DE you confuse a lot of issues. It's not a question of whether your aunt and uncle are good people or even good parents. If you don't like the rules of your government, you need to change them. If they didn't get married, then they didn't qualify for whatever benefits the government offered to MARRIED people.
I need not define harm b/c you're the one who brought up the issue by stating there was no harm being done. I'm merely requesting that you define your terms. Also, your playing semantic games on the whole question of "should" . Perhaps you would have had an easier time if I'd typed "should be allowed to" in it's place. You also miss the point, seemingly on purpose no doubt. I, at least, am not saying that gays should not be allowed to cohabitate in a secular society without some protections of law. I merely agree with those that say there's no need to call it marriage. And you clearly don't read too closely either. I didn't say that infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, but that it was a nonissue to me either way. The original point was stated clearly enough already. Many people who push for gay marriage cite that their opponents are being hyopcritical on the issue of marriage for the purposes of procreation. If infertile couples can marry, as well as people who want NO childeren, then why should homosexuals not be allowed since they can't either. Makes no difference to me either way whether infertile couples or those not wanting children are allowed to marry or not.