Jesus Christ... Sometimes reading your posts is like herding cats.<quoted text>
So you concede that there are absolute truths, but because marriage is a man-made construct, it is not absolute.
If that is true, no law could be applied to an undefinable relationship.
Moreover, what you are really asserting is that the you want to change the historic definition of marriage by dumbing it down to two people in love joined in unholy or manipulated law, and call it marriage.
This leaves the distinct relationship of a heterosexual couple united as one in a life-long union with the likely possibility of procreation, without a distinct description.
As too the rest of your post, it is just such childish foolishness, it merits no response in an adult conversation.
Yes, there are absolute truths. If someone chops your head off, you die. That is an absolute truth.
Marriage, being a manmade construct, does not have absolute and universal parameters.
And, yes, I want to change the "historic" definition of marriage because the "historic" definition of marriage does not meet the needs of a segment of tax-paying, law-abiding citizens of this country.
Don't throw "history" at me. If we based every single aspect of our lives on the way our ancestors interacted with their environment, then we'd still be hunter/gatherers; living in caves or some other such nonsense.
"Marriage" is no different than any other aspect of people's lives. It isn't static. It has changed multiple times over the eons and depending on which culture you live(d) in.
And talk about childish... You want your marriage to have a "distinct description".
Girl, if you walk into a room of people with your wife and they can't tell that you're married, to one another then you have more problems than just getting to own the "rights" to the word "marriage".
Having same-sex couples legally married in this country has done nothing to your marriage. You know it; I know it...