Cultural Appropriation, sorta.

This post is just a side-thought of a bigger issue that I'll try to address later.

The basic idea behind cultural appropriation is that another culture, mainly whites, are misusing X culture to their own amusement, whether intentionally or not. By doing this it mocks X culture and therefore it is innately racist. What if we extend this misuse to the social institution of marriage?

In the earliest days, the concept of marriage was between a man and a woman, whether for procreative and/or real estate purposes. This distinct characteristic, a man and a woman, that forms what is widely known as marriage has been slowly changed to mean "between  X party and X party" in order to make room for same-sex pairings. Would this count as a form of cultural appropriation? Defenders of real marriage argue that same-sex "marriage" mocks the original constitutes of marriage that has been upheld for hundreds of years. But here's the catch. Arguments for supporting same-sex "marriage" say that marriage that does not allow two people of the same sex to get hitched to one another is not inclusive, while, say, the banning of a collegiate mascot or symbol that is deemed offensive is the "right thing to do." Statements by school representatives say that they want to be "inclusive", hence the banning of a school symbol or the taking down of a statue.

It can get confusing but that's the hilly reasoning. I'm still figuring out the definition of "inclusive" in both cases. One case is using to allow a certain form to exist; the other is generating feelings of non-offensiveness. The first case seems to be using the word correctly while the second shows up no where in the dictionaries I've referenced.