Checkmate.

as to your first concern, modern society provides for the adoption of children for the non-child bearing. whereas romance between a man and woman was once the sole impetus for parenthood, it is not any longer. homosexuals, both single and in relationships, can and do adopt children with some degree of frequency.

marriage is beneficial to society for all the reasons you have enumerated. for sake of argument, i will even concede the dubious notion that, on the aggregate, results would improve if every born child were the product of a married man and woman. but that is clearly and demonstrably not the case. many children are born into unstable and dangerous circumstances. others still are born into stability and thrust into instability as their parents succumb to tragedy. these children are funneled into a system of adoption.

the united states has more needy children in undesirable living situations than quality environments to place them in. as such, societal goals should focus not only on promoting a nuclear family that can produce and provide for its own children. society should also promote the formation of as many stable, enduring family units as possible, with an eye toward improving the lots of adopted children and children placed within legal guardianships. in short, a stable family unit is a societal benefit worth promotion, whether or not that family unit is traditionally fertile. the bounds of fertility are no longer a significant obstacle to child rearing.

as to your second concern, i find it disingenuous. there is no slippery slope. a revision of the definition of marriage to include a desirable, comparable, common, but heretofore taboo relationship does not invite further expansion unless that further expansion is similarly beneficial to society. each on its own merits. the examples you are raising are either exceptionally rare, non-beneficial (or detrimental) to society, or materially different from an expansion to include homosexual relationships. polygamy involves a slew of issues that would subvert the intended societal benefits of marriage. to be brief, it would almost certainly increase the number of single parent households while decreasing paternal investment in child rearing. incest is unhealthy for the child. cases of intended 3-person marriage are exceptionally rare.

Enjoy your Taco's pal.

i'm pretty sure marriage already meets this definition, even without any revisions

Of course not. Please reread my earlier posts concerning the ability of a government to promote, permit, or prohibit. Single parenthood is a consequence many different scenarios. At no point is anyone "against" single parents. Should the prevalence of single parenthood be discouraged through a regime that promotes the nuclear family? Absolutely, this is precisely was the marriage integrity movement is all about. (See earlier points on no fault divorce, etc.)

Also, please reread my previous post explaining the "exception" language you have taken issue with. I have clarified and elaborated upon what I wrote to address your concern.

Single parenthood is permitted, but not promoted by the government (and especially not prohibited). It is an unfortunate occurrence that exists, but it would be completely disingenuous to ignore that it exists.

Shut the fuck up with your wrong definitions buddy.

And fuck single parents? Don't like my opinion, fuck you also.

inb4 christian bigot.

I think you may find more success if you rebutted the opposition with a bit more thought and a bit less FOAD.

angry

Man, it isn't worth it. There has been essentially several thread like this the past couple weeks with the same shit being spewed back and forth. Most I would like to point out, with no credible sources and anything from most people to consider a credible source in this argument is wikipedia, half the time to a page that isn't even relevant. I have come to a conclusion though from all of this. Atheists are stupid.

oh and

2013, deal with it.

let me be honest with you, nobody is going to reread your posts. your posts are kind of rambly and very disjointed. there's zero flow in logic from one point to the next.

also, you try to pass a lot of opinion off as fact. a lot.

so you should feel blessed that i obliged you the first time, and if you feel that you didn't get the point across the first time, the passive aggressive "you can't read" doesn't help your stance.