Social acceptance of homosexuality

Yeah, you're right Meleagar.

Nothing means anything except for what each of us wants it to mean.

Outstanding revelation!

In other words, you agree that the state has a valid case for not including homosexual unions under the status of "marriage", and not giving their unions equal status.

At least .. that's how I choose to interpret what you're saying. Right?

You're right, Mel ...

You DO choose to interpret whatever anybody has ever said to mean whatever it is you'd like it to mean.

But if I lived with a man in a home, gave him power of attorney, and he could be considered disabled in any way, shape, or form [this is easily accomplished nowdays], I'd have achieved a status that legally was equal to "marriage".

So the word is relatively useless.

Unless you adopt, you get sick, or you have legal troubles. (As opposed to if he does.)

Yeah, you're right Meleagar.

Nothing means anything except for what each of us wants it to mean.

Outstanding revelation!

In other words, you agree that the state has a valid case for not including homosexual unions under the status of "marriage", and not giving their unions equal status.

At least .. that's how I choose to interpret what you're saying. Right?

You're right, Mel ...

You DO choose to interpret whatever anybody has ever said to mean whatever it is you'd like it to mean.

But if I lived with a man in a home, gave him power of attorney, and he could be considered disabled in any way, shape, or form [this is easily accomplished nowdays], I'd have achieved a status that legally was equal to "marriage".

So the word is relatively useless.

In other words, the word is very important because the word is not the thing itself, and the word doesn't make the thing what it is; the word is used only as a placemark (like most words) to refer to a valid, meaningful concept, which has traditional secular and religious roots that go back throughout recorded history all around the world in virtually every culture.

I agree completely.

Or, perhaps you meant that words are meaningless, and so your argument, which is comprised of referential words, has no intrinsic value or meaning?

In other words, the word is very important because the word is not the thing itself, and the word doesn't make the thing what it is; the word is used only as a placemark (like most words) to refer to a valid, meaningful concept, which has traditional secular and religious roots that go back throughout recorded history all around the world in virtually every culture.

I agree completely.

Or, perhaps you meant that words are meaningless, and so your argument, which is comprised of referential words, has no intrinsic value or meaning?

Mel,

And the word Divorce has great meaning, as well, as it "sums up" the cancellation of a collection of legal protections provided a couple.

It is a valid, meaningful concept, which has traditional secular and traditional roots ... blah blah blah ... and yet it is still just the summarization of several different things.

By the way, how many wives did "Father Abraham" have? How about "King David"? How about the biblical father of wisdom, Solomon?

In the bible, it seems that Marriage ruins most men's relationship with god and their pure faith and wisdom ... so maybe it wasn't that great of a thing, and the "traditionally valuable concept of divorce" should have been embraced in order to restore value to society and man's hearts?

And the word Divorce has great meaning, as well, as it "sums up" the cancellation of a collection of legal protections provided a couple.

Not according to some here. According to some here, all words are just "words" and only have whatever meaning we assign to them. I choose to assign the meaning to your words that you agree with everything I say.

I guess it's very convenient when those who argue only equivocate terms when it is convenient to their argument.

By the way, how many wives did "Father Abraham" have? How about "King David"? How about the biblical father of wisdom, Solomon?

Having never read the bible, I couldn't tell you.

And the word Divorce has great meaning, as well, as it "sums up" the cancellation of a collection of legal protections provided a couple.

Not according to some here. According to some here, all words are just "words" and only have whatever meaning we assign to them. I choose to assign the meaning to your words that you agree with everything I say.

I guess it's very convenient when those who argue only equivocate terms when it is convenient to their argument.

Fortunately, I'm not one of those folks, so let's just use words as they're defined.

mar·riage noun \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\

1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>

So basically, as I said earlier, it's a social invention, that's meaning is as useful to us as we make it. It's just a word that defines certain lawful rights that two people share, as recognized by society.

Which does what to the argument? It's still just a word. Yes, it has "meaning", but so does "divorce", and "divorce" is socially important to society just as much as "marriage" is. So are "corporations", "LLCs", and other partnerships that grant legal statuses to multiple parties.

You can't PROVE that it's a social bedrock [or necessity], because many historical texts speak of societies proliferating without the concept -
most Pagan societies were polygamist, for instance ....

By the way, how many wives did "Father Abraham" have? How about "King David"? How about the biblical father of wisdom, Solomon?

Having never read the bible, I couldn't tell you.

Where do you assert the concept of marriage arose from, and how did its importance establish itself in society in that case?