Leo Lane
Your argument is circular. “Same-sex marriage is not possible, because marriage is between a man and a women” begs the question of WHY marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

I am not begging the question, Rhian. It is axiomatic that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

That is how our culture defines it, because that is the way it developed in our communities. .

It is the social structure which supported the couple who produced a family.

Have you consulted any acceptable dictionaries?

Whatever the union is between same sex couples, it is not marriage

Until the definition is changed...

Dictionaries follow usage, they don't determine it. The first great English lexicographer, Samuel Johnson has some words of wisdom you might profit from committing to memory:

"Kindness is in our power, even when fondness is not."

Leo Lane,

You still haven’t provided anything much in the way of reasoning.

First, you assert that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, then you back that up with nothing more than the same assertion re-worded, saying that the relationships between homosexuals do not constitute marriage (neither do the de facto relationships of heterosexuals, now that you mention it).

You then assert that demands for equality are "baseless", before reminding us that everyone has the right to get married, as if the right to marry who we want (so long as it is consensual, of course) didn't matter.

Then you imply that there is some sort of a need to state the nature of a legally-recognised homosexual relationship (apparently you can't figure that out) and that homosexuals must select a different word, without explaining why that is the case.

Next, you start talking about the "demands" of a minority, seemingly unaware that the majority (and an increasing one at that) support marriage equality, and that that is all that counts.

Finally, you more explicitly claim that the word "marriage" is taken, and suggest that it's actually possible to "hijack" words, oblivious to the fact that there is no such thing as a "taken" word. Nobody owns words and words don't have meaning. Words have usage and we inject meaning into them.

Now this new post of yours follows pretty much the same line: marriage is what it is because it just is.

A stellar effort on both counts, I must say.

Leo Lane why do you think such a defeatist, juvenile, non-argument was worth typing?

If I told you green apples were not actually apples but they are grapples. Would you stop thinking of grapples as apples and would you go to peel one like an orange? When you are hysterical (eg “re-engineered“: what a Nellie) substitute in mundane things to see if your idea is puerile juvenile.

We are not campaigning for same sex marriage because 1) it does not cover all LGBTI 2) we seek a law change that removes the current gender requirement: no one is asking for a law of same sex marriage or any other recognition mechanism. Your lies merely remove you from the argument.

“If same sex couples want a right to form a socially recognized relationship, then let them specify the nature of such a relationship, and what it is to be called, and seek recognition of it.”
Uh-duoh, marriage. We get a glimpse of the moments before the penny dropped. For us it was before we understood homosexuality. From about 8 years old, my family referred to the ‘defect in my mind’ and I would cry myself to sleep wanting and hoping to be treated the same as anyone else – to fall in love, get married and be a family. A life-long fear of not being included.

“The minority needs to mould itself to the reality of the society of which it wishes to be a part.“ Another moment before the penny drops. Equality causes welding and melding not some moulding of a wart or tack on of a specious extra limb. But before you ‘argued’ to set us apart, artificially, by adding to the dictionary.

You accuse us of hijacking ‘gay’ but it was a derogatory name, meaning we took no care, that was thrust upon us by bigots. You haven’t hijacked, borrow, synthesised, learnt or evolved. No you just dumped on us a nascent idea, completely silly that blew your legs off. In the interests of inclusion I implore you to write to all Federal MPs. Please, please.

Leo Lane

For once we agree on something - the meaning of marriage is determined by culture, not some immutable natural law.

So, when most people in a society decide that marriage can now include same-sex couples, it means the cultural definition has shifted. And that is what has happened in Ireland, and is happening in many other societies (ours soon too, I hope)