This one:
Got it, a webpage that provides no citations and a bunch of laws that have never been challenged for Constitutionality. Color me unimpressed.
To get back to the OP, a marriage is composed of two individuals, a husband and a wife. The former is defined as being male, the latter as being female.
Says who?
I thought marriage was a union of one dude, and lots of women in his harem. And I can back this up both by pointing at current cultures, historical precedent, biblical precedent, and natural precedent (seals, specifically).
So where’s your second wife? Eh? Eh???
I like how you didn’t link to the definition of marriage
Or, to give an even closer “natural” example, in our three closest relatives, gorillas typically form families of one male and a harem of females, chimpanzee females mate with multiple males when in estrus, while bonobos are bisexual party animals. None of them typically form male-female bonded partnerships.
Absolutely true, but I wouldn’t be able to cite Dr. Strangelove then. 
World meant world and dog. When I was in Egypt our guide spoke about how the marriage she was in eventually including two wives, and none of the American, British and Australian people on the tour had any trouble understanding her.
Your claim was that SSM proponent say that marriage laws today allow it. That they do not is not really in question, especially when your case involves Prop. 8. Your argument about equal protection could easily allow the constitutionality of miscegnation laws, so I’m not exactly convinced, but we can leave that to the courts. Saying a marriage law is unconstitutional because it bans SSM is far different from the claim that it doesn’t actually ban SSM. Beyond that, the point of the claim refuted in the OP is that marriage has a specific meaning beyond the legal one.
In his response to me. I don’t think this is in dispute in states which don’t allow SSM. Whether this definition is constitutional is another matter, but until it is ruled so the law is the law.
Not in Egypt it isn’t, and one can argue that this comes from a longer tradition than our definition.
Now, you can give a couple of reasons why this definition should not extend to the US.
-
It is not Christian/Jewish. That’s probably an unconstitutional reason.
-
There are valid social reasons to disallow this type of marriage. I could maybe buy this.
-
The majority doesn’t like it, so screw the minority who would willingly enter into polygamous marriages. Majority support is no reason to violate rights.
In the Prop 8 court case they tried to give social reasons against SSM and failed miserably. I see no sign that SSM opponents would stop if the vote turned against them, so it can’t be 3. (Plus, there is not a vast majority against.) That leaves 1.
By default, those state laws don’t have to be challenged for Constitutionality. Marriage is not defined nor addressed in The United States Constitution therefore they are rights reserved for the states (Amendment #10).
This is sensible since you can’t bring up every single law on the local books before the USA Supreme Court. Jaywalking is illegal?!?! Who says?!?! Has “jaywalking” ever been decided by the Supreme Court?!?! It would be total legal gridlock if all laws had such a high bar to pass.
Having said that, there are various ways around state laws via the USA Constitution by using creative interpretations of Amendment #14 (“equal protection” clause).
What the 10th Amendment giveth to the states, the 14th Amendment taketh away. 
I disagree with the OP. I can say, “My toaster and my blender are married to one another. They love one another,” and people can understand what I mean and also think that I’m either misusing those words or that I’m insane.
Yes, words mean what the speaker and the audience agree on as their meaning, and in this case speaker and audience would agree on what the words mean–but people can then say that what I’m describing is impossible. Similarly, someone could understand what “Bob and Bill are married” means and disagree that it’s possible for them to be married.
A person who did that is using a poor definition of marriage, I agree, and I’d do my best to persuade them that Bob and Bill getting married is no more unreasonable than Bob and Brenda getting married. But their objection would take the form of objecting to my saying my toaster married my blender, and absent arguing that their definition sucks, their objection would appear reasonable.
I rather suspect they’d think you were making a joke, and laugh their heads off. A lot of humor is using well understood terms and concepts in the wrong places.
I wonder how many of us are sick and fucking tired of hearing about gays and their problems?
Every day it is gay this and gay that. I mean, really, WTF do you gays want? No, I don’t want to watch you kiss and hold hands in public. No, I don’t want my children seeing this shit or be indoctrinated by your “lifestyle”. I want gays to quit lying to us stating obviously wrong things that people are born gay. If you gays want the rest of us to feel for you, don’t have “gay pride” parades wearing leather chaps, dancing half naked and being a fool. Saying fuck you to society doesn’t make us love you anymore.
Let’s say that you and your partner both have dicks. You want to get married. Fine. I’ll tell you how, right now. In any state in the union.
What’s required:
Lawyer
Notary Public
Paper
Typewriter/word processor
You and your “lover” draw up a legal contract. Partners do this all the time, even heterosexual ones.
1/2 of the home, 1/2 of the assets, joint bank accounts, etc. Set aside what each partner desires if one falls ill. Let it be known in the contract that the other person will be the primary care giver of the other. Anything and everything that “queer rights” activists want can be legally drawn up.
Second, find a gay church. Open the phone book. Hire a minister, rent the church, dress up (or not) and go get your ass married. I know pronounce you, man and man. Have a service, smash cake in your faces and then have all the anal, oral, and watersport sex you want on your honeymoon.
Easy. That’s the Straight Dope. Now will you gays please for fuck sake, get lost?
Yeah! Fucking gay people, being all gay and shit. Stop doing that.
I wonder how many of us are sick of homophobes spouting nonsense?
If you were a lawyer, you’d be sued for malpractice for giving this advice. You cannot get all the rights and benefits of marriage through contracts (such as tax benefits or immigration preferences, for example). Some states will not recognize contractual agreements covering medical care decisions or end-of-life decisions. I could sit here and list any number of things which won’t get covered by your proposed arrangement. You really shouldn’t spout such nonsense when it’s clear you’ve never even made a cursory study of family or marriage law.
Obvious not many, or there wouldn’t be majorities in many states willing to pass laws that have no purpose other than to harass them. Nor would so many people try so hard to find out who is and isn’t homosexual.
Tough. Maybe they don’t want to see you kiss and hold hands in public. Grow some skin.
Don’t be ridiculous; it is of course obvious that they are. All the scientific evidence, not to mention common sense, is against the silly claim that gays choose to be gay (and what would their motive be for that anyway?) Nor can anyone be indoctrinated into being gay any more than they can be indoctrinated out of being gay. And your children should see homosexuals out and being treated as equals both because that will hopefully teach them civilized behavior, and because they may well be homosexual themselves.
Society never did. Society has always been primary composed of bigots who hated them, and hated most of humanity in general.
Nonsense. That not only takes a significant sum of money but is a pale shadow of the legal status of actual marriage.
Here’s the text of Virginia’s Affirmation of Marriage Act:
Notice that a PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT between same-sex persons is prohibited in VA. Furthermore, here’s the text of Virginia’s Marshall-Newman Amendment:
See where it prohibits a LEGAL STATUS FOR RELATIONSHIPS which approximates marriage?
Individual organisms can have intent, but you said “what nature intended.” Nature isn’t an organism. It’s a concept representing biological life.
From what I understand this also refers to organisms and not to “nature.” Marriage isn’t drawn from the natural world in any particular way. It’s a human social institution.
I’m Muslim, so obviously I’m against same-sex sex relations. The reason I’m against this kind of relation is that it’s not permissible in my religion and that I see it as deviation from human nature. Logic has nothing to do with my view. I can’t understand why people opposing same-sex marriages are trying to LOGICALLY force their argument. The way I see it, they share my view about same-sex marriages. But my view has no place in America. So, they try to dress their argument in a nice American logical gown.