PocketRocket

I realize this was addressed at SWEAL, and he has replied, but I must answer this small part. "Feel" about "their traditions" is what you said. You just made one of my points for me. To you, this is not a debate about legitimacy, it's simply an emotional argument. When an argument becomes emotional, or is based on emotions, then logic is either flawed, or plays no part whatsoever in the debate. It's like when you were a kid playing in the sandbox, and it was "no girls allowed", as if the presence of girls would make the game less fun. And your parent ruined averything by telling you that you had to let your little sister play, too. But hey, no one is asking you to allow any homosexuals into YOUR marriage. They just want their own sandbox to play in, so they won't disturb your game at all

Uh-oh, here I go again.... Now that's just ludicrous. It's the silliest bit of grasping-at-straws I've ever read. Have you seen the movie "Shrek"???? Two ogres got married and are currently in the process of trying to live happily ever after, despite the best attempts to the contrary of the fairy godmother. "What", you gasp to yourself, "Ogres can get married now??? I thought ogres do NOT live happily ever after !!!" But hey, guess what??? It hasn't affected anyone else's marriage. Definition. I have said in this and other threads, in this and other websites, to all of you wonderful folk who cite definitions..... read up on the origin of the words "marry" and "marriage". Read. Research. Find origin of word. Go. Now. Do this thing. Not modern meaning. Origin. You will find, if you bother to look, that "marry" in its original context, simply means "To join together". "Marriage" is "A joining together of..." The "definition" has evolved over time to be used almost, but not quite, exclusively as the joining together of two people. In our popular culture, it is usually two people of opposite sexes. Several answers to this. First, things ALWAYS change. Change is the only constant in the universe. Whatever you look at today, will be something different tomorrow, even if only in the way it is perceived. Second, marriage has already changed, many MANY times. Third, how can you seriously sit there and say making the use of the word "marriage" more inclusive in our society will cause what we consider to be "traditional" marriages to cease to exist??? That's like saying giving women the vote caused men to lose the vote. But I agree that it becomes something different in one regard only, it becomes all-inclusive, and thereby, it could be argued, more legitimate. Well gee whiz, what a great question. When the curling club in your town decided to let women start playing, did that mean the male members of the club were suddenly no longer members??? When women were given the right to vote, was it taken away from men??? When you were big enough to wear long pants, did that mean you were no longer allowed to wear shorts??? If you're sitting in a bar and a couple gays walk in, does the bartender suddenly refuse to serve you??? Let's take it a bit further. In "traditional" marriages, Dad brings home the bacon, "Mom" stays home and cooks and cleans and changes diapers. When married women started getting out in the workforce did that "illegitimize" marriage??? It certainly "changed" marriage, or at least many marriages. Fear of change. That seems to be a major catalyst in the anti-SSM argument. Well sorry, campers, change happens. Always. Get used to it. If SSM is denied this time around, they'll keep pushing. Eventually it'll be passed, whether it happens in months, years, or decades. And a year or two after it's passed, when all the anti-SSM folks wake up and say "Hey, that wasn't so bad, and my spouse is still my spouse, and I don't feel any differently about him/her", then it'll all seem silly in hindsight. And we'll all stop hearing about it and worrying about it. EUREKA: you're a pretty smart cookie, as I told you in another thread. But your assertations in this post were, with all due respects, asinine, hence my asinine replies. If you're going to argue a point, at least argue it honestly, ie: you are against SSM simply because you have an emotional issue with it, as is the case with just about everyone who is against it. Please don't try to apply logic when there is no logical argument to be applied. For the anti-SSM crowd, this is an emotional issue, and nothing more. And to make it all the more stupid, it's an emotional attachment to the PERCEIVED meaning of a single word. And, to make it even MORE stupid, no one seems to be willing to acknowledge to origin of the word.

