Leo Lane,

It doesn’t sound like you know who you’re talking to or when.

<<I asked whether “ marriage was ever an institution for the union of two people of the same sex?”.>>

Correct.

<<Toni Lavis:“Yes, and you still haven’t explained the connection”.>>

No, that was me.

<<Simple enough.You might agree that Marriage is a recognised institution.>>

Yes, I don’t think anyone could argue that marriage is not a recognised institution.

<<You say that there is controversy about it being between a man and a woman, but you will not say what the controversy is.>>

Toni Lavis alluded to a controversy regarding whether or not marriage can ONLY be between a man and a woman, but I don’t think you’ve asked him what that controversy is yet.

What difference does it make anyway? The mere existence of one is enough to throw your 'axiom' claim into serious doubt.

<<The answer to my question might throw some light on what the controversy is, or is not. >>

Okay, so you agree that a controversy exists - discrediting your 'axiom' claim - now you want to know what it is.

It's whether or not people of the same sex should be allowed to get married.

So according to you, there is no controversy because marriage has never include same sex couples.

Ri-i-i-i-ght.

<<You are right, “not off the top of my head” was Phillips answer.>>

Yes, Toni Lavis was right. I also alerted you to the fact.

<<You have not answered at all, understandably, and no doubt never will.>>

Are you talking to me or Toni Lavis now? Let’s say the answer is a definitive, “No, same-sex marriage has never existed in the past”, what difference does it make to your axioms or these controversies you’re now talking about...

<<As with what the controversy is,that you assert, you do not have a clue.>>

I’m not dealing with someone who’s all there upstairs, am I? Please tell me if there is a reason for your constant confusion. I left a discussion once because I found out the person had Alzheimer's.

Yes, AJ, you continue to avoid the point I have made, which is that marriage being a union between a man and a woman is axiomatic.
Lavis asserted, but was unable to give any evidence of a controversy as a basis to show that marriage being a union between a man and a woman was not axiomatic

All very straightforward, which is why you have to work so hard in your attempt to complicate it
Despite your hard work to confuse the issue, do not delude yourself that it is me who is confused. Your efforts have paid off on yourself, but you may still be able to grasp the simple concept that it is axiomatic that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
There is no controversy, over the meaning of the term and no rational basis for contradiction of that meaning.

//Toni Lavis:“Yes, and you still haven’t explained the connection”.//

Really, Leo? What did I just say to you in my last post about concocting your own facts? If you're not going to make a proper effort I don't know why you bother.

//Lavis asserted, but was unable to give any evidence of a controversy as a basis to show that marriage being a union between a man and a woman was not axiomatic//

If it was non-controversial we wouldn't be having this 'argument'.
If it was axiomatic we wouldn't be having this 'argument'.
We are having this argument. What more evidence do you require?

In the our western world we have no option but to now accept same sex marriage.
Endocrine disrupting chemicals have been thrust upon us since the 1930. As you read this you do not realise what life would be like without being effected by these chemicals. There in the air, water and food supply. The European Union Committee on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals has identified over 700 chemicals in the general populous which interfere with your hormones. In the first trimester of pregnancy the sex is determined by exposure of sex based hormones. If the exposure of the foetus to these hormones are interfered with during the first trimester, then in the extreme sex may be indeterminate or mixed. The number of sex reassignments done today compared to any time in the past is breath taking. This is not a natural progression of the human species. This simply the effects of these chemicals on people. For example DEHP (diethylhexyl phthalate - used to soften plastic(plasticiser)) is basically an oestrogen hormone. It directly correlates to breast, overian and prostate cancer. A metabolised sub struct of this chemical stops the conversion of cholesterol to testosterone in the testis and post menopause ovaries in females. It directly correlates to the cardiovascular risk in males and post menopausal females. There also dumbing us down. Intelligence has been linked in the developing foetus to exposure to a specific level of testosterone. Too much or too little interferers with intelligence formation. DEHP also damages the DNA/RNA. This only happens in females and persists for at least two generations. This is a profile of but one of the 700.
Same sex marriage is the very least of our problems. This all may be a moot point. Research the name Prof John Schindler then see https://twitter.com/20committee/status/601131464202260480

//There in the air, water and food supply.//
//In the first trimester of pregnancy the sex is determined by exposure of sex based hormones.//
//This is not a natural progression of the human species. This simply the effects of these chemicals on people.//
//It directly correlates to breast, overian and prostate cancer.//
//There also dumbing us down.//
//Too much or too little interferers with intelligence formation.//

Yeah, so it would seem. Have you thought about minimising your exposure to these chemicals until you can tell the difference between they're and there?

Leo Lane,

Of course it is self-evident and unquestionable (i.e. axiomatic) that a marriage is currently a union between a man and a woman only.

<<...you continue to avoid the point I have made, which is that marriage being a union between a man and a woman is axiomatic.>>

But that hasn't been what you've been arguing now, has it? You were arguing that it can only ever be this way (Why would you bother commenting otherwise? To state the bleeding obvious?). Then, when questioned why this was the case, you hid behind axioms the same way Christians do to avoid justifying an extraordinary belief, or to make it sound as though all beliefs are on equally shaky ground.

Now that it has been pointed out to you how stupid it was to hide behind axioms like that, you try to make it sound like all you’ve been trying to do this whole time was point out that a marriage is currently a union between a man only.

Now, what are your reasons as to why marriage can NEVER be between two members of the same sex?