== A friendly reply == 

 Hi. Sorry to intrude, but RedPen closed that discussion re “traditional marriage” before I could reply to your last post there. I thought I’d post on your talk page instead, just so you know I had read your post and thought it deserved a reply. 

 If I understood you correctly, there is no issue about the term "traditional marriage" since (you say) it simply means "marriage between one man and one woman". In which case, why did Dan Cathy get so worked up about what might be called (for the sake of argument) "non-traditional" marriages such as civil marriages (as distinct from a church or Christian marriage) of same-sex couples? There would be no controversy in the first place but for Cathy’s condemnatory comments about those who “have the audacity to define what marriage is about”, and the fact his company has sponsored organizations known to have lobbied against the overturning of Proposition 8, and also against granting equal legal rights to LGBT people. Clearly when Cathy says he is supporting "the traditional family" he means far more than simply nurturing that institution. There is a lot of “collateral” (that is auxiliary meaning) in that phrase (certainly as Cathy uses it), and the trouble is that the collateral is different for so many people when they speak or hear that phrase "traditional marriage". That is the point I was trying to make in that discussion.