Okay, I have lots to say on this subject, but I've been "meaning to write a response" for days now and so now I'm deciding that trying to get it all out in one post isn't going to happen.

So I just quickly wanted to address one point Wendy made (and I'm sure I'll come back later with more to say):
Quote
people simply don't agree that the only purpose of marriage is procreation...Even in heterosexual marriages the couple may choose not to have children.
I agree that the USE of the institution is not always procreation, and that many couples choose not to have children or are unable to have children. But that current use of a tool doesn't dictate what the tool was created to do. Marriage didn't start as a "commitment" tool, or as a "let's have sex" tool - the societal context for marriage was for the family unit in the sense of children.

That in no way means everyone uses it that way now, or that people must use it that way now. However, if we're going to argue for a change in the definition of what the tool is "designed" for, then we have to look at the original design, the proposed design, and why we're making the change. Not just say that a current use is parallel to another currently desired use and therefore must be within the definition.

Bethy

I don't suffer from insanity...I enjoy every minute of it.