Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"L Smith" wrote in message
hlink.net...


This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics,
where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you
the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as
possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from
a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in
agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and
until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the
topic is impossible.




Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at least
one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage cannot
exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex.

1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's
proposed constitutional
amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage.

2) This is indeed the traditional definition currently accepted in the
western world. It is
far from a universal definition, though. Until fairly recently Mormon's
believed firmly
in polygamy, and polygamy is still a common practice in much of the
world (the general
rule being that you had to be able to support the entire family if you
elected to have more
than one wife). And IIRC, polyandry is an acceptable approach in parts
of Tibet and
other areas where life is considered so hard, more than one "wage
earner" is required
to support a family.

3) Many traditions are good, but that doesn't mean they should be
unchangable. All
traditions should be examined periodically to see if they still make sense.

4) If we accept your definition, then the question we need to ask is
"what is your view
on same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being
referred to when most
people are talking about "gay marriage".

Rich Lemert