More Marriage: My turn. Kurtz's argument puts the rabbit in the hat, so to speak. Monogamy is not inherently healthy; adultery (strictly defined) is not inherently evil. If marriage is an agreement, than it depends on the terms the two parties agreed to. If the agreement is to have wild flings every month, then that union is successful (and unlikely to result in divorce). If the parties agree to remain faithful (the traditional view), then one getting some on the side is in material breach. The government simply cannot regulate marriage any more than it can tell you what color to choose as your favorite - the government recognizes this because adultery is not a crime. The church, which arguably can regulate marital norms, has no enforcement arm (aside from that pesky threat of damnation), and thus, its merely guilt that keeps one "faithful". If the goal of marriage is to keep them whole, then the agreement between the parties as to how should be irrelevant. If, as Kurtz suggests, the goal is to keep them "moral", then you have to assume everyone buys into your moral construct, which simply cannot be tenable. Gender of the marrying couple would seem entirely beyond the point - unless you are to say that "gays are all alike." Is Kurtz saying that??