Should 'Marriage' be re-defined

[Guest]

The public consultation has started so what does this forum think?

To me it is straightforward. Marriage can only ever be for heterosexuals not homosexuals it always has been and always should be and my wife is my wife and I am her husband not 'parties to our marriage' as the gays apparently want us to be known; and I am the father and she is the mother of our children not Progeniter1 and Progeniter 2 thank you very much.

[jayne lee wilson]

The public consultation has started so what does this forum think?

To me it is straightforward. Marriage can only ever be for heterosexuals not homosexuals it always has been and always should be and my wife is my wife and I am her husband not 'parties to our marriage' as the gays apparently want us to be known; and I am the father and she is the mother of our children not Progeniter1 and Progeniter 2 thank you very much.

...Which translates as "I hate gays".

Point of interest, Magnificat: what if you had a gay child, would your views change?

[scottycelt]

...Which translates as "I hate gays".

Only in a hysterical, twisted sort of language ...

There is absolutely nothing in Magnificat's post which suggests 'hatred' of any kind towards 'gays'.

This subject does have its amusing aspect, though. On the Andrew Marr Show on Sunday this subject was discussed with the two 'newspaper guests' expressing shock horror that 'gays' should not be allowed to marry under 'equality laws', and the host apparently nodding vigorously in agreement.

They then went on to discuss a newspaper poll dedicated to another favourite liberal obsession, which revealed that the majority of married men still 'do not pull their weight' in the home and leave all the housework to their poor downtrodden wives.

Which begged the stupefyingly obvious question that also seemed to escape all three involved in that particular discussion ... what on earth is the house going to look like lf we have two married men in the home and no wife ... ?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

...Which translates as "I hate gays".

It doesn't mean that at all. It's a perfectly reasonable debate and need not become a "PC confrontational" one. Two of my best friends are gay, and their respective stable relationships are loving and stable - but not really marriage, for the reasons Magnificat stated.

[Dave2002]

Which begged the stupefyingly obvious question that also seemed to escape all three involved in that particular discussion ... what on earth is the house going to look like lf we have two married men in the home and no wife ... ?

I have been to such a house, and it was very well designed, very clean, very tidy etc. I'd love to have lived there. On the other hand my wife and I live in a rather cluttered state, and we can barely cope with it all.

So I don't think your "obvious" question had the "obvious" answer you might have been looking for.

[Dave2002]

The public consultation has started so what does this forum think?

To me it is straightforward. Marriage can only ever be for heterosexuals not homosexuals it always has been and always should be and my wife is my wife and I am her husband not 'parties to our marriage' as the gays apparently want us to be known; and I am the father and she is the mother of our children not Progeniter1 and Progeniter 2 thank you very much.

It's just a question of how you define the word. Words do change their meaning, circumstances change over time, so I think that basing an argument on the constancy of meaning of a word is pointless. You may then argue that words "should not change their meaning", or some other similar argument, based on unwillingness to change or adapt. Of course, if you believe that some external agency (perhaps a god) gave us words, and defined their meaning for us in some absolute way, then your argument might work. In that case I would expect all languages to have exactly the same word for the same concept - particularly ones which would be deemed to be important, in an absolute way. Basically I just do not agree with you, though I do think it would be confusing if words changed their meaning very rapidly. They evolve at a pace which generally fits with society.

There is/will be no need to put quotation marks around the word in the title.

[MrGongGong]

I'm sure I've said this before
but I (and for many others) would regard my gay friends who have civil partnerships as married as I am , I guess as we were married in a registry office by a WOMAN () it doesn't count anyway

Homophobic catholic and anglican clergy really have had enough exposure of their ridiculous ideas about this issue, no one is suggesting that they should change anything. The whole "procreation of children" thing is a red herring as well, as the churches seem more than happy to marry people in their 60's !

I really can't see why anyone (apart from the religious thing ) should have any objection at all, exactly WHAT terrible thing is going to happen ? To me it's very straightforward , we should give everyone regardless of sexuality the right to this. We had (ALLEGEDLY ........) a gay prime minister and the sky didn't fall in !

