On the definition of marriage

Earlier today I was pointed towards this video in which Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation answers a question from a audience member who wants to an explanation as to why he, as a gay man, could not receive a tax break the way a straight couple could.  Anderson at first attempts to evade the question by broadening the focus of the question to include any potential marriage (of whatever size).  Two or three times the gentleman attempts to refocus the answer to the question which was asked and it was not until the last time that Anderson finally answers the question.  And when he does his answer is that "You can't get married." because a same-sex marriage, to him, is not a marriage at all.

His answer relies on the acceptance of his definition of marriage as exclusively that between a man and a woman, or as he says it, "a union of sexually complementary spouses."  In other words, because your marriage does not fit my definition of marriage, it is not really a marriage.  This answer begs the question as to why this particular definition is the correct definition of marriage.  I will grant that it is possible that Anderson answered this question earlier, but I can only work with what is in front of me.  I have looked at several things on the Heritage Foundation website, but each time the definition seems to be assumed rather than explained.

Mr. Anderson also gives a stunning display of simplistic logic.  Since marriage is "a union of sexually complementary spouses" and a union of two men or two women does not fit this particular definition, there is no discrimination involved in denying a same-sex couple access to the tax benefits available to a straight married couple.  After all, homosexuals have full access to heterosexual marriage, so there is no discrimination.  All you have to do is marry someone you are not attracted to at all and therefore undermine the very thing Mr. Anderson purports to want to defend.  If this makes sense to anyone, please enlighten me because his idea of non-discrimination rests on his definition of marriage which is what is being argued here.

I, for one, would like an explanation as to why marriage *MUST* be defined as "a union of sexually complementary spouses".  The most common answer is that this is the "traditional" definition of marriage.  While I have no objection to tradition per se, I do object to it being the sole reason to carry out a discriminatory policy.  After all, it was "tradition" to have a man marry multiple women, have marriages be arranged by parents, not to allow people of different races or religions to marry, etc.  So why can the definition of marriage be stretched to encompass these and not same-sex marriages?  Oh yeah, that's right.  Because being a homosexual is a choice!  See here for my reaction to that.

Will leave this alone for the moment.  May write more after I have more of a chance to read his stuff.