[wtbob]

> Marriage is a legal contract. 12 year olds can't enter into legal contracts (alone). Therefore, 12 year olds can't get married.

Marriage is a formal relationship between two people of the opposite sex. Two men or two women are of the same sex. Therefore two men or two woman cannot marry.

You can do anything, if you redefine the meaning of everything.

[pluma]

Strawman.

There's nothing about marriage that necessitates restricting it to members of opposite sexes. It is however a contract, which requires restricting it to persons that are capable of consent. Exclusion conflicts the basic premise of equal rights so the exclusion has to have valid reasons other than "because that's how we defined it".

A more interesting question would be why it's restricted to natural persons and why it is restricted to two persons.

[wtbob]

> There's nothing about marriage that necessitates restricting it to members of opposite sexes.

There's nothing about contracts that necessitate restricting them to persons capable of consent, if you decide to define contracts not to require consent anymore.

If you feel free to redefine the nature of marriage, surely you can also feel free to redefine the nature of contracts.

[glesica]

Contracts, by their nature, require consent. If there isn't consent, then there literally isn't a contract. Do you and I have a contract saying that you'll give me all your money? Without consent, we might. I'll be expecting a check from you within a week.

Marriage, by its nature, as seen by the government (that is an important qualification), requires nothing more than two consenting individuals. In the eyes of the government, marriage is nothing but a contract between two people. If your religion wants to define it some other way, that's fine with me. But from the standpoint of our government, the way your religion defines it makes no difference, nor should it.

I would actually be perfectly fine with renaming the legal institution of "marriage". It would actually be better if no one could get "legally" "married". Just call it a civil union. If you want to have a religious ceremony, great, but all the government would recognize is a civil union contract. However, most people don't agree with me, so we're stuck calling it marriage even though it has nothing to do with religious traditions.

[wtbob]

> Contracts, by their nature, require consent. If there isn't consent, then there literally isn't a contract.

'Marriages, by their nature, require a man and woman. If there aren't a man and woman, then there literally isn't a contract.'

You're not arguing: you're just asserting. One surely could have a piece of paper legally called a 'contract' which states that I owe you money, but to which I have no consented. The fact that it's not what you & I and the law today would call a contract would be irrelevant if the law changed tomorrow.

Heck, we have a constitutional amendment forbidding involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime, and yet we have a draft and people can be forced to work for others. Words have lost their meaning.

> Marriage, by its nature, as seen by the government (that is an important qualification), requires nothing more than two consenting individuals.

As of today, in this country, that's true. A few days ago, it wasn't. Anything can mean anything once words stop meaning anything.

> I would actually be perfectly fine with renaming the legal institution of "marriage". It would actually be better if no one could get "legally" "married". Just call it a civil union.

That's what I've advocated for. And it shouldn't be limited to two people having sex with one another, either. If a fraternity wish to form a temporary civil union in order to secure health insurance or ownership of their home, let them. Why does the government care who's having sex with whom, if that sex cannot create children?

[glesica]

> As of today, in this country, that's true. A few days ago, it wasn't. Anything can mean anything once words stop meaning anything.

No, it was never true. What about marriage makes it specifically require a man and a woman? There was never anything in the government definition of marriage that meant that it required a man and a woman. There was never any requirement to have children, or even to be able to have children. The only reason "marriage" required a man and a woman is that laws had been passed to make it so.

In other words, you could take every word written on marriage in the legal code and apply it, without alternation other than fixing the pronouns, to a same-sex marriage. Marriage didn't change, it just became available to more people.

[wtbob]

> What about marriage makes it specifically require a man and a woman?

Is that a serious question? What do you think marriage is, State recognition that two people want to have sex exclusively? Why does it even make sense to have State recognition of a sexual relationship? It really doesn't.

Now, I don't think it makes particular sense to have the State recognise sexual relationships which may produce children, because there's no real need for it too: modern paternity testing can easily solve the actual problem civil marriage addresses.

As for the rest, why should those civil benefits be limited to people in a sexual relationship? Why should I be able to put my brother on my insurance? Why shouldn't a fraternity be able to form a civil union if they wish?

What possible benefits does civil marriage confer that should be restricted to two people who have sex, but not restricted to two people who might produce children?