Actually, it was this morning, and yes, it was just caffeine, although I am not averse to the occasional joint. But thanks for asking. Glad to see you took it all in the spirit intended. One thing is for sure, this debate is not changing anyone's mind on the matter, hence my descent into playful potshots and bad attempts at humour. I will continue to follow this and other threads and continue with the silliness whenever I deem it appropriate.

There's a novel by Robert A Heinlein called "I Will Fear No Evil" which explores that very question. It's a good read which I quite enjoyed. It does, however, get a bit metaphysical towards the end.

TRIAL-AND-ERROR: I am still in a fun mood (too early, and too much caffiene), so please do not take any of the jabs in this post as serious insults. While addressing a couple serious issues, I had a bit of fun and cracked a few jokes. Bad jokes, but jokes all the same. No offense intended. Newsflash: it never was. "Common Sense" The greatest oxymoron of our time. So your problem is strictly with the use of the word "marry". Search the origins of the word. In its original usage, it simply means "to join together". As in "The two pieces of wood were married by a screw". Come to think of it, a good screw is not a reason to get married, but it certainly helps. Damn. And I just bought some popcorn. Actually, sex IS a spectator sport. There's a billion-dollar porn industry out there to prove it. And if it's good on film, how much better live??? But hey, if it bugs you that much, look in the other direction. That's why the good Lord gave us moveable necks, so we can look the other way (or turn the other cheek). But this kind of reminds me of my paternal grandmother, a notoriously strict Catholic. Back in the early 60's, CBC would occasionally show ballet on tv. She would sit there bitching and moaning about how "disgusting" it was when the male dancers wore tights, because you could "see everything". But she wouldn't change the channel. Wiping the drool from her chin was a nearly full-time job during these shows. People that complain about how "repugnant" something is to look at are usually the ones who are the last to actually look away See that thing in your right hand??? It's called a "remote control". You can use it to change channel and thus find a program that does not repulse you. If you have satellite tv, you can find Sesame Street almost any time of day. Here we go. Paranoia and conspiracy theories. Dammit, close that closet door, there's a draught of fresh air getting in here. In the previous quote, you accuse gays of having an agenda. But here, you clearly state that your own agenda is to establish and perpetuate the idea that homosexuality is "abnormal". Dwarfism is not normal, but that does not mean that midgets (sorry, "little people") should be singled out as undesireable. Cutting pieces of your penis off is not normal, but circumcision is still practised all over the world. Poking holes in you body is not normal, but I bet your wife wears earrings. Jabbing sharp objects into your flesh is not normal. Do you have any tattoos??? Scraping layers of skin off your body with a piece of metal is not normal, but I am assuming that you shave. Homosexuality is here. It has always been here. It will always be here. And, it is already out in the open. It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle (or in this case, the closet), although said genie may find some fun uses for the cork Tell your kids I applaud their ability to keep an open mind in the face of adversity. BTW, you're forgiven too. Everyone is, after all, entitled to their own stupid opinion. (And mine is generally stupider than most ) I don't believe you are afraid of gay people. It's just happily-married gay couples that strike terror into your heart. And rightly so. They are, after all, out to rule the world. I can see them now. Armies of jack-booted, limp-wristed men carrying tastefully-decorated assault-rifles, wearing pale-pink uniforms with nice mauve helmets, and patent-leather black belts to add that wee touch of "butch" to the ensemble. The Nazi Gays running rampant across Europe. Dancing their way to Moscow. Skipping merrily along in a bizarre ballet of conquest. Columns upon columns of fuscia-painted mobile artillery. Look out, here come the Pink Panzers !!!!! Interesting. I know a few gay couples who are already married, and legally so. I'll let them know that they never actually got married and it was all just a good dream.

