Totally agree. If it weren't for lawyers, life would be so much simpler. Needed? Nah. Most folks know what words mean and how they apply in life.

Sometimes my A <> everyone else's A :)

YES! Ripside, although including ", with or without procreation as a factor " is, imnsho, an unnecessary and artificial constraint. Put the period after 'regard.'

B's arguments still don't hold water for me, because decades ago, homosexual coupling DID exist, but as an apparent tiny minority, that slice of society could easily be denied rights and privileges accorded to 'legally married couples' (i.e., hetero couples) by simply ignoring them.

Sort of like, "but in the beginning not everyone owned slaves, so there was no big deal about it..."

Then, with changes in society and communications amongst its members, many of those 'downtrodden' discovered there WERE many more like them, and they found their voice just like other groups have, and kept asking 'why are you treating us differently?' and weren't satisfied with the answers they got.

Blarman seems to be stuck on the idea that there is ONE and ONLY ONE 'valid' definition of 'marriage,' and he knows what it is.

That's a logical fallacy, but a really hard one to change anyone's mind on... like other similar issues. Hey, let's talk politics, religion, economics... LOL!

I agree with a lot of that, B, but from a slightly morbid point of view, your comment, "Without people to govern, the State withers. As the people grow, the State also grows, thus it has an inherent concern towards its own continuance and growth."... can be a good description of cancer, too. From 'cancer's point of view,' more is better and growth is wonderful.

So, the metaphor for controlling government is the desire for self-perpetuation and continued/increased power of its members, and 'marriage' and its associated laws and benefits are ways to increase the numbers of future recruits.

Yes, I agree... that's probably where the desire comes from, and yes, it's a crappy justification.

I just don't support the 'define marriage in a way to support those goals' view... :)

Two points I'd like to make...

First, 'evolution' is usually described as having one of two driving forces that 'control' it.... Divine Hand guidance and "Random acts of genetic changes."

If you believe in the former, any 'changes' are 'governed' by The Hand Of God and so are any subsequent changes.

If you 'believe' the latter, it's more random cosmic rays or local radiation that makes changes, and those random changes create modifications in species that either enhance survival or don't... for the individual so affected.

So, while gay/lesbian/homosexual matched-gender pairs can't propagate without external 'help,' today's medical advances DO allow such couples TO create offspring, so that kind of moots the argument. If they want to reproduce, (just as with couples with one infertile member,) they CAN.

The other point is this one: You are trying to apply a 'logical process' to the definition and implications of 'marriage,' and that's the basic, fundamental fallacy of the argument.

As I learned/discovered some decades ago, what you call 'facts' or 'laws' really are little more than codified "agreements" voted on by groups of people who get together and decide, by their votes, the policies, rules, etc., that they AGREE ON and agree to follow.

There are logical ARGUMENTS offered to justify the voting, but it's ALL still nothing but social agreement on things folks gather to agree on.

It's not cast in stone anywhere unless you're back to the Mandate By Deity, and at root cause, that, too, is By Agreement that Our Deity Has Written Down All Of The Rules We Will Follow. (or engraved them on stone tablets or pages of gold, or dictated them to scribes...)

Consensus AND Agreement are Not Absolute Truths... they are agreements that people, societies, cults and whatever AGREE to BE The Truths they believe they should follow.

So you end up everything from Sikhs to Jim Jones communes and everything in-between.

i.e., you can AGREE on any definition you can get a bunch of people to AGREE on/to, but the Agreement does NOT endow the 'conclusion' with irrefutable veracity... and especially for anyone and everyone else who might Not Agree.

"... ah, but if they were as smart, thoughtful, righteous and wise as US, they WOULD agree...", right?

Sort of what ISIS is currently promoting as "agree with us or else..."

Enjoy that future.

I live on the boarder, here in Texas, and believe me, they ARE influencing the culture. Customs, attitudes and how they conduct business and government. It is happening, and I don't know why they left Mexico if they like their modus operandi and bring it with them! Didn't they want to escape that?

