause to marriage licenses. If straight couples can be married without kids then the lack of offspring is not a disqualifier for marriage and cannot be applied to gay couples when it is already not applied to straight couples. That would be discrimination. If there was a demographic group of straight people who were less likely to have kids, do we strip marriage rights from them, too?

I never said it ensured it. Nobody said that. It encourages it. It facilitates it. They get a break that will help them start a family.

It's available but they're by no means required to utilize it. And saying it "encourages" it is just a lesser way of saying it "ensures" it.

Like you said, same sex couples can start families, but it's not the same as with opposite sex couples.

Adoptive parents can start families, but it's not the same... They can still marry. Step-parents can start families, but it's not the same... They can still marry. People who use surrogates can start families, but it's not the same... They can still marry.

But only if you're heterosexual.

How does this make any sense whatsoever?

Well, it would detract. It would be that much more money from taxes the government is losing.

So it's "losing" money when it goes to gay couples but not when it goes to straight couples already? Discrimination is not justified on economic grounds. You could keep interracial marriage or any other kind of marriage banned on the same grounds. That does not negate the fact that there's a right to marry that must be recognized. "It'll cost money" is irrelevant. By your logic it would already detract from that every time... another straight couple gets married. Yet they still can.

And you might not care, but it would be destroying the definition of something that many other people hold sacred. You can easily say that doesn't matter to you and so it isn't a good reason or that it shouldn't matter to anybody. That's just ignoring the opinions/feelings/desires/etc. of others to validate your own.

The "opinions/feelings/desires/etc. of others" don't matter here, and neither do mine - the fact remains that perceived "sacredness", on anyone's part, is not a basis for law. It is not relevant.

That and letting gay couples marry doesn't stop straight couples from marrying. It "destroys" nothing. This is not zero-sum.

Sure it does... families consisting of a mother and a father are preferred and encouraged over others. You might not think that it is a big deal, but you seem to have a problem with not being able to step back from your own position and look at others objectively.

Your first sentence begs the question, failing to address why they should be regarded as such. Your second sentence is just a meaningless way of implying I'm wrong without having to make an argument that I am. "You have problems, etc." is not an argument.

Here's why it accomplishes none of the stated goals: The alleged purpose of marriage is for a mother and a father to have children of their own and raise them. The solution offered to ensure this is banning gay marriage. What are the results of this?

Relationships that are recognized as marriage:

• Straight couples without children

• Straight couples that have never reproduced but have adopted children

• Straight couples who may individually have children of their own, but not together

Relationships that are not recognized as marriage:

• Gay couples without children

• Gay couples that have never reproduced but have adopted children

• Gay couples who may individually have children of their own, but not together

It's clearly not about anything to do with children. It's about discriminating against gay couples for the sake of it, and that's all.

I'm also not sure that you know what arbitrary means. Arbitrary would mean that there is no reason, not that the reason is invalid. Since there is a reason, albeit one that you find invalid, it is not arbitrary.

The reasons offered for banning gay marriage are false. It is literally irrelevant to any of the stated goals. That's what makes it arbitrary. It's an imposed requirement that has nothing to do with the alleged purpose. That is arbitrary, and nothing but a mask for bigotry.

Yes it is.

No, it's not, for the reasons quoted.