>>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

Ah, thanks. Oh the places we go. So I'll update that to "Marriage is: 1) Genitals-based"

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

Summing, yes. But committed -- to understand what others are assuming/intending when they speak of 'marriage.' They got a definition -- they need to "come out" with it! ;-)

>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. :-)

Ha!!!!! I get it. No, "Howard" doesn't redeem my family name much. "Tony" could. In fact, I paid $100 to see this 80yo dude sing me euphoric recently. Uh-oh, off-topic.