Originally Posted by DragonRat
Must I pull out the old dictionary definition trick, Haz?
If you do insist on doing so, kindly use the Oxford English Dictionary. I refuse to accept a definition from anything else, as it's THE official dictionary of the language.
But...you're right...wed and married are not different. Thus gay people should be allowed to both wed AND marry. Care to see why?
Wed under your definition...and I note you conveniently chose to bold those that aided your argument and ignored those that went against it...means to combine...nothing about genders.
And even your definition of "marriage" does NOT use genders. It says couple and "married man", "married woman" but it says nothing to the effect that the couple must be a man and a woman.
Ipso facto, using YOUR own definitions...you're wrong, I'm right...end of. If anything all you did was strengthen my argument, meaning you religious zealots will have to come up with an entirely new word to describe a male-female union as distinct from ANY union.
Thanks for proving my case that men can marry men.
Oh...and primitive man actually never "married" or "wed" in the sense we currently understand it. Because primitive man chose one woman to bear his children, and then proceeded to bugger the other men when his wife was knocked up...y'see homosexuality is as old as the hills. Heck noone's addressed the fact that psychologists have shown all people are inherently bisexual (one part being driven by the need to procreate, the other by lust and sexual pleasure...women often find women make better lovers, and anal stimulation, supposedly, is the best a man can get, to nick a phrase from the Gillette ads).
Try again maybe?