Originally Posted by: SPLSo you've done research on the history of marriage? If you had, you would realize that, just like language, the institution of marriage has gone through many, many changes throughout history. And since that's the case, how can there be only one acceptable meaning for the term "marriage"?

[font=trebuchet ms]Experiments in any western society with alternative definitions are inevitabley abandoned. The last attempt at formalised polygamy was abandoned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints over a hundred years ago. The 'open mariages' practiced by some hippies in the 60's never gained formal acceptance. There are many practicing swingers now who openly promote their lifestyle, but this does not validate any change in the definition of marriage.

The problem with leagal recognition and institutionalising of gay unions as marriage is mainly in the language proposed for enacting that agenda. Most particularly the phrase "sexual orientation". This nebulous buzzword has been adopted by members of the lib-left who are too squeemish to say the word "homosexual" as if it is somehow demeaning. It is, in fact, a perfectly proper description of the people whose lives we are discussing. The word "gender" actually refers to the classification of nouns in the Romance laguages, but has been so extensively missused by ignorant lefties, that the distinction is becoming meaningless. For that matter, "discrimination" is the ability to recognise differences, and assess the desirability of various characteristics. That's something you do every time you choose one food over another, but the word has been turned into a pejorative by the loony left. These are examples of perversion of the original meanings, another phrase and concept that has been banished from public view for no good reason. The phrase "sexual orientation" removes society's ability to make any judgement or distictions at all. There is nothing noble or saintly in refusing to condemn bad behaviour. The Christian admonition against throwing the first stone was a warning against killing people for minor offences. It was not a blanket denial of the need to make moral judgements. Refusing to say where to draw the line does not reduce the need for lines to be drawn.[/font]