This bears repeating: “Marriage is not … restricted.”
It’s a partial quote from same-sex “marriage” (SSM) supporter Larry Tanner’s comment just now, and it’s a smoking-gun indictment of SSM advocacy. (Thank you, Larry.)
I’ll repeat his words in full so as not to be guilty of ripping anything out of context:
No. Your definition of marriage is just flawed. Marriage is not by any necessity at all restricted only to man-woman marriage.
I understand you feel your definition is under attack, but I personally don’t feel guilty about your feelings because your position is so clearly and obviously incorrect.
Further context: the thread on which he posted this was connected to my current BreakPoint article, where I argued that the definition of SSM is flawed. A definition tells both what a word’s meaning includes and what it excludes, but SSM broadens the inclusiveness of marriage without any principled limit on that inclusiveness. If it’s up to the principles behind SSM advocates’ definition of the term, marriage could include any relationship that any other interest group wanted to press upon the public.
That’s why I asked Larry,
The last five words of your second sentence — what is it that’s sacred about them? Why didn’t you just stop after “restricted”?
If marriage is “not … at all restricted” to man-woman marriage, is there any other boundary at which it is restricted? How so? Based on what principle?
Can you see where that leads?
Update at 5:30 pm: see the continuing discussion on that linked thread. At this point, Larry’s strategy in response to my questions about principled definition is tied up in a complete refusal to answer. Comments 31 and 33 are especially instructive.