Although marriage is currently viewed as a exclusively the prerogative of the state, in Western society, this is a comparatively recent redefinition.  See, for example, Dalyrmple V. Dalrymple:

Marriage in its origin is a contract of natural law, it may exist between two individuals of different sexes, although no third person existed in the world, as happened in the case of the common ancestors of mankind; it is the parent, not the child, of civil society

A long, long time

If your girlfriend gets pregnant after you've lived together for two years, you get married so that you can tell your friends, "Yeah, we meant to do that." Otherwise, unless you've been attending your local "Church of Real Christians, Not Like YOU", no one really cares anymore. Even my local gym will let me sign up for their discounted Couples Account if both of our names show up on one bank account.

As for your Constitution, I believe you were unintentionally referencing Equal Protection. But ask Zyx to be sure. He doesn't need legal training to know everything about American law.  

The consensus is that a "marriage" can legally exist only between a man and a woman.

What consensus?

The legal consensus, obviously.

Only if you define "consensus" as not even a plurality.

I was defining consensus as it exists in reality, not on an opinion poll.

What an interesting definition of "consensus" you have.

And I was defining "have" as "invented when you were shown to be wrong".

I am not wrong: the consensus is that a "marriage" can legally exist only between a man and a woman. Some people wish it were otherwise, but it is a fact nonetheless.

Okay, Humpty.

Here, educate yourself:

Out of 28 states where constitutional amendments or initiatives that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman were put on the ballot in a referendum, voters in all 28 states voted to approve such amendments. Arizonans voted down one such amendment in 2006, but approved a different amendment to that effect in 2008. In 1998, Hawaiian voters approved language allowing their legislature to ban same-sex marriage. In 2009, Maine voters prevented legislation permitting same-sex marriage from going into effect.

As of January 2010, 29 states had constitutional provisions restricting marriage to one man and one woman, while 12 others had laws that did so. Nineteen states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.

Again: when the laws of 41 states explicitly ban same-sex marriage, you would have to be disingenuous or deranged to claim the consensus is for allowing homosexuals to marry.

Again: when the laws of 41 states explicitly ban same-sex marriage, you would have to be disingenuous or deranged to claim the consensus is for allowing homosexuals to marry.

Who claimed that?

But I am glad to see that you're back to using a recognizable meaning for "consensus".

So you now admit that being against same-sex marriage is not anti-marriage and that claiming it is is a perversion of language?

Nope.

You are becoming increasingly nonsensical on this topic. Maybe you need to think it through.

Nonsensical?  In addition to pretending to use made up meanings for "consensus" you now don't understand the word "nope"?

I'll spell it out for you: no, I do not "admit" something that is not true.

What "made up" meaning did I use?

You didn't.  You pretended to use it.  Try to keep up.

Well, then, what was the "made up" meaning?

Best case scenario, it was one that left you qualifed to be Veep of the Department of Redundancy Department in the original context.

So you won't tell me, or can't?

Do you not remember the definition you were pretending to use after your error was pointed out, or are you trying to engage me in semantic games?

You pointed out no error. You may do so now if you wish.

If I point it out again, which word that you used will you insist means something else?

"Again"? Where did you do it before?

Right after you made the mistake and just before you started pretending you were using a made up meaning for "consensus".

Can you point to a comment number? Because I don't recall making up anything. If anything you seem to misunderstand the meaning of the word.

Well, at least you answered the question from comment 40.

You take forever to concede an argument. Just accept you screwed up and move on.

Which word in that comment would have gotten the Humpty Dumpty treatment if you'd made it just before having your error pointed out to you?

See comment #40.

Correction, #41.

Thanks.

See comment #42.

As often is the case, you are having a hard time understanding what has been said. I assume that's why you are unable to explain what you accused me of. The only other possible explanation is that you realized you were wrong all along but are ashamed (for some reason) to admit it.

