>>>So marriage is:
>>>1) Genital-based
>>
>>That's a load of b***s then!
>
>Regardless, is it not how some are attempting to define 'marriage' for all of us? Is it not "the law"? All this talking about 'marriage' is useless until we define what we're discussing.

I was referring to your use of "genital". As a noun it's only used in the plural and refers to the sexual organs, hence b***s

>>>Is it also offspring-based?
>>
>>There are many people who get married and choose NOT to have kids.
>
>I'm gonna assume you are refering to consenting adults. In that case there are also those couples who are not able to have kids due to being: infertile, post-operatively or accidentally incapacitaded, irreversable vasectomies/tube-tied, same-sexed.

So not necessarilly for procreation but, if that happens, for the stability of the family.

So ... rewind ... I thought you were pro-gay marriage - now it seems you were just summiing up, non-committal. So I misread your post.

>
>
>>BTW,by the tone of your message, you're not any relation to old Howard, are you?
>
>Ha! Dunno, who's that?

Howard Bennet. He's our friendly-neighbourhood religious zealout on this forum. I assumed everyone knew him as we've practically all had rambling zig-zag arguments with him all over the place, over his religious purity and implacability. Just look up "George Bush" thread. :-)