Dear Cornflower,

The only constant in life is change.
We may not like it - but it happens
with or without our permission -
and certainly as far as laws are
concerned, especially if there's enough
public support - politicians and law makers
will take notice. In the case of the Marriage
Act - this too will change - in time.

However, why don't you answer the simple question
that CJ has asked you?

CJ Morgan
As a reasonable, unbiased reader I draw my own conclusion that allowing Sad marriage is no different in substance than allowing interspecies marriage, incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage.
After all, if we suspend natural law and claim that anybody has the right to marry whoever they please, then it follows that we cannot object to these other variations on the traditional theme.
This would lead to greater diversity, which we all know is good in and of itself.

Dear Herman,

I've been waiting when someone would raise
the old chestnut of - "if we allow gay marriages -
it would provide a slippery slope in the
legailty of marriage (having multiple
wives or marrying an object could be next et cetera)."
But you need not worry. The laws will develop a
firm definition of what marriage is and what it
includes and excludes.

You can now take your tongue out of your cheek.

Foxy,
I'm surprised that you apparently think that multiple wives should be illegal when the prophet himself
had eleven and permits his zombies to have four each.
Not to mention the 72 virgins allotted his most faithful emulators, people like Major Hasan
(who won't be delighting in his just desserts for a while, as it happens).
Furthermore, your seeming approval of laws which define what marriage should include and exclude,
by definition doesn't sound at all inclusive.
Your inconsistencies notwithstanding, I did find your subtle tongue in cheek pun,
obviously alluding to the homosexual practices of rimming and felching,
to be delightfully sharp if a trifle disrespectful in the context.
I'm surprised you thought you could slip that one past me!

Dear Herman,

You're just a troll - and I'm not
going to feed you.

Foxy,
Accusations of trollery are the refuge of those who can't justify their arguments when someone has the effrontery to point out their inconsistencies.
I thought you were bigger than that.
BTW,
"The laws (already have) develop(ed) a
firm definition of what marriage is and what it
includes and excludes."
You just want to change that definition to suit your ideology, which you can't even support when it is shown to be internally contradictory.
Yours is the "progressive's" equivalent of schoolyard tongue-poking.