Statesboro, GA, USA
... marriage is the union of two loving partners, a man can marry a woman, a man can marry a man, or a woman can marry a woman. All within reason ...
Marriage is not currently "the union of two loving partners". Currently it is the union of two loving partners who are male and female.
By saying "all within reason", you are implying that certain things are reasonable about marriage ... in other words, certain things are obviously basic to the institution. Having rejected heterosexuality as basic, you've naturally chosen to retain some other traditional view as basic, namely love and commitment. Of course these aren't ascertained by reason alone. These concepts will also be challenged as to whether they are fundamental to the definition of marriage. Once the slippery slope of arbitrary reinvention is taken, marriage will eventually become a bland social contract to ensure financial perks, that won't be denied anyone who wants it ... or any number who want it. Of course since such an arrangement would be senseless and impractical, what would become of the institution itself is doubtful. Rivers with no banks become marshes.
The restrictions would/do still exist, again within reason. For example, marrying within the family(incest), marrying a minor(as statutory rape or because minor entering a contract), your pet. There you go, there are your guidelines and restrictions. All based on legalities.
Yes, but you're forgetting something. Whenever law becomes suspect as "discriminatory", it too will become challenged and overturned. Marrying within the family does not necessarily mean incest, if we take Ron's view that marriage is not in the least about sex. (Of course I don't agree with him there, as the bulk of history refutes that suggestion) Nor will marriage between adult and child mean pedophilia. Nor will marriage between humans and animals mean bestiality. These laws were based upon the sexual aspect which, as Ron nicely illustrates, some are wanting to (excuse the pun) divorce from the meaning of marriage.
The definition simply eliminates the sex and sexual preference of the participants as an issue.
But you just attempted to mitigate the free-for-all, and define marriage using present laws that are based precisely upon sex and sexual preference ... incest, pedophilia, bestiality.
I find it incredibly silly arguing against gay unions. In my opinion it's not an argument based on reason or logic, but more often than not, simple prejudice and conservative 'morality'.
But your above arguments aren't reasonable or logical are they? You're still limiting the loss of marital boundaries, by sex and sexuality ... the very thing you said shouldn't be a factor anymore.
Understand I agree with you that such things should limit what Marriage is. It's just that I have a foundation for believing so ... sexuality has always been a great portion of what defines marriage.