"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