Who set this definition?

Well Riki, I'm 54 and its been that way since I can remember and I believe it goes back a lot further.
I'm with Sam DePecan, when he says that it is different. Man and woman, man and man. Do those statements sound different?
One of these things is not like the other!

It being that way since you can remember is not an argument. Change can be both great and terrible. So, I think you'd need a little more than that to use the argument that we should not change it, as we have changed the definition of marriage many times before - all of which were positive. Changing it to include marriage between slaves and interracial marriages, for example.

Them being different has nothing to do with why they shouldn't get married. White and black. White and white. Do those statements sound different? Maybe I'm missing your point, and if that is the case, you'll have to excuse me.

Man and woman, doesn't matter what color. Man and woman.
I just don't agree with you.

Disagree with me all you like, but do you admit that there isn't a huge amount of logic and reason behind your position?

No, absolutely not.
Its not natural. Homosexuals can not procreate.

Neither can infertile straight couples. Are you against their marriage? How about the marriage of a woman past menopause - are you against her marrying?

No, you're not. So it is NOT procreation that you are so bothered about. Don't make things up.

OK, I give up. I'm going to run out and marry a woman.
NOT!
Its wrong, it will forever be wrong and that's it.
I go with God on this one. Argue with Him.

Ah, the root of all evil: Religion. How curious we should break through the crux of the problem to discover it lurking in the shadows beneath. Hidden away in shame.

So, I suppose then you have admitted there is no logic or reason behind it, and that you are following a sadistic monster who calls for human beings who are asking for nothing beyond the freedom to love another individual (whose soul is genderless according to your faith, may I remind you) to suffer an eternity of misery and pain.

Thank you, rightside.

You are funny! I didn't think I would laugh at this volley, but you are funny. Your hate runs deep, I'm sorry.

Hatred? Oh dear no. Call it sympathy, if you must.

America, wake up. Seriously. It's disgusting to see such a brilliant country degrade itself.

Too late! Look at our administration!

That's another matter entirely. The blame for this entirely falls upon the American citizens. It's a sorry day when one has to say that.

Lead the world, America, don't mislead it.

Marriage was for couples to form a family and have children. Since people of the same can't have children, they don't need marriages. I have no problem with them having the same rights. Call it a joining or union, but not marriage. They have no problem being called gay. Leave marriage to the straights.

So, by that criteria, infertile straight couples should not be allowed to be married?

I as one am sick and tired of homosexual rights being jammed down my throat. It's all over television. I don't agree with that life style and don't want to see it. I am not against it I just don't agree with it. What laws aprove of are often moraly opposed.

I suspect you'd have no issue with this couple getting married, though they clearly cannot procreate.

I don't but the way this government is set up, they would be stupid too. They would loose one of their social security.

So it is all right for a non-reproductive couple to marry, despite it being financial disadvantageous, but not all right for a non-reproductive couple to get married if it *would* be financially advantageous?