"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

source:dictionary.com

is that definition wide enough for today's world?

1) personally speaking, i would be more than happy if gay marriage is legalised. social approval is a different agenda and in a country like ours, it will take decades if not centuries. but i guess, legalisation should be done first. that will keep the negative attitude against gay marriage under check. REMEMBER, gays are NORMAL human beings. it's just the way they think and perceive sex/marriage.

2) social vs legal. which should come first?. i mean just as i said in case of gay marriage, the social perception will shape up in favor of them with time, but legalisation is necessary at the moment.

Let's look at the bigger picture:

3) gay marriage is just one instance we are facing today. it's the word "marriage" where the focus should be on. we should focus on its definition, form and manifestation. can it include all form of bondages?

4) so say, if fair amount of population practice "direct/indirect sibling marriage" (if that is the right terminology), why not legalise sibling marriage? (social approval may/will follow afterwards).

why not legalise marriage with animals? (ditto)
why not legalise any form of marriage that is/will be seen in the society?

let us redefine the word "marriage". let it make completely liberal and boundless. let it include anything and evreything.

LooTe

I am 100% agree with Einstein

“ALL marriages are dangerous”
“Marriage is but slavery made to appear civilized”
“Marriage is the unsuccessful attempt to make
something lasting out of an incident”

"moreover 9 is underage and hence illegal in almost all countries"

I already addressed this statement. In many countries, they're trying to change the age of consent. Also, read this one more time, as it looks like, nobody read it when I provided the link previously. As I said, legalizing gay marriage is opening a pandora's box.

" judge in The Hague said a political party formed by pedophiles could not be banned because it had the same right to exist as any other party and is protected by democratic freedoms. The Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity Party has caused outrage in the Netherlands since it was formed in May. It advocates a cut in the age of consent to 12, from 16, and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals. "

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E5DC163FF93BA25754C0A9609C8B63

Well if there is a consent from both partners and the law welcomes it...then what's the big deal, just like gay we will head towards another revelation...pedophile society..hehe...let's bring them all in!

that was my original point

ladies and gentleman,

welcome to the 21st century hehehe


LooTe

NO DEFINATION...............ITS ALL ABT SEX WELL DONE

Great work Can_U_Guess for being so active for the day, man you deserve some kinda medal.

As for Definition of Marriage, if marriage was for sex every would have avoided that. It it was for sex everybody would have been boyfriends and galfriends. Any disagreement on that?

What do you need to define marriage?

There is NO more trust in marriage of Nepalese people whol live in outside country.

I heard that people go to America and get marriage with White woman for GREEN card. After they get GREEN card, Nepali man do divorce and go to Nepal and get marriage with innoceant Nepali girl.

Some Nepalese man had couple of babies from previous white and philipinos woman.... but still they go to Nepal and cheat to innoceant Nepali girl and her parents.

This kind of activities are social crime. It is looser act, It is being a irresponsible and crooks, It is felthy and low life.

Haina aja kaal loote kukur lai ke bhako ..khali khahile biha ..kahile celebacy ..bhancha...kartik auna lageko le ho..hehehe..:P