Sounds fine. But if a strong marriage of any definition improves society, then the following marriages also need to be allowed to provide all sexual deviants with equal protection under the law:
1. Any number of individuals of legal age of consent per marriage.
2. No restrictions on any familial relation.
3. No restrictions on preexisting diseases.
4. No restrictions at all, other than being the age of legal consent.
This is the point where people get absurd to demonstrate absurdity by mentioning children, animals and office equipment as participants. I am not suggesting that. But if we have to lower the bar to fit homosexual relationships into the marriage definition, the bar must be lowered enough to fit it without discriminating against others with the same concerns. We cannot create a law that says; Steve Jones and Bob Smith may get married, but not Larry, Edith, Emily and Denise. If you want to destroy the whole system by doing so, fine. Break it. The normal majority will create a the new standard with the lesson in tow, even if it takes decades.
