Bingowings said:

According to this cardinal changing the law to make civil marriage include the possibility of joining of two people of the same sex (the word marriage just means to join) would change the definition of the words mother and father and be like bringing back slavery under the insurance that there would be no actual slaves.

I think he must post on here.

That he does currently or that he should in the future?

Speaking of the ambiguity of language, it's not dumb to attribute a sense of morality to the cultural institution of marriage. Though marriage may be succinctly defined as a joining, there appears to be a broad consensus against joining multiple persons. I think we are entitled as a society to make that kind of determination.

I don't think the moral component of marriage should be stripped from the civil institution. Alteration of marriage laws should be done based on the belief that the kind of joinings are moral. Because there is such vehement disagreement about what constitutes a moral joining, it may seem easier to reduce marriage to a more technical definition but I think this does harm society.