Prove that marriage is objectively defined in terms of reproduction.Okay. Objectively speaking, does a gay relationship even have the CAPACITY for reproduction? NO. Does a heterosexual relationship? YES.
Not just legally; objectively.
Same question - why is marriage objectively defined in terms of reproduction?The nature of the relationship--that is objective.
There you go again, acting as though there is some definition of marriage "embedded in nature", or something.The objection to inter-racial marriage was actually based on what marriage, by nature, is. The whole point was that becasue marriage, by nature, leads to the production of off-spring,
You are still yet to prove this.
If you truly believe this, you are incredibly naive.The objection to gay marriage is different. No one is objecting to gay marriage becasue they are afraid of homosexuality, gay relationships, hatred of gays, the desire to discriminate against gays, etc.
If that's not your objection, fair enough. But to deny that there is a huge contingent of religiously-motivated opposition to gay marriage (impelled by homophobia, indeed) is simply not tenable.
... why?The objection to gay marriage is based on the fact that marriage cannot be defined based on the whims of the government.
And again, this unproven notion that there is something that marriage "is" that transcends alternative definition.The objection to gay marriage is the exact same objection to polygamy, incest relationships, bestiality, etc: that isn't what a marriage IS.
Still waiting for proof.
There was a time when it did not recognize interracial marriage.Huh? You mean historically, there was a time when societies recognized the marriage of homosexuals?
Then, the definition changed, and now it does.
Which is logically identical toThe argument is that------there is no basis NOT to allow any kind of relationship and call that a marriage.
"there is a basis to allow any kind of relationship, and call it marriage."