Okay. We've all gotten far too serious. Time to lighten things up a bit. How do I know I can believe you??? Well not for long. I see a big boot being directed at Pioneer by Greg in his short future. This type of trash we don't need. I haven't reported him but... C'mon CAESAR, be a sport. He may make rude, crude, close-minded and nasty posts, but the flipside is that his posts are just SOOOO easy to pick apart, or just fun to mess with. Allow me to demonstrate..... In other words, "my grandpappy voted conservative, my pappy voted conservative, and, by gum, I vote conservative". Very enlightened. This reminds me of a joke I heard a while back. A little Canadian girl goes to school in the USA. One day her teacher says "Everyone who is a proud American, raise your hand". When our little heroin does NOT raise hers, teacher asks why she isn't proud to be an American. "Well" says the little girl, "My daddy is Canadian, and my mommy is Canadian, so that makes me Canadian, too". Teacher says "If your daddy was a moron, and your mother was an idiot, then what would that make you???". The girl replies "American". There you go CAESAR. It's great to have someone like PIONEER on board. Without folks like him, these forums would be so much less fun. You guys are both missing the boat. If we're talking Radical Gay listening material, then it's gotta be Liza Minelli. Life is, after all, a cabaret, old chum. Ah doant cee nuthing rong with trang to halp peepul out in larning to spel beter. In fakt, ah think evry poste with no spellling misteaks shoud get a gold star for a pryze. Or some would say just super-silly. But hey, if it's done in the right way, it can provide great humour (Canadian spelling, you'll notice) value. Well, no good reason, really. But hey, mah pappy married a gurl, and mah grandpappy married a gurl, and mah great-grandpappy married a gurl, and they wouldn't'a stood for none o' this gay crap, so ah ain't, either. Well, mah pappy, and mah grandpappy, and mah great-grandpappy will get really cantankerous if it passes. In fact, mah grandpappy gets cantankerous when ANYTHING passes, like that kidney-stone he passed that time....

Well I should hope so. To give up reading would be just silly. I particularly like Tom Holt novels, myself Enjoy the break, BLUE. See you when you decide to come back.

God help us all if he breaks under torture. They could learn the secret of Kung Fu Grip. (Great post, Kimmy. Hilarious)

And here all along I thought the constituents voted for the politician that they think will represent them the best. Let's see if I recall correctly. Gays are filth that should be locked in the closet, and now we are making the inference that French men are stupid. You're simply a font of tolerance, aren't you??? Ever hear the phrase "Slip of the tongue"??? Or are you going to tell me that never once in your life have you thought one thing, while saying something else unintentionally??? And have you??? Please enlighten us with your war record, once you're done with my previous request for your medical background. BTW, how do you feel about GWB as president??? Because YOU voted for them. Welcome to MapleLeafWeb, Pioneer. I can see it's going to be fun having you around.

2 replies to this comment, 1- I guess that would depend on what you smoke as not all pot is the same potency 2- Can you cite a source for this information??? See reply above. See reply #1 above. As an addendum to that, some of the pot out there right now is crap. No potency whatsoever. Interesting that you have the absolute answer, when as far as medical science is concerned, the jury is still out. I guess you must have a background in medical research. Please post your qualifications for us.

Just a few more examples of hypocrisy in the American foreign-policy attitude. Bush did not originate this kind of outlook, but he's doing a fine job of perpetuating it. You might even say he's nurtured it to a new high.

EUREKA: I am willing to make the sacrifice.....for my country. I will resign myself to the torture. Bring on the miniskirt-clad, thong-wearing jailers. Bring on the torture via "sexual touching". I'll last as long as I can. Should be good for about 45 seconds or so.....

Regarding scare tactics vis-a-vis marijuana.... Ever see the movie "Reefer Madness" ??? Interestingly enough, pot was entirely legal until shortly after the movie's release. 'Nuff said.

Break me!!!!! Please!!!! I promise to be a good boy and confess

I'm on board with Kimmy. Hell, if that's the qualification I'm ready to heal ALL the world's ills.

