toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[rexlunae]

....not at all :liberals: I intended it that way and the word itself has that meaning. :yawn:


Definition of MERE

1
: having no admixture : pure
2
obsolete : being nothing less than : absolute
3
: being nothing more than

I notice that "If and only if" isn't in there, and if you think for just a moment about how the word is used in a sentence, you will realize that it can't possibly mean that. The simplest way to understand the word is as a synonym for "only". You can't stretch that to "if and only if".

http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic14445.html

Take the sentence "He is merely a boy." Does this also imply that "All boys are him."?

 

[zippy2006]

I notice that "If and only if" isn't in there, and if you think for just a moment about how the word is used in a sentence, you will realize that it can't possibly mean that. The simplest way to understand the word is as a synonym for "only". You can't stretch that to "if and only if".

http://www.english-test.net/forum/ftopic14445.html

Take the sentence "He is merely a boy." Does this also imply that "All boys are him."?

But you're describing a particular by its participation in a universal. The reason the boy analogy doesn't work is because he is material and clearly separate from other boys. You also conflate "a boy" with "all boys" in your assessment. On the other hand, marriage and a contract are two abstract universals so to speak. Well in my mind they are, and that is how I intended the word "merely."

Son: Look a shooting star!
Father: No, it's merely a meteoroid entering the atmosphere.

"4 is merely 2+2"

But the more interesting question is whether marriage is only a special contract or more than a contract altogether. I think it is obvious that marriage (colloquially/societally defined and understood) is a contract with the addition of positive benefits and status, which has been my undisputed position throughout this thread.

:e4e:

 

[chrysostom]

I think that if marriage were as simple to dissolve as a "relationship", people would do it more often. Marriage is a commitment made that can't be undone trivially, and that's an important feature.

why?

 

[rexlunae]

But you're describing a particular by its participation in a universal. The reason the boy analogy doesn't work is because he is material and clearly separate from other boys.

That makes no difference in how the word 'merely' is used. You're just making up excuses to avoid conceding what should be trivial to concede. This is not a major point. This is just a question of communicating clearly.

You also conflate "a boy" with "all boys" in your assessment.

Following exactly the same grammatical pattern that you did when you said that "Marriage is merely a contract." => "All contracts are marriage.". And you're right that that's another error, but it's not an error I made.

Here's what you said:
"If marriage were merely a contract then every contract would be marriage."

I suppose if I'd really wanted to mimic your grammar precisely, I would have used "every" instead of "all", but that changes nothing.

On the other hand, marriage and a contract are two abstract universals so to speak. Well in my mind they are, and that is how I intended the word "merely."

None of that changes the meaning of "merely". Your original statement was clear in terms of meaning, including correct usage of the word "merely", if errant in terms of the larger discussion. Trying to make out that you meant "if and only if" in its place just befuddles what you said. Could you please now admit that you misspoke when you tried to make the case that "merely" means something other than what it clearly means, so that we can get back on topic. If you can't have the courage to admit so simple a thing, I don't see how we can have any kind of useful meaningful discussion.

It's not a fatal flaw to make a mistake. But the longer you insist upon the error, the less people will take you seriously. It's like when Sarah Palin made her comments about Paul Revere, and then insisted that she was right in the first place by the application of more and more twisted logic. It just made her look vain and inflexible. If she'd fessed up to the original error, she would have at least come off as honest and open-minded. But this is her style when she's shown to be wrong. Don't make her style yours.

Son: Look a shooting star!
Father: No, it's merely a meteoroid entering the atmosphere.

Note, here, that this sentence does not imply that every meteoroid entering the atmosphere is a shooting star. It may be true, but it's not something that this sentence says.

"4 is merely 2+2"

You do know that that's not strictly a true statement, right?

But the more interesting question is whether marriage is only a special contract or more than a contract altogether. I think it is obvious that marriage (colloquially/societally defined and understood) is a contract with the addition of positive benefits and status, which has been my undisputed position throughout this thread.