Let me understand... you want proponents of same sex marriages to coin their own term, to be added along with other definitions such as fornication and adultery?

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're demonstrating a strong case of homophobia with phrases like that, which is not at all a position based on reason. Rand discusses bigotry in Virtues of Selfishess, as a fundamental attack on individual rights.

Arguing that A != B is begging the question when there isn't a consensus in this discussion as to the definition of A.

If you define marriage as I and many others do - a life long commitment to another person whom you love and hold in extremely high regard, with or without procreation as a factor - then legitimacy and legal recognition of their marriage is valid and just.

"the possible result of any two members of the opposite sex engaging in sex"

Look at my logic and terms as defined and we haven't said anything different at all. I was pointing out my agreement with you regarding the incomplete logical argument of "If A Then D" which should have been written "If A And B And C Therefore D". If you want to take offense that I use the word "marriage" to indicate the union of B and C, that is your choice.

"Man has evolved enough to use reason as his choice of life long partners though, and I find the line of thinking outdated and delegates us to instinctual animal behavior."

I agree! We are NOT animals! We are NOT ruled by instinct! Should we not rationally identify, however, that there are real, definitional differences which quantify a physical relationship between B and C which render it NOT the equivalent of a physical relationship between B and B or even C and C? Why not give each its own term so as to properly identify each and avoid confusion?

You weren't talking about the lifestyle continuing, you were talking about reproduction of the species. SO... by not getting married and not having sexual relations, a nun's lifestyle does not propagate itself, which was your entire point. Can you clarify that your opposition to gay marriage is because of religious reasons or not?

I'm not a Catholic, but my understanding is that women give up the potential to be married and have children to pursue the lifestyle of a nun. Furthermore, one of the commitments nuns make is to forego sexual relations entirely. Nuns must, therefore, attract people to their lifestyle in order for it to continue. Seems pretty analogous, but - contrary to your intent - I fail to see how it does anything but undermine your position.

Frank's original point - which I agree with - is that the definition of marriage was outlined before government came into existence, and describes the reality of a recognized and sanctioned union between man and woman.

Now there is no question that government has piggybacked on this definition and written laws that use this definition. That does not give them the permission or right, however, to alter the definition of marriage just because they want to legally use it in a different manner. The whole reason it was used in law was because up until about 50 years ago, there was zero ambiguity on what the term "marriage" meant. No one was proposing to change the meaning of a term which has been around literally since the beginning of time itself.

Instead of creating all the legal chaos that would result from a redefinition of marriage, it makes MUCH more sense (if it be the will of the people) to define their own term with respect to a non-marital union (add them to fornication and adultery) not already so defined. The only ones advocating for the inclusion of homosexuals in marriage do so because they want to equate A with B so as to give B legitimacy it would not otherwise have. But it is sheer logical fallacy to attempt to equate marriage and homosexuality. A != B.

You're applying non-sequitor logic. C is not required, in any way for D to happen nor is D guaranteed if C. They are two related aspects but not at all a given. C is a legally defined contract between adults - D is the possible result of any two members of the opposite sex engaging in sex, regardless of any committment and regardless of sexual orientation, straight or otherwise.

If we want to discuss "natural states" there are plenty of examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Man has evolved enough to use reason as his choice of life long partners though, and I find the line of thinking outdated and relegates us to instinctual animal behavior.

Ah, I see. My apologies if I implied that interest and control go hand in hand, but I can see how that conclusion would be made.

My point was only that government (the State - if I got the capitalization correct) has an interest in continuance. Without people to govern, the State withers. As the people grow, the State also grows, thus it has an inherent concern towards its own continuance and growth. Now if you have a coercive government (perhaps an inherent redundancy), they will of course attempt to assert control in perception of their own best interest. We see it in open evidence today in our own Federal Government as it seeks control over all aspects of our lives from health care to water rights to commerce to speech and even self-protection. There can be little to deny that a coercive government seeks its own expansion, ergo the need for more people - both to participate in control and to be controlled. Thus I can understand the desire for control, even though I vehemently deny the justification for such.

