Sorry Josephus, my reply above was intended for Poirot.

onthebeach,

You're not "entitled" to a response simply because you ask a question.

Especially when you resort to all kinds of loaded and imaginative assumptions.

You obviously have different definition of "reasonable", Mr (adversarial) onthebeach. The flavour of your posts to me are always of a similar rancorous tone - as was the last.

Not something I'm inclined to respond to with warmth or length.

Poirot,

OK, so it was too hard for you to give your definition of marriage. You got angry instead. Tres girly. Do you find that ever works BTW?

However you are a strong advocate for State regulation of gay relationships, both de facto and by marriage, which means that the State's family law also applies to gays when they break-up, right? In fact there would be no aspect of their personal relationships that would now escape possible State interference and courts.

As a leftie 'Progressive' and a feminist, but not a lesbiam(?) - you are all of those wouldn't you agree - you decree from on high that all gay relationships MUST be oversighted and regulated by the State. Even though you cannot define your concept of marriage. Or at least the definition of the marriage that you would find acceptable when applied to yourself.

You can eschew the rude outbursts and answer the simple questions. After all, you do insist on telling gays how they should toe the line and cop further State regulation of their affairs.

What a strange little adversarial person you are, onthebeach...with a particular liking to pick arguments where none exist.

Let's have a peek at your latest effort shall we....

"You got angry instead..."

Really? Pray tell, Where did I get angry?

Disabusing antagonistic posters (like yourself) of their erroneous assumptions is not getting angry.

"However, you are a strong advocate for State regulation of gay relationships..."

I have revealed no such view...and you should stop making things up and attributing your fiction to other posters.

"...you decree from on high that all gay relationships MUST be oversighted and regulated by the state...."

Again, a hostile assertion based on sweet nothing...you should stop making things up and attributing your fiction to other posters.

"After all, you do insist on telling gays how they should toe the line and cop further State regulation of their affairs."

onthebeach, I'll cut you a bit of slack and presume you've got me mixed up with someone else on this thread, because I have said nothing of the sort. Before you fired your bellicose diatribe in my direction, the only comment I'd made on this thread was a couple of lines to Josephus about biological imperatives versus social regarding marriage,

If, as I strongly suspect, you are just trying to pick an argument by imputing whatever will do the trick, then I suggest that you should stop making things up and attributing your fictions to other posters.

(No I'm not a lesbian, but if the world only provided puerile pugnacious men like you, then I probably would be:)

Are you or are you not a supporter of gay marriage? Yes or no.

If you are, then it is only reasonsble to ask you to define what marriage means to you. That is what you are baulking at. But Why?
Where you demand it for others you should be prepared to answer that simple question as a minimum. You need to go further too, to consider the consequences for them, particularly the unintended consequences.

You are not an angry person you say? Just re-read your posts. Perhaps it is your rhetorical strategy: you get angry and rude at others to duck their questions.

onthebeach,

I recall you've pulled this stunt on me before...before ducking out squeaking that I was rude to you (which is exactly the response you set out to engender)

If you're determined to pick an argument where none formerly existed, then that's your prerogative.

You, my sweet, are the angry aggressor who stuck his nose into my response to Josephus.

I'm not balking at anything. If I thought for a moment you were genuine in your inquiry and not just playing out your need to antagonise your latest target (moi:) then I would bother to give you an answer.

But carry on....don't think, however, that I'll take your cheek lying down.