[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: SVMc Well here is where we reach an impass, it's not that I have an "imprecise" understanding of marriage it's that I don't agree with your understanding of marriage.

We know what the rules of marriage are (in the US,) and, through the use of logic, we can analyze any particular "understanding" of marriage and see if it fits those rules. By doing so, we can determine whether the understanding is valid. So, that is what I am attempting to do. By answering this question we can determine whether the sexual relationship is an integral part of marriage or whether it can be discarded.

I think your failure to give a straight answer to my question speaks for itself. It really is a simple question. Can you explain why the restriction on marrying close relatives exists without assuming the existence of a sexual relationship?

You can push the sexual component of marriage as far as you like and my answer will still be the same. While there is the presence of sexual relationships in marriage they are not legislated. If sex and marriage were directly co-related then we would have legislation about sex when single, and affairs. We don't.

We have legislation about sex between people who are not married--at least we do in the US! Heh, even in Amsterdam they have some formal, legal rules on the subject.

Now please note that when I say that there is not a direct co-relation between sex and marriage I am in no way saying that there is no relation, there is most definately a relation. But simply because there is sex in marriage and marriages involve sex does not mean that marriage is defined by sex. That is our impass.

We haven't even reached this point yet. :)

What I am addressing at this particular point is whether marriage can be understood without the sexual component. Your ambivalence about what the purpose of marriage is forces us to reach farther back and come to an understanding of its function indirectly.

You are defining marriage by one type of sex, this is the same as the procreation argument.

Well, the "procreation argument" is correct. :)

But no, I'm not defining marriage as a particular type of sex. What I am saying is that marriage exists because of what results from a particular type of sex. They aren't quite the same thing.

And just like the procreation argument we do not require married couples to have sex, furthermore we do not legislate what kind of sex married couples must have.

I've never claimed that marriage is a contract between a couple and the government so I'm not sure how this statement is relevant. Could you explain it to me?

In that light there is no reason sex or no sex why two homosexual people can not choose to marry each other.

Well, I agree with you--as long as the two homosexuals are of opposite sexes.