As is almost always the case, you decided to dance around when you realized* your error instead of admitting it.  Why should I walk you through your error step by step when, as we can see based on your history, you're just going to lie about it?

you realized you were wrong all along but are ashamed (for some reason) to admit it

What an odd thing to say.  I can point to occasions, right here on TreesandThings even, where I have admitted an error and carried on with the conversation.  Can you do the same?  I think the consensus (ha!) here would be that you cannot which is why I'm perfectly content to let you repeatedly demonstrate that inability here.

*"Realized" might be too strong a term here as the psychic pain of being wrong probably resulted in you convincing yourself almost immediately that you really meant something else all along.

I see no error on my part. None at all. My use of the word "consensus" was entirely correct and appropriate. I have no idea why you had such difficulty comprehending what I think was a simple concept.

Of course you don't.  Your brain protects itself as quickly as it does completely.

If you had perceived an error it should have been trivial to explain what it was. You've been unable to invent an explaination thus far.

No, I did explain it.

Really? Where?

In previous comments.

Can you be specific? Which comments?

Can you be specific?

Yes.

Which comments?

See comment 59.

Comment #59 does not mention any specific error or explain what you're claiming in any way. In fact, you declined to explain. no doubt because you cannot.

Comment #59 does not mention any specific error

It wasn't intended to.

you declined to explain. no doubt because you cannot.

No, it was for the reason mentioned in comment 59.

I see no error on my part. None at all. My use of the word "consensus" was entirely correct and appropriate. I have no idea why you had such difficulty comprehending what I think was a simple concept.

Yes, you've said that.  And I'm sure you've believed it since about two seconds after your error was pointed out.

That quite obviously never happened since no one pointed out an error. Really, you can scroll up and check.

Of course it did-- in the comment right after you made the error.

You are still unable to provide that comment number?

See comment 68.

Allow me to explain something to you: The consensus is that a "marriage" can legally exist only between a man and a woman.

I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding that simple, factual statement.

I understand the statement, and I understand that it is not factual.

Are you able to explain your belief that it is not factual?

It is not factual because of the error previously pointed out to you.

Yes, of course. The error you are unable to name.

No, I pointed it out.

If you had it would be trivial to say where. But you didn't, and can't.

See comment 79.

Yes, you asserted that I made an error. But you haven't explained what the error was. Not once.

Yes, you've said that, but I did.  When I point out these other comments, they are not references to where your error was pointed out. I'm merely telling you that I'm not going to play the game that you love where someone step-by-painful-step points out your mistake only, at the end, to have you repeatedly deny that you said things that you said and insist that the process be started over.

The game you are playing is avoiding the fact that you were wrong. I am completely correct that the consensus is that a "marriage" can legally exist only between a man and a woman. There is no good reason for you to claim I erred, but you have foolishly done so nonetheless.

I'm not playing a game.  I'm declining to play yours.  There is an excellent reason for me to point out that you erred: because you erred.

In comment #20 you - at best- interceded with a non sequitur. Worst would be that you have a very poor understanding of how the legal consensus arises in this country. If you don't actually believe it comes about by an opinion poll then you should just admit you screwed up and stop making a fool of yourself.

Bait though you may, I am not going to walk you through your error.  Eleven years of interaction with you has taught me the futility of that.  You were wrong, you knew it, and you danced away from the error.

There's nothing to walk me through. You were being ignorant. Period.

No, you were wrong.  Period.

So you claim. I have explained why you were wrong, but you cannot explain why you claim I was. You say it's something about "dancing" or whatever bullshit, but the plain reason is you cannot explain.

I can explain why you are wrong.  See comment 87.

More bullshit. There is no comment explaining that I was wrong. You merely asserted that and refused to explain.

The mistake you are making-- the current one, that is-- is in believing that I feel some obligation to hold your hand and walk you through your error.  I do not know why you harbor this fantasy when I have explained repeatedly that I will not do so.  The effort would be fruitless given your well-demonstrated propensity for lying and self-deception.