(Christianity would be so much better had it not been for "St" Paul and his dreadful hangups about sex )

[Norfolk Born]

...Which translates as "I hate gays".
Point of interest, Magnificat: what if you had a gay child, would your views change?

Which could, in turn, be interpreted as meaning 'I hate heterosexuals'. Such outbursts contribute nothing to healthy debate. I happen to agree with Magnificat. To answer your question: no, my views wouldn't change to the extent of blessing any sort of legally recognized marriage to a gay partner.

[John Skelton]

They then went on to discuss a newspaper poll dedicated to another favourite liberal obsession, which revealed that the majority of married men still 'do not pull their weight' in the home and leave all the housework to their poor downtrodden wives.

Which begged the stupefyingly obvious question that also seemed to escape all three involved in that particular discussion ... what on earth is the house going to look like lf we have two married men in the home and no wife ... ?

Or it could mean that the majority of heterosexual men are lazy, inconsiderate slobs, who would rather rot on a couch gawping at football on television while wearing the same crumpled and fetid shirt that they put on out of its plastic wrapper a month ago than make an effort to get up off their fat smelly backsides to do any housework.

Perhaps that's how God meant men to be?

[John Skelton]

We had (ALLEGEDLY ........) a gay prime minister and the sky didn't fall in !)

Churchill was GAY?? OMG!!

(Christianity would be so much better had it not been for "St" Paul and his dreadful hangups about sex )

+ 1 . Some of them seem to think of nothing else, and to have an idea of a God who is constantly twitching the net curtains to see what's going on at no. 53.

[Paul Sherratt]

Everybody loves ' I Hate Hate ' don't they ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sF0RaIEVzY

[Paul Sherratt]

>>>while wearing the same crumpled and fetid shirt that they put on out of its plastic wrapper a month ago

Good old Nick Lowe touches on that image in 'Lately, I've Let Things Slide'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUHWh810L0M

Is there a classical music equivalent, experts ?

As for religions, all the most succesful are repressive and evil, imho.

[scottycelt]

I have been to such a house, and it was very well designed, very clean, very tidy etc. I'd love to have lived there. On the other hand my wife and I live in a rather cluttered state, and we can barely cope with it all.

So I don't think your "obvious" question had the "obvious" answer you might have been looking for.

It was not I that organised the poll, which was no doubt hired by some 'liberal' politically-correct organisation/newspaper looking for its own favoured answers. I am simply and respectfully assuming that the poll's findings (the actual answers) are correct ..

Unless you agree with John Skelton that homosexual men are generally superior in their domestic habits to their heterosexual counterparts (which in itself explodes the 'liberal' myth of 'equality of sexual orientation') then both the second question (in the light of the poll and the subject of this thread) and the logical answer to that question, are indeed glaringly obvious.

I suspect it is more a case of some not wanting the second question even to be asked rather than myself desperately looking for the 'right' sort of answer to it ...

[John Skelton]

Unless you agree with John Skelton that homosexual men are generally superior in their domestic habits to their heterosexual counterparts (which in itself explodes the 'liberal' myth of 'equality of sexual orientation') then both the second question (in the light of the poll and the subject of this thread) and the logical answer to that question, are indeed glaringly obvious.

John Skelton wasn't being entirely serious, but John Skelton still doesn't see the glaringly obvious (no surprise there). Perhaps a significant number of men living with women take it for granted (or lapse into taking for granted) that women will pick up after them, rather like their mothers did when they (the men, not the mothers) were five? Whereas men living with men (in your example) are more considerate by default? Though as a so-called heterosexual man I like to think I've always done my bit domestically.

(Erm - what is the glaringly obvious point? That God created woman to tidy up after man?)

[amateur51]

Only in a hysterical, twisted sort of language ...

There is absolutely nothing in Magnificat's post which suggests 'hatred' of any kind towards 'gays'.

Oh so jlw is hysterical and twisted now, scotty - thanks a bunch!

What you fail to understand, quite wilfully at times, it seems to me scotty is that there are life experiences quite other than your own. JLW's is an authentic voice of just such a different experience.

A little less judging and a little more reflection would be most gratifying. Why that almost sounds like something from of of the Bible