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

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.


That, and the fact that marriage is not a federal issue per the US
Constitution.



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.


I don't see how that definition necessarily excludes polygamy or polyandry.



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.


And proposed changes should be examined to see if they make sense. Same-sex
marriage does not make sense.



4) If we accept your definition,


It's not my 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".


Same-sex civil unions do not make sense.