I think abortion should not only be legal, but should be allowed to be applied retroactively until age 18. It'd sure cut down on juvenile delinquency

Oh dear. We're not comfortable with those bad gay people wanting to have happy lives, are we??? Bad, Naughty Gay people. The nerve of them, wanting to be happy. Filth??? Hmmm. All the gay folks I know are fastidously concious about their personal hygiene. Oh, I get it. You meant to say that the gay people themselves are the filth. Excuse my obtuseness. I'll try to excuse your wonderful tolerance. Stomach upset??? Take a gravol. Aww, but it's dark in the closet, and the Boogey Man lives in there. Ah, but your godlike, absolute, black-and-white certainty in condemning anyone and everyone whose sexual orientation differs from yours leads us to believe you must be in touch with a higher power. Either that, or you took too many gravol. And percoset. And many many people who don't think at all. Hey, I remember him, he was that guy that was a, what's that word again??? Oh yeah, LEADER. The last one this country has had. Like him or hate him, he was a leader. Perhaps you'd rather live somewhere that the state DOES have legal business in the bedrooms, and where "Right Thinking" politicians have seen fit to pass legislation regarding sexual conduct, somewhere like Florida where... Good thing the FLA government is on the case or millions of people could suffer puncture wounds. Or hey, you might like it in Indonesia where.... I guess it's better to get some than losing yours... Or perhaps you'd prefer Jolly Old England where.... So don't park, just keep on driving. That's safer.Or maybe you'de just enjoy that old Southern Hospitality.... Hmm. No temptation, no flattery, let's see that leaves "Hey bitch, wanna screw???" Remember "Deliverance"??? Now we know why those good ol' boys were so, um, friendly Wait, there's more.... *Sigh*....."Put away the shovel, boys. We're staying home tonight". Well, let's try some of the more northern states where..... Damn it. Dead fish make such boring sexual partners, too. Well, let's try the heart of the American government. Surely there's more common sense in Washington where... Hmm. Maybe if the Republicans had not gone after Clinton for having sex with Monica, but rather, gone after him for having it in THE WRONG POSITION.... Oh well, too late now. Or then again.... Sensible.Or... Well, no more kissing "other humans". I guess I'll have to stick to porcupines, except in Florida, of course. Well, maybe on the west coast where attitudes are a bit more tolerant. Somewhere like... I hope your pets have good handwriting skills. Yeah. Government involvement in legislating when it comes to sex has a remarkably good record of "right thinking" as you so aptly put it. (All quotes from http://www.dribbleglass.com/subpages/stran...nge/sexlaws.htm Check 'em out. There's a lot more "Right Thinking" to be found there) The bedrooms were in the schoolrooms??? Bedrooms are carnivorous??? Does this make ANY sense to ANYONE???? A bit paranoid about the school system are we??? Methinks you've listened to a few too many Roger Waters albums. Newsflash; "The Wall" is not a historical document. It is one man's somewhat twisted version of his autobiography set to music. Right thinking Uh-huh

