Very facile response. But hang on, you’re so willing to “refurbish” a term that has deep meaning for a hell of a lot of people because you think its meaning is battered from long use, even though it has ALWAYS meant a state of connection between man and woman. To you it's the kind of term that means whatever you say it means – and why not, because it isn’t your business. But what if it was your business? I don’t know how you define yourself, but let’s say you’re an attorney. You worked hard to become an attorney, pass the bar, etc. You’re proud of your accomplishment. Let’s say a movement arises that lays claim to the words “lawyer” and “attorney.” Reasonable people say it’s an elitist term, that since we all live within the laws like fish in water we should all have the right to call ourselves lawyers. You can still call yourself a lawyer if you like, but so can I. And what business is it of yours?

That may not be a great example, but I do suspect that if there were a term that defines you strongly – be it “marriage” or something else – you wouldn’t be so blasé, waving the back of your hand at it and treating it like something of no fixed meaning (and thus of little value).

Right, I don't think that's a good example. A lawyer is supposed to provide certain services to the public. My or your marriage is only between me & my spouse and you & your spouse. If I hang out a shingle saying "Married Person", nobody's gonna come applying for my services.

If "married" is a term with great meaning to you, so be it. If it's a term with a broader meaning to me, so what. It's like all the talk here and other threads about "Christian" - for some of us, it's a negative term, or more often associated with hypocrasy and self-righteousness than *love*. For others, it's a deeply meaningful term. "Christian" is one term for a whole lot of attitudes. "Marriage" is a term coming to mean a whole lot of relationships.

Black and Christian are now Constitutional requirements for candidacy for the office of president.

We deserve what we believe.

I don't vote on any one issue. I'm a conservative and vote for the most conservative candidate be it Repub or Dem. Abortion is not in the top 5 most important issues for me. You brought up abortion and gay marriage first.

Obama stated in the debate that knowing when a fetus gets human rights is "above his pay grade". And you mentioned that I would have to prove to you when life begins. Does is not seem odd that when in doubt in an uncertain situation that you would side with death? Is this line of reasoning logical in say death penalty cases? If in doubt about guilt...kill?

'BARRY' OBAMA is a made-up character just as the fictional hard-bodied golfer JORDAN BAKER in THE GREAT GATZBY!!! Fittingly both can claim the description "...incurably dishonest" JORDAN for her 'cheating' at golf like D^CKHEAD; OBAMA for his frequent inventions in his personal life. JOHN'the-old-fool'McCAIN strains credulity by abandoning his first wife after an accident to relish in his 2nd wife's beer money fortune and some rather inane decisions as a SENATURD. WITH EITHER SENATURD THE CHOICES FOR PRESIDENT ARE THE MOST ODIOUS IN OUR HISTORY!!! But of course - a Christian church is the true forge for 'testing' the mettle of these 2 CHRIST-LIKE CHAMPIONS. Ha. Both these 2 + several others should be selling AMWAY PRODUCTS - another scam on the AMERIKAN PUBLIC!!!

Paul:

I'm glad to see that you are at least applying more thought into your position then most pro-lifers I have met. Most of them settle for the "life begins at conception" argument in all cases and that's it. I don't know if that's what you believe but my experience with conservatives and thinking issues through has been very little. I have heard the arugment that we should not bother to protect the environment because God will not allow it to be destroyed. This position was presented in all seriousness and was expected to be given the same merit as someone who as actually studied the environment.

Jim:

So you are saying that certain segments of the population should be denied the same legal benefits you get becuase certain words feel better in your head? I suppose we should go back to calling black people niggers because it feels better in some racists heads too. Do you even understand this issue at all? This isn't about the meaning of words, it is about who gets certain protections under the law. Your uncomfortablness with the word "marriage" being used by two guys is as nothing compared to the hassles those two guys are going to go through if one of them gets sick and sent to the hospital or dies and the other one can't inherit the rights to his property. I'm sure they'll feel so bad for you and your dictionary.

Sorry, I see I addressed a post to Pete that was actually a response to Jim.

Sorry, I posted a reply addressed to Pete Kent that was really for Jim.

You misunderstand. For one thing, I was only throwing out a question about words, which have power and utility to the extent that they mean specific things. Personally, I don't care if people start setting up housekeeping with animals. I love the English language because more than any other, it has a word for everything and if it doesn't, it'll make one up. Of course gay couples should have all the legal rights that accrue to marriage. But why hijack a word with such a long history of specific usage? If you think the importance of words is purely for dictionary freaks...fuck. I don't know what to tell you, we're just on different planets. And your insertion of the word "nigger" into the argument was uncalled for and completely unenlightening. I've spent all the time on this I'm going to. Cheers.