I never argued that marriage is limited to its legal component. But the legal component is necessary, and moreover, a basic right. I'd say that the rest of it is out of scope for this discussion.

 

[rexlunae]

why?

Because people are more likely to do things are easy than things that are hard.

 

[zippy2006]

That makes no difference in how the word 'merely' is used. You're just making up excuses to avoid conceding what should be trivial to concede. This is not a major point. This is just a question of communicating clearly.

"A square is a rectangle" (true)

=> if square, then rectangle​

"A square is merely a rectangle" (false)

=> rectangle if and only if square​

Following exactly the same grammatical pattern that you did when you said that "Marriage is merely a contract." => "All contracts are marriage.". And you're right that that's another error, but it's not an error I made.

It is an error you made :chuckle:

Here's what you said:
"If marriage were merely a contract then every contract would be marriage."

I suppose if I'd really wanted to mimic your grammar precisely, I would have used "every" instead of "all", but that changes nothing.

The difference between our two statements is easy to see here:

Marriage is merely a contract = marriage is merely contract
He is merely a boy != he is merely boy(ness)

..hence my distinguishing particulars earlier

Son: Look a shooting star!
Father: No, it's merely a meteoroid entering the atmosphere.

Note, here, that this sentence does not imply that every meteoroid entering the atmosphere is a shooting star. It may be true, but it's not something that this sentence says.

Because it is speaking in particulars. The 'shooting star' is precisely (equivalent to) that meteor.

"4 is merely 2+2"

You do know that that's not strictly a true statement, right?

It is true, considering the common mathematical universe where the symbols are well-understood, just as the English language has words that are mutually understood.

I never argued that marriage is limited to its legal component. But the legal component is necessary, and moreover, a basic right. I'd say that the rest of it is out of scope for this discussion.

I noted a long time ago the super-contractoriness of marriage. You should've disagreed at that point. If you think marriage is merely a contract, or "merely contract" then you are playing word games and this whole thing is semantic. But you know quite well what I meant by marriage all along.

:e4e:

 

[chrysostom]

Because people are more likely to do things are easy than things that are hard.

why not do the easy things?

who is going to get hurt?

 

[rexlunae]

"A square is a rectangle" (true)

=> if square, then rectangle​

"A square is merely a rectangle" (false)

=> rectangle if and only if square​

It's actually fairly ambiguous. As a description of a square, the second statement works. It's not as specific as it could be, but it's not wrong either. As a definition of a square, it fails, as there is more to the definition of a square than simply a rectangle. The problem is that it's not clear from the sentence whether you're defining squares or describing one.

It is an error you made :chuckle:

It's not an error when done intentionally to illustrate the objection.

The difference between our two statements is easy to see here:

Marriage is merely a contract = marriage is merely contract
He is merely a boy != he is merely boy(ness)

..hence my distinguishing particulars earlier

Um, no. He is merely a boy == he is merely boy(ness). In the same way that "a contract" refers to an abstract concept, "a boy", as used above, refers to the abstract concept of "boyness". Otherwise, what would it mean?

Because it is speaking in particulars. The 'shooting star' is precisely (equivalent to) that meteor.

No, because "if and only if" is not what "merely" means, as indicated by even the definitions that you yourself posted.

It is true, considering the common mathematical universe where the symbols are well-understood, just as the English language has words that are mutually understood.

Well, first of all that presumes that you are evaluating the expression to a final number. Ontologically, "2+2" is a number, followed by an operation, followed by another number. "4" is just a number. You can evaluate "2+2" to "4", but they aren't exactly the same thing. Furthermore, even ignoring that, it's not true that "4" is merely "2+2". It's equally "1+3". Or "3+1". Or "2*2". Or "sqrt(16)".

I noted a long time ago the super-contractoriness of marriage. You should've disagreed at that point.

