I personally cannot think of a single society in human history that has defined marriage as anything other than the union of a man and a woman, no matter where it happens (or happened) to lie along the relgious-secular continuum.

Nor can I, but that wasn't what I was getting at. My fault, I should know better than to try to offer coherent arguments when I'm tired. I probably shouldn't be replying now for that same reason, but here's a shot.

So, clarification: What I was referring to are societies that largely hold to traditional religious mores. Canadians have over the last fifty years shown a clear trend towards secularism; for example, attendence of regular religious ceremonies have dropped drastically. Because of this, traditional definitions hold less and less value in such a society.

Now had you said "but isn't the union of man and woman the traditional definition of marriage in most, if not all, the societies that recognize the institution?" I would've agreed with you.

Soooooo, rather than being angry and impatient with folks who resist what seems to you (and many others) an obviously needed change, let's try to be patient with them; this is another huge upheaval for people who are still trying to come to grips with all the other changes that marriage & family have undergone the last 40 years.

My lack of patience for people of that ilk is undeniable, and as terrible as this might make me sound, I couldn't care less about making allowances for them. After all, they're insisting there's no room for values other than their pet ones, and therefore they aren't making allowances themselves.

This gets under my skin because they're trying to exert their values on people that aren't asking for their blessing, and that's arrogance. The adjective I used was quite accurate.

Its not like gay couples are demanding they be allowed to get married in one of their churches.

On most days, on most issues, I can be patient and giving until the cows come home, and even after. But not with this issue.