EUREKA :Yet another intelligent and courteous post, which again I must address..... EUREKA!!! How's it going??? Always great to hear from you!!! Now come on, It's not THAT short. And as for effort, well, it's no effort for me to ramble on aimlessly It is, however, an effort for those around me to stay awake once I get on a roll. Thanks for managing to keep your eyes open I disagree. I did not trumpet the "rights" perspective because so many others have taken that tack. I simply set out to debunk some of the less valid arguments against usage of the "M" word. But I'll leave this for a moment. Don't want to put anyone to sleep Consider the recent usage of the following words, along with their traditional meanings which I have endeavoured to supply here: (Note: for comedic purposes, and for reasons of applicability to this thread, I have stuck to words applied to the homosexual condition) Fag (or Faggot)........(A log. More recently a cigarrette) Flaming...(On fire) Homo.....(A grade of milk) Queer.....(Odd or Peculiar) Gay........(Happy, Glad) Queen.....(A female ruling monarch) Hershey Highway....(The road to Hershey Penn) Society doesn't seem to have a problem with changing the usage of words. However, applying the word "marriage" to gays is not to change it's traditional meaning (the lifelong union of two people), simply the groups of people who are allowed, UNDER THE LAW, to use the word. Posh. No one is saying the traditional marriage will, or should, cease to be. There is a legally married gay couple living a very short distance from my home. One of them happens to be a cousin of mine. They married because they love each other. Their commitment to each other is total. To see them together, it's a beautiful thing. Rarely have I seen a couple, straight, gay or otherwise, who are so happy together, and so COMPLETELY dedicated to each other's happiness and wellbeing. Their "marriage" in no way cheapens, threatens, or invalidates my own. Nor has it caused my marriage to "cease to be". (The wife and I managed to do that on our own) (BTW, a few years ago, their next-door neighbour was furious to find out he was living next to a gay couple. Regular red-neck type. But, when you live next door to someone, you are, at times, forced to communicate. After a little while, he came around. Now they are all best of friends and regularly invite each other for dinner, movies, bbq's etc...) Pish and posh (LOL). Do you seriously believe that Gays will be getting married in droves just to facilitate sex??? Nonsense. You don't buy a cow when milk is free. Gays will be getting married because they love each other, want to commit their lives to each other, and want it legally recognized. For them to use the word married, which as I pointed out in my previous post means "joined together" at it's most basic level, should not be a problem. Rights are not an issue. At least not Gay rights. To me, it's more the other way around; What right do WE have to say a significant segment of our society is NOT allowed to use a particular word to describe their relationship??? As for the "change for the whole of society", I think once the issue is over and done with (and Gays WILL get the right to "marry", sooner or later), we will hear no more about it and most of us will just have a good laugh about how it ever became such an issue in the first place. Good answer. Hopefully I'll never have to find out first-hand. EUREKA: Thanks for the replies. You debate from a logical standpoint, and in a respectful manner. It's truly a pleasure, even when we disagree. BLACK DOG: Thanks for the heads-up on the quote boxes. (When the name is in there, the date must be as well. First time I've run into that particular little nag, but I'm still pretty new here. Live and learn. Thanks.)

That's why whenever I'm near the sea, I wear flood pants We all have our own calling, Digby. Your's is fishing (an honorable trade), and spreading the word. Mine is being an internet fool. Glad to see you took my silliness in good spirit. For He too was a fisher, a fisher of men. May you always have a good catch, and may your feet stay dry.

Given how good the Bush administration has been at debunking any and all claims of impropriety from both within and without, I don't believe we'll ever know. But my personal opinion is that there's no way Bush and his boys would have planned the attack and carried it out. As to whether they had more knowledge of the attacks prior to their occurence than they say they did, that's another story. There's simply too much damning evidence to the contrary, all of which is, of course, vehemently denied by the admin and it's supporters. But I don't believe there was any direct cooperation in the attacks by Bush or his posse. Too risky.

T&E: I am not by any stretch of the imagination a supporter of GWB. In fact, I have no use for the guy whatsoever. I believe the man's greatest contribution to the planet will be as fertilizer after he's passed away. On this basis, I hope he is not cremated, as that would be a waste of good material. But even I find this article to be a stretch. It's basically saying that Bush has a mental disease. A disease which has never been diagnosed, or even named, before, so the author basically comes up with some "symptoms", and proceeds to create a name for it to give it credibility. Sorry. I can't buy into it. That he may well be mad, I will not argue. But this particular spin is just too far out for me.

in any case, canadians have the freedom to be wed whatever their orientation, do they not? so as long as there are some religous advocates willing to wed them is that not enough? or must they have whoever they choose to wed them? As I mentioned in another thread, the Catholic Church refused to perform my wedding ceremony because I married a protestant girl. In this regard, a religion is free to discriminate based on the beliefs of the particular church. Hmmmm. Again the quote boxes not working. I'm not doing anything different. Anyone else having an intermittent problem with this??? Discrimination of some churches against marrying gays within their walls would be no different.

