[tdadams]

Oh, please. Are you PatrioticAmerican or PatronizingAmerican? Yeah, I just can't wait to foist big, obscure concepts like "circular logic" on the unsuspecting.

Perhaps it's you who aren't so familiar with circular logic if you can't see it.

You're arguing that gays can't get married, ostensibly because the law only allows marriage between a man and a woman.
Well, if the law is changed to allow marriage between two people of the same sex they could.
Well, but the law doesn't say that.
Yes, I know but it could.
But marriage is only between a man and a woman.
Yes, but... nevermind.

Circular logic.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Who said anything about law? I said definition, a definition that goes back thousands of years.

You might as well argue that circles should also be allowed to be defined as squares. We wouldn't want to exclude circles from the squares of the world and hurt their poor widdle feelings, would we?

So, no, your "circular reference" doesn't hold water because no one was talking about the law, as your example requires.

If people saw on television two men pounding each other in the butt, the public view of fags would radically change to the negative.

[Publius6961]

You seem to have circular reasoning confused with insanity.

Example:

The legislature of Utah I think, came within one vote of declaring that legally the value of Pi was henceforth 3.2. It was easier to use that way.

Now. If it had passed, it would have been de jury legal. So what?

Would you want the engineers who design your high rise buildings or your jumbo jets to do the legal thing? or the rational thing?

In other words, you can't pass laws that contradict reality.
The definition of marriage since prehistory is simply reality put into words. Not subject to every perversion's whims.