And I would have, if I intended to disagree. Legally, marriage is a contract. There are other aspects to it, but that is what it is legally.

When you said this...:
"It isn't [a contract]***. Marriage is a formally recognized societal union which receives positive benefits from the state and is elevated to the level of a societal norm. Compare that to a contract of any kind and you'll find that they aren't the same thing."
...I took it to be a denial that marriage is a contract. I think that's the most reasonable reading of it, anyway.

*** Added by me to indicate what seemed to be the clear implication.

In any case, it seems to me that you are now accepting that marriage, on the level of the law, is, in fact, a contract. So that's some kind of progress, anyway.

If you think marriage is merely a contract, or "merely contract" then you are playing word games and this whole thing is semantic.

Well, we are in the midst of disputing the meaning of a word, which is literally the definition of semantic. But I started out down this path pointing out that you were reversing an implication, which is not an obviously semantic objection. Your response to that was semantic, in that you disputed my point on the grounds of the meaning of the word "merely". And it devolved from there, and now the whole thing's gone meta.

But you know quite well what I meant by marriage all along.

:sigh: There you go telling me what I know again. I'd hoped we were past that, I really did.

 

[zippy2006]

"A square is a rectangle" (true)
=> if square, then rectangle
"A square is merely a rectangle" (false)
=> rectangle if and only if square

It's actually fairly ambiguous. As a description of a square, the second statement works. It's not as specific as it could be, but it's not wrong either. As a definition of a square, it fails, as there is more to the definition of a square than simply a rectangle. The problem is that it's not clear from the sentence whether you're defining squares or describing one.

Nope. Saying "A square is merely a rectangle; a square is nothing more than a rectangle" is false. A square is a rectangle, but it is also more than a rectangle.

It's not an error when done intentionally to illustrate the objection.

Then it was a faulty illustration, and therefore an error :idunno:

The difference between our two statements is easy to see here:

Marriage is merely a contract = marriage is merely contract
He is merely a boy != he is merely boy(ness)

..hence my distinguishing particulars earlier

Um, no. He is merely a boy == he is merely boy(ness). In the same way that "a contract" refers to an abstract concept, "a boy", as used above, refers to the abstract concept of "boyness". Otherwise, what would it mean?

Here again you are flat out wrong. It would mean a particular instantiation of the concept of boy. When we say "he is merely a boy" we do not mean "he is merely boyness."

a boy = particular instantiation of a concept
boy = universal concept
marriage = universal concept
contract = universal concept

The sentence "Marriage is merely a contract," taken literally, compares a concept to a particular. It actually either means "A particular marriage is a particular contract," or an admixture of one particular belonging to the conceptual group, or "marriage is contract." I meant it in the latter sense, which should have been obvious from context.

No, because "if and only if" is not what "merely" means, as indicated by even the definitions that you yourself posted.

I intended it as a sort of vacuous equality, which is within the usage imo. I even demonstrated other ways in which it could be used in that sense.

Well, first of all that presumes that you are evaluating the expression to a final number. Ontologically, "2+2" is a number, followed by an operation, followed by another number. "4" is just a number. You can evaluate "2+2" to "4", but they aren't exactly the same thing.

They are the same thing in math; they are equivalent; they represent the same quantity when we follow the rules of mathematics. 2+2=4

Furthermore, even ignoring that, it's not true that "4" is merely "2+2". It's equally "1+3". Or "3+1". Or "2*2". Or "sqrt(16)".

So what? 1+3 is merely the sqrt(16). They are all equivalent.

I noted a long time ago the super-contractoriness of marriage. You should've disagreed at that point.

And I would have, if I intended to disagree. Legally, marriage is a contract. There are other aspects to it, but that is what it is legally.

That is not what the conversation is about. That is not what is at stake. That is not what homosexual unions desire.

When you said this...:
"It isn't [a contract]***. Marriage is a formally recognized societal union which receives positive benefits from the state and is elevated to the level of a societal norm. Compare that to a contract of any kind and you'll find that they aren't the same thing."
...I took it to be a denial that marriage is a contract. I think that's the most reasonable reading of it, anyway.