Thanks, Dog. But wait, there's more. Heterosexual Figured And yet David is considered to be a highly respected biblical figure. Hmmm. No contradiction there. The word you wanted here was "to". "Too" means "also" or "excessively, as in "too much beer" or "I want some beer, too". And here you need an apostrophe in the word "it's". This makes a contraction meaning "it is". "Its" is a possessive adjective. Good thing, too. (In this context, "too" means "also") Cool Perhaps not, but in the past, Men of God have condoned, and even approved of gay marriage. I am NOT going to do the search all over again that I did for another forum. But if you search online, you can find records dating back to before the middle ages wherein several SSM's were sanctioned by the Vatican. Go ahead, give it a try. It's easy ("it's", in this context, meaning "it is"). "Were". "Were friends of God." Plural. Not singular. I want to grow up to be Solomon. 700 wives. Hmm. That's one a day for almost two years. Hopefully they aren't all nymphomaniacs or I'd die in a very short time. "Hindu" I need a shave, not a haircut. Me too (also). But what I "believe" (not "beleave") is that until you improve your writing ability, you should look into a spell-check program. Good grammar and spelling lends credibility, which some of your posts have been sorely lacking. (No offense intended. This post was meant (mostly) in the spirit of fun. It is not meant to cast derision.) And speaking of fun, I haven't had this much fun in a forum in quite a while. (Hmmm. Again the quote boxes not working right. I don't know if it's ("it is", Digby) my computer or the website. Oh well, too lazy to keep trying to correct it. Sorry folks) Edited again to fix the quote boxes. Thanks to BlackDog for the corrective advice.

And some more stuff, just for fun.... No problem. No argument from me. Just a quick question; how would you feel if your wife decided she wanted to add another husband to the mix??? Would having one wife, and a co-husband or two bother you??? Would you be willing to share the same bed with a woman ond another man or two??? Be careful how you answer. Been there. Done that. You're right. It's quite a lot of fun. But I'm not sure if I'd want to do it on a nightly basis. There is something to be said for being able to dedicate all your attention and affection on one person. But hey, whatever gets you through the night is fine by me. Knock yourself out, buddy. ROFL Whatever. Any doctor will tell you that fresh fruit is good for you, so either one is fine by me. Ah, but the three wives have to agree to having that one guy. It may not be as easy as everyone thinks. Let's look at this from a practical standpoint. One guy, no matter how big his libido, is only capable of sexually satisfying a limited number of women in any given period of time. Not so for a woman. She doesn't need to "get it up". A woman's sexual endurance is limited only by her sexual appetite. She can go on giving and receiving for as long as she desires to do so. So, it might end up that polygamous marriages would favour two or more men to one woman. Hmmm. I wonder how the guys would feel about that??? I'm sure the girls wouldn't mind. Well, her father may have an opinion on that. Her mother as well. They may have a shotgun to back up that opinion. But hey, if the niece agrees, and the parents are for it, it's none of my business. If you're into that kind of thing, bobo, go for it. But watch out for the RCMP. Edited to say: Hmmm, the quote boxes didn't seem to work that time. Oh well..... Edit again. PLEASE NOTE, to correct the quote box situation, I had to put time and date in each quote box that has a name. I did this by copy/paste (lazy), so post times in the quote boxes are inaccurate. Sorry about that.