This is not an error - this is me pointing out that you were wrong. I know you cannot explain my error because I committed none.

I can explain your error, but having pointed it out to you once, I feel no need-- your fantasies aside-- to elaborate for you knowing as I do that you'll simply repeatedly lie in the face of evidence.

All you have done is say why you won't explain. That's all you can do because there was no error.

No, I've also pointed out the error.  That's all because I won't play your usual game.

You haven't pointed out any error. You claim one exists, but cannot state what it is.

I can and I have.  I simply won't play your game no matter how hard you try.

No, you have not. And you cannot.

Can and did.

You can persist in this fiction if you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that you cannot point to a comment pointing out an error.

You can persist in attempting to play your game if you like, but I'm simply not going to walk you through your error.

Walk through? You won't even name it.

Already did.

If that were true you could point to the comment where you named or otherwise described an error. But you have thus far been unable to do so.

I've already done so.  That I decline to play your game and do so again doesn't make your error any less of an error.

I've already done so

Can.  Did.  Why should I do so again?  One has only to look at your more-blatant-than-usual lie on the Rasmussen thread to understand why I'd be skeptical of it being worth the effort.

The reason you haven't done such a simple thing is because you can't. Obviously.

Ok, Donald Trump.

Why don't you guys touch bayonets and make up?

The famous 10% Kinsey figure for homosexuality I believe was based on including anybody who had a sexual experience leading to orgasm with a member of the same sex, even once.

I would put that squarely in line with homosexuality.

It's in line, but doesn't tell the whole story. I suspect that most committed homosexuals have probably tried heterosexuality at least once; does that obviate the next 60 years of same-sex activity? The social issues of same-sex marriage and legal status mostly involve people who are almost entirely homosexual, not people who had a bit of a grope at band camp.

I suspect that most committed homosexuals have probably tried heterosexuality at least once; does that obviate the next 60 years of same-sex activity?

of course it fucking obviates it, you ass. if you're a "lesbian" but you need real dick every sex months just like every lesbian I've ever known you're not homosexual. just like if you're a republican congressman with a wife and kids who plays twinkies at the bath house twice a month you're not fucking straight. you don't get to be whoever or whatever you claim to be just because it's convenient politically or for your personal identity journey -- you are what you do and what you've done.

The social issues of same-sex marriage and legal status mostly involve people who are almost entirely homosexual, not people who had a bit of a grope at band camp.

you're assuming a shit load more than necessary or applicable about people's personal lives -- which is exactly why defining marriage is a sham

I HAD HAD SEX WITH HUNTER S THOMPSON. HE CAME IN MY MOUTH AND I SWALLOWED IT. I SHOULD HAVE HAD HIS BABY. WE WOULD BE BALLIN' LIKE KOBE'S SON!!

Lesbians who need dick every sex months are a group I haven't encountered. My circle of acquaintences includes a number of people who went gay and never looked back. Now, there is a group called bisexual, who are generally disrespected by many hardcore gay activists of being semi-closeted, which may make up your circle, perhaps. The allegedly straight politician who hangs out at the baths is probably more likely to be faking heterosexuality, but is pretty much gay.

While there is obviously a spectrum of behavior, there is a core group of people who finally read their sexuality and went with it. If we parse the numbers in the various studies referenced above, for every 10 people who tried homosex, around four stayed with it exclusively, maybe two continue to try it periodically, and four others decided to remain straight. Then there is the much, much greater majority who never tried it and are apparently satisfied with their decision.

> Lesbians who need dick every sex months are a group I haven't encountered.

Really? I know about a goddamn thousand of them.

I think this has become a much more common thing as calling one's self a "lesbian" (and to a lesser extent, calling one's self "gay" or "queer") has become more socially acceptable and more of a political statement.

Or maybe it's just a Minneapolis hipster thing, I don't know.

Buffalo Pete: Raving batshit loony? Or HOPE FOR MAN???
(I may be that guy.)

That might offend our friends who are happy.