*** Added by me to indicate what seemed to be the clear implication.

Right, I never said the part you added with the ***. In fact I doubt you will find it anywhere. Many times throughout my conversation with TH, others, and you I've clarified this point. Here is one example with you:

I've never said marriage does not entail a contract, I've said (or meant) that is it not merely a contract, that it cannot be reduced to such.

In any case, it seems to me that you are now accepting that marriage, on the level of the law, is, in fact, a contract. So that's some kind of progress, anyway.

...:sigh:

Well, we are in the midst of disputing the meaning of a word, which is literally the definition of semantic. But I started out down this path pointing out that you were reversing an implication, which is not an obviously semantic objection. Your response to that was semantic, in that you disputed my point on the grounds of the meaning of the word "merely". And it devolved from there, and now the whole thing's gone meta.

Indeed :chuckle:. I doubt either of us is overly concerned with the tangent. I do find the new topic somewhat refreshing though.

:sigh: There you go telling me what I know again. I'd hoped we were past that, I really did.

As I pointed out above, this is something I have tried to make very clear throughout the thread and have explicitly pointed out quite a few times.

:e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

Nope. Saying "A square is merely a rectangle; a square is nothing more than a rectangle" is false. A square is a rectangle, but it is also more than a rectangle.

The fact that "square" can be more precisely defined than simply as a rectangle does not mean that it is invalid to treat is a no more than a rectangle. There are many contexts in which the more precise definition is irrelevant. If you are defining what a square is in a completely general sense, it would be an error. But I don't think anyone has tried to define marriage in a completely general sense. Several of us, TH being perhaps the first, have pointed out that legally (note the restricted context) marriage is merely a contract.

Looking all the way back to post #68 of this thread, which is the first of TH's posts that you disputed in this discussion, he said this:

Maybe you should read my answer a bit more thoroughly, because I set that out. I don't believe in interference with contract to force a legal inequity on parties.

This puts us in the context of the legalities of marriage. My reading of this thread is that we've never really left that context for long. And within that context, it is entirely reasonable to say that marriage is a contract, or perhaps more precisely a type of contract. I wouldn't deny that this definition is inadequate in the larger social sense, but the legal sense is the place where I am concerned.

Then it was a faulty illustration, and therefore an error :idunno:

It wasn't. More on this below.

Here again you are flat out wrong. It would mean a particular instantiation of the concept of boy. When we say "he is merely a boy" we do not mean "he is merely boyness."

a boy = particular instantiation of a concept
boy = universal concept
marriage = universal concept
contract = universal concept

No. Not true. Lets drop the debate format for a moment for the sake of a slightly technical explanation.

If both sides of an 'is' relationship are particulars, it says nothing. Because as a particular, "boy" simply points out a boy. But we've already pointed out our subject with "he". If we merely point to the particular boy twice, all we've made is a tautology, no more meaningful than saying "He is him.", or "Boy is boy.". Therefore, in the usage "He is merely a boy," the only reasonable interpretation of "a boy" is as a reference to the concept of "boyness". We know what "boys" are like in general, and he's just that way. That's the comparison being made.

Note that only context can make this distinction. Neither the grammar (both interpretations are grammatical) of the sentence nor the semantics of the word "boy" (it can have either meaning) can draw it. Only the location of "boy" within the larger sentence, combined with our assumption that something meaningful is meant by it cause us to reject the 'boy as particular' meaning and use the 'boy as concept' one.

Try using the word "that" to designate particulars. "That person is that boy."...doesn't quite sound right, does it? We're pointing our finger once, and then we're pointing it again, the only result being redundancy. "That person is a boy." we can make sense of, because by removing "that", we've permitted "a boy" to become a concept instead of a particular.

The sentence "Marriage is merely a contract," taken literally, compares a concept to a particular.

