Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 11:53am:

... wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 11:43am:


Don't worry about the past this is happening everywhere right now.

Same sex marriage is performed and recognised in:

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Iceland
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Mexico: Mexico City
United States: CT, DC, IA, MA, NH, NY, VT, Coquille, Suquamish

Also recognised in:

Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten (Netherlands only)
Israel
Mexico: all states (Mexico City only)
United States: CA (conditional), MD, RI

This change is really only a matter of time - we as a country just need to work out how mature we actually are compared to the rest of the planet

I think we're just about there we just need the politicians to catch up

And so we continue onto the ol "it happened somewhere else, therefore it should/will happen here" argument. 

Just what do you think is the slightest bit compelling about that? 

It sounds much the same as the ol' "if such and such were to jump off a cliff would you do it too" I used to get from my mother.  I understood her point then...why does it elude you even now that you are presumably a grown man?

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 11:45am:


Actually he crushed your 'argument' like a bug. it is basic sociology that a handful of instances of behaviour does not constitute culture per se...

I think that there is at least one aspect of this debate, that makes it more problematic, for people such as myself, who oppose "Gay Marriage", simply upon the basis that it is an incorrect use of language, in that "Marriage" is the word that has ALWAYS described the legal, and religious union, between a man and a woman.

When society started to "nominate" DeFacto Relationships, as DeFacto Marriages, THEY broadened the use of the word Marriage to include people who were not married, but lived in a relationship similar to, or in most ways, virtually the same as, a normal Marriage relationship.

I suppose from the point of view of the Gay community, their argument could be that society already recognises heterosexual relationships, not formalised in any way, as "marriage", so why should they be excluded?

I can sympathise with that, but personally default to the two wrongs do not make a right, position.

The fact that naming defacto relationships as a marriage, has become commonly accepted, already diminishes and blurs the use of the word marriage, from it's true meaning.
I would be in favour of that stopping, and be happier with defacto couples being called, just that, a DeFacto Couple.
I would also be in favour of homosexual defacto couples being called defacto couples.
I am also in favour of homosexual couples, who do wish to engage in a civil commitment ceremony, to be able to call themselves a Civil couple, or Civil Union, or they can "CREATE" a NEW word if they wish to do so, to describe their homosexual life partnership, but it should be something other than "marriage", that word is already taken.

I also foresee a potential problem in changing the marriage act to declare homosexual unions as marriage, in that it could lead to calls upon existing institutions, like certain religions as an example, to perform Homosexual marriages, despite these religions specifically opposing any form of homosexual unions, and charges of discrimination being made against any who wish to not perform such ceremonies.
Sound far fetched???

IF the Marriage Act was changed, I would put money on just that type of thing happening.

I am 100% supportive of Gay rights, but I think that the determination that a Gay Union should be able to be recognised as equal in all legal ways to a Marriage, it should never be presented to the community as being exactly the same, as they are equal, but also, DIFFERENT.

In all the countries where it is equal - has this happened?

SOB

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 1:04pm:


Crushed.  Like a bug. 

Don't take it so hard mate.  You'd think you'd have learned to deal with failure by now.