Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California

And a woman with Mllerian agenesis is MADE anatomically infertile. That seems to be either a plain sign from God that she isn't intended to marry anyone ... or a plain sign that your argument is rubbish. Nor can the vagina of a woman with Mllerian agenesis.---I do not in fact spend any time wishing that rectums could conceive children, there are enough religious fundamentalists already. But there is no reason why people don't share your religious views should be bound by them. Jews can't stop me eating bacon, Muslims can't stop me from drinking beer ...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It's the principle on which a woman who has it is made. Y'know, anatomically unable to conceive.

If someone discriminated against black people, and when asked why explained "because they have dark skin", then that names the criterion he's using to discriminate against them, but it's hardly a reason for doing so.In the same way, by using the criterion of whether a couple's genitals fit together in such-and-such a way, you have a criterion for discriminating against gay couples. But not a reason.

No, no, polygamy was one of those things God disapproved of secretly, like slavery, genocide, the rape of prisoners of war, etc.He's a funny chap, y'see, on some issues, such as picking up sticks on Saturday or wearing mixed fabrics he gets all outspoken and smitey. On other subjects, such as polygamy, he comes over all bashful and is afraid to speak out. Indeed, so far from him openly disapproving of polygamy, he set special blessings on such polygamists as Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, without even mentioning to them his preference for monogamy ... no-one would ever have guessed that he was secretly disapproving of their marital arrangements.

Are we talking, again, about the days when the median age of consent in the US was 10? Er ... bollocks. Have you gone completely mad?

Perhaps if you read the Bible more often you wouldn't hold it in such esteem.

I did not call marriage discrimination against people who don't qualify for it, because I am not in the habit of spitting out random collections of words with no relevance to my point.

Many people object to them, in fact. If you think that homosexuality is perfectly unobjectionable, then you are more enlightened than many of your coreligionists, some of whom seem to think that it's a sin. Well done.As for this stuff about "redefining marriage", again, if that's your objection, could you explain why it's an objection at all? People are more important than words. You can redefine a word without hurting it. It's a commonplace practice. What's more, it seems to have already happened. "Gay marriage" is, after all, not an oxymoron, we know what it means, whereas we do not understand (for example) the phrase "four-sided triangle". Ergo, the word marriage already means, among other things ... well, let me turn you over to a dictionary:

Yeah, but they didn't know they were in sin, because God never told them to be monogamous. No commandment, no personal communique ... even when God granted Solomon wisdom and knowledge (2 Chronicles 1:12) this apparently didn't include knowing that he shouldn't have all those wives and concubines. Yeah, it's almost as though he doesn't give a damn. He's fine with murder, adultery, polygamy, but orders the death penalty for picking up sticks on Saturday. Reading the Bible, one gets the idea that he has a fairly odd set of priorities.

Well, that was 1828. This is now. And my point remains: apparently marriage has already been redefined. If redefinition is a bad thing, then obviously we shouldn't redefine it again, should we? Redefining words is bad, right? We should stick with the definition we've got.

Polygamy and concubinage, on the other hand, were punishable by sweet F.A.

But there's nothing in the Mosaic Law against them, is there?

But without telling anyone not to have multiple wives and concubines. I mean, it's something he could have mentioned, isn't it?

They were not taught that polygamy or concubinage were sinful, were they? They were taught that it was sinful to wear mixed fabric, and to eat lobsters (but not locusts), and to interplant two kinds of crops, but somehow not a sanction, not a mention, not a whisper, against polygamy, or concubinage ... or pedophilia ...

And now the UK. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.