State-sanctioned marriage has a meaning if it's purpose is to promote reproduction. Which is what marriage was for up to 50 years ago. It's an institution that has benefits to society, so it makes sense to promote and protect it.
Now if you think of marriage as "any love relationship sanctioned by the government", you of course should include same-sex couples. My objection is that then you have changed the meaning, and now there is no rational reason for not including "a love relationship between a man and his three wives", or "a love relationship between two siblings". Or "a love relationship between four men, two woman and a goat". Or just "a relationship between any number of humans that they choose to call marriage", love (or sex) should be no requirement. As long as all humans involved are adults, and they don't pretend me (via government) to subsidize any of their costs, there is no rational reason to hold onto the term just for couples, same-sex or not.
State-sanctioned marriage has a meaning if it's purpose is to promote reproduction. Which is what marriage was for up to 50 years ago. It's an institution that has benefits to society, so it makes sense to promote and protect it.
Now if you think of marriage as "any love relationship sanctioned by the government", you of course should include same-sex couples. My objection is that then you have changed the meaning, and now there is no rational reason for not including "a love relationship between a man and his three wives", or "a love relationship between two siblings". Or "a love relationship between four men, two woman and a goat". Or just "a relationship between any number of humans that they choose to call marriage", love (or sex) should be no requirement. As long as all humans involved are adults, and they don't pretend me (via government) to subsidize any of their costs, there is no rational reason to hold onto the term just for couples, same-sex or not.