Hiw would this definition NOT exclude two brothers, two sisters, mother-daughter or father-son relationships? They could well have a strong commitment and already exist as a “familial” relationship. Why exclude them from enjoying economic benefits?
It is not clear to me that a society that eschews its crucial and legitimate interest in marriage (the only means by which new native-born citizens are created) is even capable of understanding what is the true “interest” it does have in marriage.
It is interesting that your “standard” for determining whether these relationships should be sanctioned is that they “may” cause harm, but your standard for same sex marriages are that they actually do. Since we do not know for certain that same sex marriages won’t cause harm, you should apply the same standard that you do to the above forms of marriage to same sex marriages. That is, refrain from advocating for same sex marriage because they “may cause harm.” Or include these others UNTIL it is shown that they actually do cause harm. Double standard going on here.
The above are not mere red herrings, because your redefinition for marriage allows these by definition. You are merely throwing in ad hoc stipulations because you don’t like the consequences of your own definition.
Explain to me how two brothers, two sisters, a mother and daughter, father and son marrying will cause any more harm than the marriage of a same sex couple, given that they are in a committed relationship, familial bonds are already present and they only seek economic benefits?
The problem here is that harm can only be assessed after the fact, so we don’t really know what actual harm may come about. Clearly, a redefinition of marriage to a nebulous “committed familial and economic bond” redefines the purpose or focus of marriage away from a relationship committed to having children who are the vulnerable third parties, (with no voice in the question,) and who are never mentioned by advocates of redefinition.
The question of harm is wrapped up in the issue of measuring it. How can anyone adequately measure the complex ramifications that tampering with the very basic social unit of society will bring about. Your claim of “no harm” is, at best, wild speculation and an assurance that means nothing more than “Everything will be fine,” despite the fact that you have absolutely no power to make it so nor credible knowledge that it actually will be.
Very diplomatic, but profoundly naive.
