Defending the Truth

really?

only a bigot would find those words interchangeable ... or somebody either very dishonest or very poorly educated

I suppose you mean the "traditional" marriage of one man and one woman.

But through most of human history and in most cultures the most widely accepted tradition of marriage has been polygamy -- one man and multiple women. We're not just talking about exotic island cultures or lost tribes in the African jungle. Polygamy is the family form most often mentioned in the first five books of the Old Testament.

In some societies, traditional marriage meant one woman wedded to several men. In others, a woman could take another woman as a "female husband." In China and the Sudan, when two sets of parents wanted to forge closer family ties and no live spouse was available, one set sometimes married off a child to the "ghost" of a dead son or daughter of the other family. Among the Bella Coola and Kwakiutl native societies of the Pacific Northwest, two families who wished to become in-laws but didn't have two sets of marriageable children available for a match might even draw up a marriage contract between a son or daughter and a dog belonging to the desired in-laws. Most traditional marriages were concerned with property and wealth, not love or sex.

For the first 16 centuries of its existence, the Catholic Church held that marriage was inherently tainted by what Pope Gregory the Great deemed the degrading "carnal pleasure" that took place under its auspices. In the church's hierarchy of worthy females, the virgin ranked highest, the widow second and the wife a distant third.

Nor did the early church establish elaborate rules about what made a marriage legitimate. One pope proposed that a marriage ought to take place in church to be valid. But his bishops pointed out that such a change would immediately render most of Europe's children illegitimate. So the church decided that a man and woman were married if they had exchanged "words of consent," even if they had done so out by the haystack, without any witnesses or involvement by a priest.
Not until 1215 did the Catholic Church make marriage a sacrament, and not until 1563 did it begin to enforce rules mandating that certain ceremonies had to be performed to make a marriage legitimate.

Sixteenth-century Protestant reformers had a much more positive attitude toward the blessedness of marriage than Catholics. But Protestant clerics were stricter than Catholics in enforcing the tradition that marriage should be governed by considerations of patriarchal authority and property rather than free choice based on love. In many Protestant regions, authorities forbade impoverished individuals from marrying at all. And Protestant officials often stepped in to dissolve marriages that had been made without parental consent, even if both parties were adult and children had already been born to their union.

It is also not "traditional" to insist that the state should have the final say over what constitutes a valid marriage. In the Roman tradition, which served as the basis for Western European law, the only difference between marriage and unmarried cohabitation was if the partners thought of themselves as married. It wasn't until 1754 that the English state required a license for a marriage to be valid. And even after that, "self-marriage" and "self-divorce" remained commonplace, especially in the early decades of the United States. In 1833, Pennsylvania's chief justice warned that a strict legal interpretation of rules governing marriage validity would render "the vast majority" of births in that state illegitimate.

Most of the "traditions" we associate with marriage are in fact comparatively new. It was only two centuries ago that people began to marry for love rather than for mercenary or practical considerations. Only 130 years ago did men start to lose their legal right to physically beat or imprison their wives. And only in the past 40 years have we established the principle that within a marriage wives and husbands have equal rights in decision-making.

Not until 1979 did the last American state finally repeal its "Head and Master" law, which had given husbands the final say over many aspects of family life. Not until 1993 did marital rape become a crime in every state, overturning the millennia-old tradition that a wife was obligated to have sex with her husband whenever he demanded it.

I would hope that this would be a wrong conclusion, but I am afraid that it will be true for some people. I hope that they at least learn not to do such things as the heterosexual community have done for many years by rushing into this. We will see.

Gays have the right to marry, that's a simple fact. If they choose not to they will exercise the exact same right as millions of heterosexuals who make the same decision.

It's a choice as much as a black women chooses not to be a white man and a women chooses to only work in the home. It's not a choice because the nature of homosexuality precludes the option of meaningfully entering a romantic relationship with the opposite gender.

You can argue that all qualifications are discriminatory. Making 18 the voting age discriminates against citizens who are 17 years 364 days old. But that's the way it is.

I can argue that it's discriminatory, yes. I have. If you provide no counter-argument, then I guess I've successfully proven it's discriminatory.
You said earlier that restricting voters under 18 was not discriminatory. Now you say it is. Which is it?

Even though not all married couples have children, the main purpose of marriage is to make a legal commitment and to legitimise children. As homosexual couples are sterile the need for marriage is moot.

The main purpose as defined by....? Is this the same secret person who tells fxashun the way human beings really really SUPPOSED TO BE?

By that logic, sterile couples or couples who will not have children should not be allowed to marry either. It's amazing how often your attempt at discrimination so often discriminates against heterosexuals as well.

So you agree it would be miserable marriage for both people. So that's the "right" you're proposing to homosexuals? The right to be miserable with someone else for the rest of their life? That's why your example is disingenuous. It's a trick of semantics. You should try something more substantial.
Great. I didn't ask how everyone differentiates. I asked how YOU differentiate. For the third time. Example, OhDear, of the patience it takes to debate gary.

REALLY?

they are straight from the Oxford English dictionary - I had not idea the O.E.D. was so U.S. centric

That might very well happen.

Heterosexuals have been getting married for the most stupid ass reasons for centuries...how many times have YOU been married?

No reason that some homosexuals won't do exactly the same thing.

Edited to add: HOwever, I think the majority of people getting married will be people who have been waiting to do it for many years - or decades. I had to wait for over 30 years before I could do it. And we "rushed right out" the very first day it was available, just like irresponsible kids rebelling against their parents.