[kkindt]

It is impossible for two men or two women to have true sexual intercourse.

Have you ever read the book "Study in Words" by C. S. Lewis? He writes about how the enemies of precision commit what he calls 'verbicide' - killing a word that has precision by making a word mean more than it has meant thereby robbing society of clearer thinking and rationality.

Hence the effort to make the word marriage mean something that can happen between two men (or two women) is an effort to destroy the precise meaning of the word and make sure that no word is used to replace it.

For example - once marriage is defined legally to incorporate agreements between men to have some kind of sexual contract with each other what word do we use to refer to the sexual contract between a man and a woman?

Now what happens is we use adjectives in front of a word that didn't need adjectives before - now we will have to say 'heterosexual marriage" and use two words where before we only needed one word.

If the courts rule that sexual agreements between men ought to be considered 'marriage' then we need to push for a new word for the union between a man and a woman. Lets call that kind of sexual agreement 'heterounion" and then create the word "homounion" instead of using the word marriage at all. Now we could push in the law for "heterounions" to have more rights than "homounions" because the society recognizes that such unions encourage a crossing over from one side of humanity to the other a reaching out to more deeply understand the other half of humanity. Hence the society can call "homounions" something less desireable for society and less to be encouraged.

[TheAngryClam]

Then you agree with Bill Clinton that he never had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky?

[jimt]

The thing is, the common-law definition of marriage is a union between one man and one worman. That has stood for thousands of years.

Let the 1% of the population who want to redefine the word invent their own. No matter how hard they want to pretend, their arrangment is not and will never be a marriage.

I can pretend I'm a steamboat all I want, run around insisting others call me "Steamboat", sue until I'm blue in the face, and accuse others of being "steamboatphobic", but it will not change reality.

Similarly the homosexuals.

"If they come down in favor of the plaintiffs, the word 'landmark' is an understatement."

I think "skidmark" is the proper word if they "go down" or "bend over" in favor of the plaintiffs.