What was of note to me in this ruling was that the Federal Judge specifically noted the inherent conflicting claims of the Federal Government in this regard. With the Supreme Court overturning DOMA, it rejected the notion that the Federal Government held authority over marriage, but the plaintiffs in this case were attempting to assert that the Federal Government retained authority at the same time! The Judge in this case appropriately pointed out the logical fallacy in such a stand.

That was not my argument at all. The question was one of the natural state of things and whether homosexuality could be a logical outcome of the natural state.

I agree with you that using children as a definition of marriage is illogical. Procreation is a POTENTIAL result of marriage: "IF A and B and C THEN D" not simply "IF A THEN D" where A = marriage, B = capable man, C = capable woman and D = offspring.

You brought up a "lifestyle" not being able to propagate itself naturally. Not irrelevant at all. Your argument boils down to "I know because the Bible tells me so," and that's not logical.

Uh, doesn't a nun choose NOT to get married in the first place? Nuns don't beget nuns, they take from the ranks of the non-nuns. I think that rather than presenting the contrary, you have in fact reinforced my assertion.

"I think all relevant laws currently associated with the term 'marriage' should be rewritten with the word replaced with some other term or description"
So many people have an interest in a fight of which side will the gov't declare right on the definition of marriage. Fewer people have a personal interest in promoting the idea of the gov't staying out of it.
You and I want the gov't out of it, but it's hard to make a living promoting that.

I don't think your 'conclusion' that "by very definition it must mooch or be a deviation from the natural" is logical at all.

I think it's irrational and circular because the 'proof' is in your assertion that it is whatever you're saying it is.

You just seem to have a lot of trouble accepting the concept that if two human beings have VERY strong emotional feelings for each other, they should have 'the right' to any and all legal benefits and implications accorded by laws that CURRENTLY use the term "marriage."

I have a strong suspicion that a deep look into the 'origins of 'marriage' ' would turn up a 'need to legally spell out things like inheritance,' and other germane issues.

Sure, in agrarian societies or cultures, more kids can lead to 'more wealth' because you can end up with more hands to farm the land, but that does not imply that a Church or any legal (in quotes) piece of paper is fundamentally necessary to the process of producing farm hands.

Until you run into conflicts between 'heirs.'

How silly.

... and implicit in that "A = A" statement is, 'the Church OWNS the 'definition of marriage' and is the only entity which can use the term "correctly" or legally?' No? I don't think that's what A. Rand meant by A=A..

Interesting "logic," B, but I don't buy it.

So you're implying that the State has a valid 'interest' in maintaining the 'culture' of the nation? My history lessons seemed to imply that the US was BUILT by 'immigrants,' so excluding them NOW has a dubious foundation of logic.

I'd take more of a position that if a Society likes its own traditions and culture, it should be able to respond to and maybe even oppose newcomers who emigrated TO the country and now that they're here, desire to change the culture or society they've moved into.

Witness Mexican flags at US schools in the US Southwest and Sharia courts in England.

Like my view of 'who owns a country'... ownership, per se, seems to really be a function of being able to defend the territory against anyone who wants to claim ownership of it who ain't citizens already. Of course, THAT also says that when enough immigrants MOVE into a land and gain citizenship, they DO have 'ownership privileges' and darned well might try to change the culture or society.

Interesting... Thanks for prodding that thought path for me. And no, I don't have an answer, but I sure will oppose some 'invaders' policies, like ISIS.

No way would I ever support any kind of mandated 'controls,' but I don't understand how increasing population could/should/would ever be a State 'interest.' To me, 'interest' implies more than just 'curiosity' at State levels. it implies a proactive intent to manage it. But that's my inference, not necessarily your implication. Just trying to clarify a bit.

And per previous comments, I believe my capitalization of 'State' is accurate, appropriate AND what I meant to say. :)

If you think it's bad now, wait until Hillary is President...