Still wondering why the phrases "19 hijackers" and "20th hijacker" are constantly reiterated by the main stream media. 6 of those so-called hijackers are alive and have been interviewed by the BBC and other outlets. Once we see investigators skip this fundamental issue, we know that something is wrong.

----------------------------------------------

Let's see, some American name John Smith hijacks a plane and rams it into the ground, and some idiot calls around the United States and talks to a John Smith then said idiot decides the plane wasn't really hijacked and didn't really hit the ground.

Nice theory you have there, makes so much sense.

It's that by redefining the definition of marriage to mean anything we want it to, the word comes to mean nothing at all. Using simple logic and not emotional jumping to conclusions (see my point to tregibbs above), explain to me how, if we redefine marriage to mean to people of the same sex can "marry," we can then forbid fathers from marrying their adult daughters, or men from having 20 wives, or wives from having 20 husbands, or a man from marrying his dog?

--------------------------------------------

It's simple, marriage has two distinct flavors in the United States, religous and civil. Religious marriage is what most people think of when they think of marriage, but the fact is that as far as the State is concerned, civil marriage is what counts.

You can get married in the Catholic church, but unless you get a marriage licencse, or live in a State with Common Law marriage, you are not married under the law.

The arguement over Gay marriage has nothing to do with religous marriage. Nobody can force the Catholic Church or any other religous body to perform Gay marriages or even interracial marriages. The arguement is over civil marriage. Civil marriage is nothing more than contract between two parties.

The State have laws that limit certain types of contracts to only two people, what the State cannot legitimately do is limit who those two people are, as long as they are old enough to enter into contracts.

Being married means inheritance rights, ability to visit someone in the hospital and make medical decisions, differences in tax filings. You cannot limit this just because you don't like a particular group.

By granting benefits to marriage, the State has it illegitimate to limit who gets those benefits. Black/White, Hindu, Wiccan, Islamic, Gay, or not even sexually involved.

Dogs cannot enter into contracts, and the State can legitimately say only two people can enter into a contract, so that means that someone can't marry 20 people. Just because some religions allow more than on spouse is meaningless, because religion has nothing to do with the debate. It's a contract like any other contract, and trying to limit marriage between male and female is no different that trying to limit a any other contract between only a man and a women.

Matthew 19:4 and 19:5 are not talking about homosexuality. It's about divorce, which I believe you know to be true, so you appear to be deliberately taking Christ's words out of context.

Here is Matthew 19

1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

It's clear that Christ is speaking of Marriage, and if you want to use Matthew as support that Christanity views marriage as between a man and a women, then you may have a point, but in terms of debating whether the State should recognize gay marriage, the Christian point of view can hold not greater vote than Wiccan or Hindu. Our Constitution does not allow for any religion to have greater influence on the law than any other religon.

Do not make the mistaken assumption that you are the only person on this board to have more than a passing familiarity to Biblical passages.