Sorry fistful - you missed the point.
It was Balog's point, as I recall, and I think you missed it. As he said, you moved the goal posts from "discriminating against gays [sic]" to defining marriage down to every last detail.
And are now obviouly making the error of moral argument by dictionary.
A moral argument? Oh, yeah, see I like to make plain that my defense of marriage is free of moral judgments or religious ideas. Which, if you go back through this thread, you'll notice. But thanks for playing. No moral or religious talk is necessary to point out that marriage is heterosexual.
Buddhists, muslims, and Hindus and various non-Christian societies all tolerated or formally recognised same sex arrangements over the years. The fact that Christians didn't translate those words as "marriage" into English is a judgment call, which you're now trying to twist into a moral argument because it comes from the dictionary. Well, it ended up there because of a judgment call in the first place.
No, once again, you find yourself making presumptions about someone's point of view. I'm not talking about marriage as a word found in a dictionary. I'm talking about marriage itself. Also, please note that a society's moral acceptance of homosexuality is not at all the same thing as its having homosexual marriages. Or if your "recognized same sex arrangements" amount to marriages, why not come out and call them marriages? I suspect that, like everyone else whose gone looking, you can't come up with much of anything. And, besides which, you ought to know it's absurd to claim the government has an obligation to recognize same-sex unions, just because Civilization X on Continent Y recognized them in 245 B.C., or what-have-you.