I'd say it compares two concepts. The larger concept of the contract, containing the subcategory concept of marriage, all within the relevant context, which is the law. What, here, do you imagine is the particular?

It actually either means "A particular marriage is a particular contract," or an admixture of one particular belonging to the conceptual group, or "marriage is contract." I meant it in the latter sense, which should have been obvious from context.

Sorry, I'm not getting clear on what you just said here.

I intended it as a sort of vacuous equality, which is within the usage imo. I even demonstrated other ways in which it could be used in that sense.

I'm lost as to what you're referring to here.

They are the same thing in math; they are equivalent; they represent the same quantity when we follow the rules of mathematics. 2+2=4

I think a mathematician would dispute that. There's a difference between things being equal and being the same thing. As a programmer, if you write "4", you will get different behavior than if you write "2+2". But this isn't even the point I wanted to address. I was merely pointing out that given a faulty statement, it's hard to investigate the implications of the word "merely" to it.

That is not what the conversation is about. That is not what is at stake. That is not what homosexual unions desire.

I agree that the discussion could be somewhat larger than that, but if you look especially at the earlier posts you will find that that is quite explicitly what we were discussing. Go read post #132 and say that. I think I already said that I don't care if you recognize gay marriages as marriage. What I care about is the law. If we've departed from this understanding, I wasn't aware of doing so.

Right, I never said the part you added with the ***.

If not that, then what? That's the only thing I can think of that makes any sense.

In fact I doubt you will find it anywhere. Many times throughout my conversation with TH, others, and you I've clarified this point. Here is one example with you:

That was quite recent in the context of this discussion. It's what you said after I pointed out where in the law marriage is explicitly described as a contract, and moreover, after the quote that I just re-posted.

So lets have it straight. Do you agree, legally marriage is a contract?

Indeed :chuckle:. I doubt either of us is overly concerned with the tangent. I do find the new topic somewhat refreshing though.

Yeah, I'd be more worried if it were a little earlier in the thread. On page 20, it's probably not that important. And I think it's important to get our meanings straight.

 

[kmoney]

I am speaking as an enlightened individual who understands that the most important reason two people should stay together is for the sake of the child
my question for you is

why should a couple stay together
if
there is no child?

Is that a serious question?

Surely you can't believe that the only reason to be with someone is for children?

Gen 2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good, the man being alone. I will make a helper suited to him.

There are many reasons to stay together.

 

[kmoney]

No one does, really. People will be happy and infatuated whether or not anyone approves of their situation.

Same goes for straighties. :juggle:

Never meant to imply that straight people did.

 

[kmoney]

I think that if marriage were as simple to dissolve as a "relationship", people would do it more often. Marriage is a commitment made that can't be undone trivially, and that's an important feature.

I agree, but I see that as separate from being together for the benefits.

Also, isn't the worst part about divorce dividing jointly owned things up? That can be true whether you are married or not.
If a married couple owns nothing jointly, is it hard to get a divorce?

 

[kmoney]

Of course not. But given many of the benefits are inherent in the relationship (spousal privilege and right of inheritance, to name a couple ) why wouldn't society want to continue them? Their absence would make the union less stable and require additional contract to remedy. A great deal for attorneys but not so much for people trying to get by on little.

I'm not necessarily arguing for their discontinuation. Just thinking about how much impact they really make, at least for what you had initially said. You offered that the benefits are given to provide stable relationships and stable relationships create happier, more productive people. The benefits certainly make some things easier, but I question how large a role it plays in people being happy and productive.

I suppose having to do things through attorneys would make some pretty angry people. :mmph: But they'd still be in a stable relationship together regardless. :straight:

 

[chrysostom]

Is that a serious question?

Surely you can't believe that the only reason to be with someone is for children?

Gen 2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good, the man being alone. I will make a helper suited to him.

