Legal terminology, yes. I don’t at all care what they’re called, as long as they’re called the same thing. That’s actual equality, not the wink-wink bullshit inequality of separate-but-equal.
Edited: Because that whole line of thought is a stupid analogy…
When you studied for your driver’s test, did you do so from your state’s Sedan Handbook?
I don’t necessarily want the law to call 1M1F marriage. But I don’t want it to call same sex unions marriage. If the law calls them both spousecontracts, that’s fine with me. But I think you’ll find your side won’t accept that.
-
point to the part of “marriage is the union of one man and one woman”, that you consider gibberish.
-
Explain why.
-
Point to any definition of marriage from a dictionary from Western Culture that either A) does not stipulate that marriage is comprised of a woman and a man or B) was written at a time that such an omission is most likely chalked up to it not being stated because it was assumed. Naturally, if you could provide one of your dictionaries from the 5th century that that included sam sex couplings, that would be very advantageous to your position.
Feel free to take your time and craft a good and well-researched answer. I need to get some work done now.
No because the law is the same for all of them, even though they are recognized as being different. Thanks for making my point. 
You cannot seriously be proposing that the dictionary’s definition is at all relevant to this debate, that we ought to determine what to call the institution based on what the dictionary says.
Actually, it’s most likely YOUR side who will have fits about it. I’d actually be fine, in an absolute sense, with the states deciding to rename all existing marriages and all such unions in the future as “civil unions” as long as they were open to both heterosexual and same-sex couples. But my prediction would be that the people having shitfits about it will be doing so because “the gays destroyed ‘marriage’, just like we said they would!” (Which is why I’ve objected to the idea before, not because I disagree with it).
Statecraft via Noah Webster. That pretty much defines the level of political thinking you’re working on.
One man, one woman. You’d contort all manner of logic to get around that simple statement. Interracial marriage is a canard. But make sure you try to convince everyone that it’s relevant. Repeat after me, Interracial marriage does not help SSM marriage advocates because it consists of a man and a woman.
Easy, right?
There seems to be an argument here that gay marriage is as much a part of human history and experience as heterosexual marriage. You can’t argue against the historical definition of marriage. And it’s not about dictionaries, it’s about millenia of human culture. Gay marriage inherently means a re-definition of marriage.
+1
No, it’s an accurate definition of what you are doing.
If you were standing on a soap box and inveighing about how it is wrong for different races to marry, it would be obvious that what you are offering is nonsense.
But you’re trying to couch it in terms of tradition and biology to diffuse the issue and make it seem more reasonable.
I don’t care if you think that gays shouldn’t have rights because of your religion or because your father talked about how vile homosexuals were while you were young and impressionable. The reasons behind your desire to deny them rights is irrelevant. But your inability to form a cogent argument to support your position is the issue.
And as for interracial marriage being banned, it was traditional for a long while in this country. We stopped because we became better people. Same thing with gay marriage, eventually the angry, spiteful group that want to keep people in love from getting married with either die off, or become so marginalized that they will be unable to veto it.
Wrong-There are different laws for different classes of vehicles, which you would have known if you had read the book.
You might want to skip the word games here, bucky-you’re in the major leagues now.
Marriage is constantly redefined. Hell, the Anglican Church is one byproduct of that redefinition.
I’m still jaw-dropped that magellan thinks the dictionary definition even matters in this debate. Magellan, are you serious?
Of course, you would. You don’t care about what is good for society, your polygamy comment made that clear. You just care that society give you a widdle cuddle-wuddle so you can feel better about yourself. So, sure, invite polygamy, get rid of the word marriage, so what? As long as jay jay can walk around with his head held a little higher.
On second thought, no.
Post #173. +1 rescinded.
Reread the exchange. We are arguing over the word “gibberish”. And yes, words matter. everyone beliees that. If they didn’t there would be no insistence that gay couples use the word. Correct?
Now, I really do have to run.
Later.
That was funny. Nicely done. Even more effective due to the fact that I still associate your name with a moderator.
The reason I’m so surprised that you think the dictionary definition matters is that the dictionary definition agrees with me:
I’m glad to see that, now that the dictionary recognizes the word’s changed meaning, you will too. Surprised, but glad.
Which has what to do with anything?