EUREKA: You speak intelligently, and in a civil manner, but I feel I must address your points here. I've likewise stayed away from this particular one for a while, but for a different reason; been there, done that. Argued this same argument many times in many forums. I should have kept copies of my posts as copy/paste is a lot quicker than writing a new blurb. Perhaps a few who have little skill in debate. But on the other hand, those who are against it have no argument based on logic, they simply cite religion and tradition. Traditions change, and religion is not the basis for law in a secularly-governed society. Or lack thereof... Truer words were never spoke. I believe that an abusive husband cheapens the sanctity of marriage. I believe people who break their vows cheapens the sanctity of marriage. I believe divorce cheapens the sanctity of marriage. I believe adultury cheapens the sanctity of marriage. No individual marriage is "sanctified" in and of itself. It's sanctity is based on the fidelity of the parties involved in the marriage. Celebrity marriages broadcast on live TV cheapen the sanctity of marriage. Gimmick weddings wherein a couple is wed while skydiving/scuba diving/bungee jumping etc...cheapens the sanctity of marriage. How do you feel about the sanctity of Bill Clinton's marriage??? I am sure that Monica would call it into question. Marriage has been altered many times in history. The "traditional" vows were, for the woman, to "love, honor and obey". These vows were used in virtually all Christian churches for hundreds of years. Few women these days will utter the "obey" line. What about ceremonies??? Is a Maori wedding ceremony with drums and goat's blood and naked dancers less valid than a Christian ceremony??? What about some of the tribal ceremonies where the newlywed bride had to spend her wedding night in bed with the groom's father??? Since some of these traditions went on for hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of years, you should consider them valid as long standing traditions. But they certainly don't bear much resemblance to our Christian/western concept of marriage. The word "Marry", in it's most basic context, means "to join". Two pieces of rope may be married by a knot. Two pieces of wood married by a screw, or a nail (interesting how those two words are also used in slang to describe the physical joining of two people). By this definition, any joining of two, or even more, people would fit quite nicely. But, "He was not married to the idea of radical change". Currently, western society is, by and large, "married" to the concept of marriage as the lifetime union of a man and a woman. BTW, what do you think of a married couple, when one of the people has had a sex change??? A woman who used to be a man, or vice-versa. Should she/he be marrying a man or a woman??? Which would be proper??? Obviously, one of the choices, by your thoughts, would cheapens that good ol' sanctity of marriage. Please answer that one question if no other. Anyone. Nonsense. As per various examples I have given above, and many many more all over the world, marriage is many different things to different people. Marriage is a word, nothing more. It is a noun meaning "a joining together of". Period. My own marriage is not affected by the actions, attitudes, customs, traditions or opinions of anyone else. Anyone who IS affected by any of the factors above, is simply insecure in their own marriage. My contention is simply this, the opposition to SSM is nothing more than people clinging to tradition in the face of world change. Tradition. Little else. Religious reasons have been given, but that too is simply tradition in disguise as there are too many examples of things that have been previous condemned as being "sinful" which are now accepted by Christians everywhere. Well, here's a news flash. Traditions change. Always. All traditions. Think of any single tradition that has stood the test of time, and I will point out some way in which the tradition itself has changed. Thanksgiving??? It wasn't originally meant to be a "football" celebration. Christmas??? Think commercialism. Think Santa Clause. Do you believe the Earth is round??? Christianity rejected that idea as "sinful". Does the Earth Orbit the Sun??? See above. Is the Earth flat??? No??? You guessed it. At one time it was "sinful" to think otherwise. How do you "traditionally" treat an adulturess??? I haven't seen too many women walking around lately with a big letter "A" on their foreheads. Haven't heard about any witches being burned at the stake lately. And yet these were religious-based traditions in their time. Interestingly enough, any change to most of the examples above was resisted by the conservatives of each era. But that's what "conservative" means, to resist change and to cling to tradition. But, as a famous man once said, "The only constant is change itself". Or, if you prefer, the reverse French spin "Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose". (loosely, the more things change, the more they stay the same) BTW, sexual communion, as you call it, has never required the formality of being wed. The only "facilitation" it requires is for two (or more) people to just go ahead and do it. The word "Marriage" is simply a word. Nothing else. If you or anyone else feels threatened by the fact that it means something different than your personally approved perception of the word, that's too bad. Sooner or later, SSM will be approved and legislated. It's called progress, and it continues in the face of conservative opposition. As it always has, and it always will.