There are many reasons to stay together.

yes it is a serious question

no one is stopping anyone from getting together or from separating
but
there are valid reasons for two people to stay together for the sake of the child

don't you think we should be talking about the child?
and
don't you think it needs protection?

 

[kmoney]

zippy and rex....
I don't mean to barge in but I just wanted to quickly throw in my two cents on something because I feel like you two might be talking past each other on one issue.

Rex, you asked zippy
"So lets have it straight. Do you agree, legally marriage is a contract?"

I think the difference might be how you see the government's role in the situation.

I think zippy, when he talks about a contract, is referring an agreement between the two persons getting married. Then, the government plays a 3rd party role and bestows various benefits into the marriage as well. Certain benefits that two people can't go to a lawyer on their own. They are unique to the government getting involved.

rex, you see this as all in the same contract and don't really separate the parts that relate to the couple and the parts that relate to the government.

It is the governments role that is "more than" a contract.

Earlier zippy said he doesn't care if a homosexual couple contracts, but it is "merely" (there's that word ) a contract between two people that they can go to a lawyer for.




I could be way off and if I am, just tell me and I'll go back into my corner and watch quietly. I just think more progress could be made but the discussion is getting held up by some semantical things.


:wave2:

 

[kmoney]

yes it is a serious question

I see. lain:

no one is stopping anyone from getting together or from separating
but
there are valid reasons for two people to stay together for the sake of the child

I don't think anyone is questioning that having a child is a reason to stay together. What was being questioned was your apparent take that children are the ONLY reason for a couple to stay together.

don't you think we should be talking about the child?

In my mind a marriage is not first and foremost about children. But yes, children are relevant to a discussion about marraige.

and don't you think it needs protection?

Do you mean protection from his/her parents breaking up? If so, yes that is a concern.
How does legalizing same-sex marriage endanger children?

 

[Town Heretic]

zippy and rex....
I don't mean to barge in but I just wanted to quickly throw in my two cents on something because I feel like you two might be talking past each other on one issue.

Rex, you asked zippy
"So lets have it straight. Do you agree, legally marriage is a contract?"

I think the difference might be how you see the government's role in the situation.

I think zippy, when he talks about a contract, is referring an agreement between the two persons getting married. Then, the government plays a 3rd party role and bestows various benefits into the marriage as well. Certain benefits that two people can't go to a lawyer on their own. They are unique to the government getting involved.

rex, you see this as all in the same contract and don't really separate the parts that relate to the couple and the parts that relate to the government.

It is the governments role that is "more than" a contract.

Earlier zippy said he doesn't care if a homosexual couple contracts, but it is "merely" (there's that word ) a contract between two people that they can go to a lawyer for.

I could be way off and if I am, just tell me and I'll go back into my corner and watch quietly. I just think more progress could be made but the discussion is getting held up by some semantical things.


:wave2:

Hiya kmo. The matter for consideration between the citizenry and the state is a matter of contract and purely that. The notion that the government's involvement on any level distinguishes it from any other sort of particular expression in contract is simply errant. Every contract has the state as an third party in the sense that its statutes will enforce penalty and establish the means for dissolution. That is, whether or not you have to file papers, the contract rests on the authority of the state and must follow the law in composition.

The notion that tax breaks or other privileges distinguish marriage as something more is counter factual. I gave an easy enough illustration of the corporation, which enjoys a great many privileges and rights shared by individual citizens.

What distinguishes the marriage else relies on the individual and, however important to that individual, isn't an essential element of that contract and that contract can and does exist without any additional consideration.

That's the foundation. Now denying any consenting adult the same right to contract is simply a discriminatory practice and is bad law.

 

[kmoney]

Hiya kmo.

:wave2:

The matter for consideration between the citizenry and the state is a matter of contract and purely that. The notion that the government's involvement on any level distinguishes it from any other sort of particular expression in contract is simply errant. Every contract has the state as an third party in the sense that its statutes will enforce penalty and establish the means for dissolution. That is, whether or not you have to file papers, the contract rests on the authority of the state and must follow the law in composition.

