Let me first clarify that I am not talking about anyone's particular religious definition of marriage, which could be any number of things, but only about a reasonable definition of civil marriage.

I'm going to keep the focus on two people, although I will comment on the numbers issue at the end.

One could, theoretically, logically define civil marriage as a union between two persons for the sole purpose of procreation and child-rearing. However this would leave out many heterosexuals who are currently validly legally married, and they would probably object. Furthermore, it would not exclude gays and lesbians, unless it was specified that the procreation and child-rearing could only involve the biological offspring of both individuals (and this will be possible pretty soon anyway!), in which case even more heterosexual couples would be disqualified.

So, leaving out procreation and child-rearing, one can logically define marriage as:

A legal and social bond between any two persons (*) (regardless of their physiology, skin color, social background, genital configuration, etc.), existing on both private and public levels, reflecting an act of committment to a common life (establishing a common household/family unit), and imparting certain rights and responsibilities.

(*) Excluding, arguably logically, immediate biological relatives, for various complex reasons that I can't begin to fully explain.

Sure, one could word it in all kinds of other ways, but I think this is pretty good.

So, then, given this definition, it makes no logical sense to further define it as a union between two people, one male and one female, because such a union is entirely possible between two females or two males. Some people don't seem to think so, but I argue that this is only because they don't actually know any loving, committed same-sex couples, so it's simply ignorance on their part and no logical proof of anything.

The only thing that is not possible between two females or two males that is possible between one female and one male is penile/vaginal intercourse. (And all of this isn't even bringing into the equation intersex and transexual people!) Everything else is possible. It's possible for them to make a committment, to establish a household, to share rights and responsibilities, to be in love, to raise children, to care for one another, etc., etc. So then, unless we are going to define marriage as a union for the facilitation of penile/vaginal intercourse (sounds more like a marriage between a man and his bottle of Viagra!), rather than a union of two people for the purpose of sharing life together, there is no logical or legally-valid explanation for gender discrimination in the issuance of civil marriage licenses.

(QED, Amen, and Blessed Be!) ;)

Oh yeah, regarding numbers, two is logically arbitary, and I don't agree with it, but, as I've said, the vast majority of people do, and legalizing same-sex marriage isn't going to change that. Ya do what'cha can, and if it's going to be two people, then at least it ought to be any two people, not certain people's definition of which kinds of two people, whether based on race, class, religion, gender, etc., etc.

Before I go on, I want to make a few more comments on the "biological necessity" argument that seems to be at least very implicit in Steve's argument... Most things humans do are not biologically necessary. Homosexual sex is not biologically necessary, however neither is most heterosexual sex. Marriage is not biologically necessary. It's certainly not biologically necessary to be married in order to procreate, so why do you think it's the right thing to do? Celibacy is arguably much more "unnatural" than homosexuality, and does nothing to propogate the species, and yet you have no problem with it... But anyway, let me continue, as I'm sure these things will come up again as I go on...

I'm going to backtrack just a bit to the beginning of the last paragraph:

Steve: Sex is another appetite that is naturally geared toward self-preservation. The reproductive urge is biologically explainable only as a means by which a species is maintained through offspring.

Me: You speak of the "reproductive urge", which is logically tied to the propogation of the species, and that's fine, but let me caution against conflating that with the "sexual urge" which is biologically based on hormones, psychologically based on the desire for pleasure, but also psychologically and socially and dare I say spiritually based on other human needs such as connection to others. I'm afraid that sentence doesn't make too much sense, but suffice it to say that for humans and other intelligent creatures, sex is about a lot more than reproduction.

Steve: The elements of attraction, courting rituals, sexual pleasure, etc., are all tangental to the purpose of the sexual act. They are means by reproduction is accomplished, not the end in itself.

Me: I don't agree that there's only one purpose for human sexual behavior, so I really don't agree with any of this.

Steve: Animals aren't capable of knowing this.

Me: Arguably many less intelligent animals are not capable of intellectually "knowing" much of anything, but as for more intelligent animals, such as primates, bonobos, for example, are capable of, if not logically reasoning, at least instinctually "knowing" that sexuality has other good uses besides procreation, namely helping to maintain peace and social harmony. If you don't know about the bonobos, Steve, I highly encourage you to learn about them. If "God created them" then sure "He did so for a reason", and perhaps it is partly to give us an example of a healthy attitude towards sexuality!

Steve: They follow an impulse, and don't logically conclude that sex will lead to babies.

Me: Sex doesn't always lead to babies, not for humans or animals. Of course only heterosexual vaginal intercourse with ejaculation will lead to babies anyway, and much of sexual activity is other than that.

Steve: They want to satisfy a release of hormones in an act that gives them pleasure. (Animals view pleasure as the object of sexual activity - something that should make us realize that when we treat sex as only about pleasure, we too are being animalistic.)

Me: I don't know that there's anything wrong with being "animalistic". Animals don't do all sorts of horrible things that humans do. If humans were more "animalistic" and "natural", we wouldn't have rape, because animals (at least less intelligent ones, I'm not quite sure about apes) don't use sexual intercourse as an act of "unnatural" violence—males only mate with females when they are biologically "ready" for mating. Furthermore, I dare say that we would do well to focus a lot more on pleasure with regard to sex. It's so often not even a factor in deciding to have or not have sexual contact with another person. Instead, all sorts of other motivations drive us: power, control, duty, honor, self-image, politics, others' expectations, etc., etc. If people only engaged in sexual activity in order to give and receive pleasure, I think the world would be much better for it!

Steve: This means that when an animal exhibits homosexual, or inter-species sexual behavior, they are following a conditioned behavioral response that generates pleasure. (I have personally seen a large black labrador try to mate with a small (male) cat. Not only are the odds high that this would have been physically impossible, but it's also likely that it wasn't because of some strange inter-special homosexual relationship. The cat was clearly put out by the whole affair.) That does not mean that the sexual impulse in animals isn't there to facilitate reproduction. That's what the impulse is for.

Me: You really need to read Biological Exhuberance, Steve, because you seriously underestimate the extent of homosexuality in nature. We're not talking about a few stray cases of males humping other males. Same-sex pairs of animals actually establish "families" and even raise young together (just like with humans!). It's very fascinating. And even if other animals didn't have ongoing same-sex relationships, the fact is that humans do, and, as I will no doubt elaborate much on later, they're not primarily about sex: they're primarly about love, connection, committment, friendship, mutual support, etc., all of the same things heterosexual relationships are about.

And with that, a good night to all!