I believe in gay marriage

[Madness]

So...marriage between two humans who cannot conceive children between them is illogical. It makes no sense. Such people can choose a Civil Union and surely that answers their need for social recognition.

Just sayin...

What of the Gays who have parented children prior to becoming gay? What of the Gays who adopt? What of the women who grew up as "normal" girls, dreaming of one day becoming a bride & being married?

Surely if Civil Union is already answering their need for social recognition there wouldn't be a bill before parliament & we wouldn't be 35 pages into this discussion.

Just saying.

[BoristheBiter]

What of the Gays who have parented children prior to becoming gay? What of the Gays who adopt? What of the women who grew up as "normal" girls, dreaming of one day becoming a bride & being married?

Surely if Civil Union is already answering their need for social recognition there wouldn't be a bill before parliament & we wouldn't be 35 pages into this discussion.

Just saying.

so then just change the CU.

just saying.

[Madness]

so then just change the CU...

To relect the status as being Married? Brilliant idea.

[BoristheBiter]

To relect the status as being Married? Brilliant idea.

No it's a CU not marriage.

[HenryDorsetCase]

So...marriage between two humans who cannot conceive children between them is illogical. It makes no sense. Such people can choose a Civil Union and surely that answers their need for social recognition.

Just sayin...

incorrect, but thanks for playing.

Therefore any heterosexual couple who cannot or choose not to conceive offspring are denied the right to get married? Shirley not!

The fundamental issue here (as I have said before) is simple fairness: there is no good reason that based purely on the sexual orientation of the parties involved there is one sort of societal recognition of a relationship over another.

Anyone choosing to have their relationship "blessed"* by society by way of civil recognition: you get married. If that isn't for you (and it certainly is not for me: as I say to my partner of 30 years "But what if I get a better offer?") then you can live in "sin".* and have no change of ownership papers and all that palaver. Easy.


*yes I carefully chose those words to get some of the religious and homophobic nutters frothing at the mouth (and not in the good way)

[Madness]

No it's a CU not marriage.

Then proceed to the start and do not collect $200.

[Kickaha]

So...marriage between two humans who cannot conceive children between them is illogical. It makes no sense. Such people can choose a Civil Union and surely that answers their need for social recognition.

So that applies to couples where one of them is infertile or had a vasectomy, tubal ligation or just doesn't want children then?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Marriage is a ceremonial bond which has existed in all human societies way way back into prehistory. It is a bond loaded with moral/legal rights and obligations. It is also exclusively a bond between a man and women.

The reason why humans developed the concept of marriage was to reflect pair-bonding of parents. That gave a mother the security of knowing her husband would stick around to feed and protect her. The father could be reasonably certain his wife wasn't being impregnated by others. The children were protected and secure having two parents to look after them, given that human offspring take the longest of any animal to reach maturity.

Even if that is true (and it may well be) and assuming that it is, the question is whether or not that is relevant now to the 21st Century Schizoid Man. What "marriage" means is a moving target even from the middle ages to today: the whole "wife is chattel" thing: and in other societies it means different things (most notably in societies blighted by religion: Muslims, Hindus, arranged marriages, burkas and whatnot). So the question is thus not "has the concept of marriage evolved: because it self evidently has. The question is "should it evolve further"? And my answer to that question is unequivocal: Yes.

[pzkpfw]

I'm married. And she sure as heck didn't promise to "honour and obey".

[oldrider]

Even if that is true (and it may well be) and assuming that it is, the question is whether or not that is relevant now to the 21st Century Schizoid Man. What "marriage" means is a moving target even from the middle ages to today: the whole "wife is chattel" thing: and in other societies it means different things (most notably in societies blighted by religion: Muslims, Hindus, arranged marriages, burkas and whatnot). So the question is thus not "has the concept of marriage evolved: because it self evidently has. The question is "should it evolve further"? And my answer to that question is unequivocal: Yes.

Your posts would "seem" to indicate that you may possibly have a stake in the outcomes of all this ... or am I just imagining that?

Has marriage evolved or simply run it's course, (good question) the majority participants of marriage certainly don't seem to hold it in much respect today!

How much tinkering would it take to make Civil Union legally equal to current marriage, in the eyes of the law? Could that be a solution?

This isn't going to go away until it's fixed to the homosexual fraternities satisfaction, that's for sure!

[unstuck]

[Maha]

I went to a gay wedding once, went up to the bar to get a drink and this chap asked if he could push my stool in?...I looked around with a rye grin...there where no stools...

[BoristheBiter]

Then proceed to the start and do not collect $200.

Sorry had a slow day. it wasn't my best work.

[Winston001]

Shirley not!

I told you not to call me Shirley!

[HenryDorsetCase]

Your posts would "seem" to indicate that you may possibly have a stake in the outcomes of all this ... or am I just imagining that?

Sure I do, in that I am often asked to help sort it out for people. But the heterosexual ones are WAY harder than the homosexual ones: The "his kids, her kids, our kids" scenario plus the once bitten twice shy scenario.

In my experience the same sex couple splits are just as difficult as the others but usually there are no children involved. But sometimes ther are. The worst one was the same sex female couple who split, and one partner moved in with a male. Their property issues were easy but it took four months to sort out the pets.