FriYAY wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 3:42pm:


I agree, that's the point of the same sex marriage push, to normalise homosexuality.

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.

Actually if you are religious (and you certainly seem to be) you would have had to do the paper signing as well as the religious ceremony. You know it isnt really a ceremony. Its like buying  a house and you need witnesses for that too.

Does your husband know the real reason you married him? How about your kids?

SOB

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 3:32pm:



I am against what you describe. I wouldn't and didn't have my kids in childcare until they were ready for the 2-3 half-days at kindy, at age 3. None of them went to kindy full time. What's the point of bringing them into your life if you are going to park them in long daycare? I think sending babies into long daycare is terrible.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 3:43pm:

http://www.hongfire.com/cg/data/7/medium/Creation_of_Techno_Viking.jpg

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 3:46pm:


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 3:46pm:


Would a 50 year old man marrying his 20 year old son be classed as normal? If not, on what grounds do you class it as abnormal or wrong?

Because I fail to see how you can redefine marriage to allow gays to marry, but then arbitrarily draw a line that disallows other relationships that don't harm anyone else.