Opponents of marriage equality often claim to be against same–sex marriage because it “Changes the definition of marriage”.
The appropriate response is, “So what if it changes the definition?” It is difficult to see how expanding the scope of something so that more people can enter it is changing its definition. But nevertheless, if one insists that that really is changing the definition, then a direct analogue to same–sex marriage exists.
That analogue is, of course, women’s suffrage. If expanding the scope of marriage to allow same–sex couples in changes the definition of marriage, then expanding the scope of voting to allow women to vote changed the definition of voting. And if changing the definition of marriage is a bad thing, the exact same thing could be said with regards to women’s suffrage. This hence raises a question for opponents of marriage equality:
Are you against women’s suffrage too? If you are, you’re consistent, but be prepared to be called a misogynist and to be condemned for having such out–dated views.
If, on the other hand, you aren’t against women’s suffrage, then it is meaningless to claim that changing the definition of marriage is bad. By not thinking that women’s suffrage is a bad thing, even though it changes the definition of voting the same way you claim same–sex marriage changes the definition of marriage, you are implicitly admitting that changing the definition of something isn’t bad in itself. Therefore, being against same–sex marriage on the grounds that it changes the definition of marriage isn’t really meaningful as it you haven’t shown that changing the definition of marriage is actually a bad thing.