I don't see the government enforcing contracts as equivalent to their role in the marriage contract. If you want to call them a 3rd party to all contracts in that sense, OK, but I find it a bit odd and don't see the need.

The notion that tax breaks or other privileges distinguish marriage as something more is counter factual. I gave an easy enough illustration of the corporation, which enjoys a great many privileges and rights shared by individual citizens.

What distinguishes the marriage else relies on the individual and, however important to that individual, isn't an essential element of that contract and that contract can and does exist without any additional consideration.

That's the foundation. Now denying any consenting adult the same right to contract is simply a discriminatory practice and is bad law.

I should note that my intent with my post was not to advance a particular point. I was only trying to point out something that I thought zippy and rex were talking past themselves about. I have consistently been on the side of supporting legalized gay marriage.

In a few of my more recent posts I have been questioning the foundation of some of the government benefits given to married couples, but given how the laws exist and are written now, I have not denied that homosexual couples should receive them along with everyone else.

:e4e:

 

[rexlunae]

zippy and rex....
I don't mean to barge in but I just wanted to quickly throw in my two cents on something because I feel like you two might be talking past each other on one issue.

Hi K-Mo. Welcome to the fray.

I'm just going to say what I think the issue is. Zippy has been tremendously evasive. He won't concede the most obvious point. I mean, we've spent the last few (long) posts arguing over whether the statement "marriage is merely a contract" implies that "every contract is a marriage". Now, I enjoy a good argument, but this seems like a very obvious fallacy to me, and the fact that he continues seems to indicate a simple unwillingness to ever concede anything, which explains why no progress seems to be made on less obvious points.

Furthermore, he's as much as said that his "secular" arguments are little more than a cover for his underlying religious perspective.

Long story short, I don't really expect any actual progress to be made on this, unless I start conceding points which I don't think I've lost, which isn't really progress. I am beginning to suspect that TH's newly adopted approach of not resisting forceful misunderstanding might be the wisest way to go, but I'm not quite ready to go that way.

Rex, you asked zippy
"So lets have it straight. Do you agree, legally marriage is a contract?"

I think the difference might be how you see the government's role in the situation.

I think zippy, when he talks about a contract, is referring an agreement between the two persons getting married. Then, the government plays a 3rd party role and bestows various benefits into the marriage as well. Certain benefits that two people can't go to a lawyer on their own. They are unique to the government getting involved.

Even if that's the case, these auxiliary government benefits are not "marriage". Marriage, as a legal concept is rather small and simple. And so far, he's consistently argued against allowing homosexuals to receive even those protections.

rex, you see this as all in the same contract and don't really separate the parts that relate to the couple and the parts that relate to the government.

No, that's not my view. What legal marriage is can be, and typically is, defined in a short paragraph, the government subsidies aside. I think you almost have our views swapped. If you look back to the beginning of the thread (which is huge, admittedly), Zippy was arguing that marriage is not merely a contract because of these benefits that governments offer.

It is the governments role that is "more than" a contract.

Well, what I think is more important is that there are social aspects of marriage that are entirely outside of the law. I don't think things like Social Security benefits are really an essential part of marriage, no matter how critical they are to some people.

Earlier zippy said he doesn't care if a homosexual couple contracts, but it is "merely" (there's that word ) a contract between two people that they can go to a lawyer for.

As I pointed out to Zippy, allowing homosexuals equal rights to contract for marriage would be the same thing as legalizing gay marriage. There's no middle solution here.

I could be way off and if I am, just tell me and I'll go back into my corner and watch quietly. I just think more progress could be made but the discussion is getting held up by some semantical things.

Well, yeah, literally some semantic issues, as I pointed out to Zippy. But much would be helped if Zippy were more willing to concede a really, truly lost point. Anyway, thanks for your insight, and for reading. Please do chime in if you have additional thoughts.