Reply #19: Ah, digression! [View All]

My understanding about marriage is that it is about property. Human and other property. A way for the male of the human species to assure that he maintained control of his lands, coins, and sperm end-products.

The concept of marriage in the western world as romantic and designed for societal continuation through controlled coital coupling is new and came along when those organization development fellows in the Roman church noticed that the best way to grow world christianity, aka catholicism, would be through high birth rates among believers, along with real property acquisition through other means.

The case for gay marriage is a case about property. The case against it is rooted in the romantic view promulgated through PR by whomever might profit from that view at any particular time.

If I may be so bold as to speak for Mrs. Rabbit, I would guess that she bought into some view of the concept of marriage that was not related to sperm end-products -- although it may have been desired as a way of protecting shared property from end-products of earlier coital coupling with others of the species.

The concept of marriage is just the concept of marriage. Vaguely undefinable in the way of understanding intelligence tests in that intelligence tests test what intelligence tests test. At this time among some circles, defining marriage as not gay is profitable.

The argument you have entered is a non contest in that the speakers (you and pontificus) each define their own words, define them differently, and then use them as though the definition is shared. And then they define each other as bush bubbahs, right wing morons, and worse. At what point does the discussion become a lingual misuse. But I digress.