In Defense of the Marriage
 

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02042...n_w/135571.asp

This would be the 38th state that passed a Defense of the Marriage act, or equivalent. At this point, Ohio would no longer be bound by treaties to recognize marriages from other jurisdictions that are not between a man and a woman.

At least they allowed the people to choose. In Canada, the courts made our laws, and it seems a similar thing happened in Massachusettes. We'll see.

It also seems the vast majority of Americans do not want the traditional meaning of a marriage to be changed, and I am among them. Marriage is for ONE man, with ONE woman.

Hopefully, the other 12 states will follow soon.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Iam the same Marriage is for 1man to 1 lady
But saying that you can not help who you love,love is the same for a man and a man,or a woman and woman,if that wat some people want good luck

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I don't always agree with Jerrek but I'm 100% with him on that.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Do you get gay and straight pair bonding in the rest of the animal world?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yes you do, homosexual activity is very prevalent in the animal kingdom, but that fact has been glossed over for many years.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...407524-9262812

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But this is just discrimnation ? Leagl rights are being denied to these people because of there sexual orientation.

Are they saying that if you are in a same sex marrage then you suddenly stop being married when step into Ohio (and suddenly become married as soon as the step out ?)

So basically they are saying you are going to be trated as if you are hetrosexual regardless of your personal preference's.

IMHO Same sex relationships are here to stay, there is nothing that can be done to change that fact. The sooner governments/people accept that the better.

p.s. they don't have to like it, just accept that people will love people of the same sex and stop discrimination.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

This isnt so much about homosexual activity as marriage, ie. pairing off for life.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I realised that, but it was a thought I had when reading the IP.

As us humans are just "doing it like the do on the discover channel" then it truly is natures way and a same sex couple should be allowed to show their commitment through marriage in the same way as a heterosexual couple.

:notopic: the one I have issues with at the moment is giving the same rights to unmarried heterosexual couples. If you want the rights get married. Of course then the government bleats that nobody gets married, yet they have taken away many of the economic benefits and legal rights and given them to unmarried couples also.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Is this not 2004? Canada a liberal country?
CG

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I just don't get it, why is it that people don't want gay couples and unmarried couples to have the same rights as a heterosexual marrid couple? What does it possibly achieve to deny these rights? Could anyone explain it for me?

My view is that if two people love each other, and want to make a long term commitment to each other then it should not matter about gender or whether there is an actual marriage ceremony.

In the governments eyes, marriage is an economic union, i.e two people get married and in return the government gives certain privilidges to that couple. Fine in theory, but IMO is made a mockery of in practise. Why should a couple who have been together a short time and got married quickly be more deserving than an unmarried couple who have been together for years? Why should a heterosexual couple, who only got married for the economic benefits and basically live seperate lives be afforded more rights than a homosexual couple who love each other very much?

This isn't that it is like this in all situations, it's just meant to highlight the dispaity that can exist and why I think it's wrong.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Sorta on topic :) See my above post as to why I think unmarried couples should have the same rights. A major problem with marriage is the lack of choice in this country if you don't belong to any religion. I'm not too happy about some of the restrictions placed on registry office marriages.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Not the part that contains Jerrek :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

One word Religion The main religions of the world do not approve of the union of 2 people of the same sex and since marrage is a religious ceremony...

True.

Because married couples are more likely to pay bills/taxes on time and are less likely to do things that the government doesn't like, basically they are more stable (although they obviously haven't seen some of the couples that I know). As for the econmic benefits :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Labour and the conservatives have worked diligently to remove most of them so, although you are better off married, its no where near as big an advantage as it used to be. As for why the hetrosexual married couple should get more right than the homosexual couple, that's discrimination...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

In the eyes of the gay community i'm sure many long term couples are described as "married". That commitment is seen and apreciated. Similarly a unmarried straight couple in a long term relationship are often referred to as marred and some even use the terms husband and wife, as they feel the term 'partner' should only be used in the business sense, and significant other, girlfriend / boyfriend sound stupid after 40.

So this really is about the economic benefits of marriage, and the legal recognition such as rights of access / consultation in hospital. Both can only be decided by a government.

In the UK this really comes down to inheretence - should a same sex couple be able to pass assets between each other tax free, most other married tax benefits have been withdrawn. In the US of course a married filing jointly tax return exists, and medical, which most doctors and nurses will happily ignore the legal reality and treat the partners equally, however it would still not be possible for them to sign a DNR or similar documents with legal authority.

I think there are greater things to worry about about in the world than this. Perhaps getting the Christians , Jews and Muslims to kiss and make up would be a start.

Or a civil ceremony devoid of religious reference, creating a legally binding contract, which is where the gay marriage would fit in.

I think it would be sensible to try and keep religion out of this thread (yet look what I wrote 3 paras up!) as getting religions to accept homosexuality is another matter, even though in the UK the Church and State both have the same Head, blurring the matter.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Aren't we talking about civil marriage here?

The whole thing gets even more ridiculous if economic benefits were to be given out for engaging in a religious ceremony.

I think same sex couples should have the same (economic) rights. If a religion wishes to exclude same sex couples from their marriage that's fine (but silly), but civil marriage and the associated benefits should be open to all

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Because they believe that homosexuality is fundamentally wrong. Therefore cannot allow themselves to accept shared rights. They also might think that a same sex relationship might be damaging to the upbringing children?

Also marriage in this country is based on a Christian tradition which forbids homosexual actions.

But this thread's main point is to defend marriage and not to debate (again) homosexuality in itself..

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think the main problem would stem from interaction with other children who have hetrosexual parents. is there any research into this?

Any child raised differently will probably turn out different, I don't think it fair to refer to them as 'damaged'

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

In the UK, civil marriages in a registry office have to be devoid of religious connotations. I was a witness for a friend at his registry office wedding, he'd written a lovely poem for his bride, but because he used words like soul and spirit he wasn't allowed to use it without first removing the word. IMO words like those can be used in a metaphysical though non-religious context (as he was intending) so I thought it a little unfair. Apparantly, this was due to the CofE, it's part of the conditions on which the Church allow civil marriages to occur. Puts me off a little bit.

It's quite hard to keep religion out of it, since so many of the issues stem from marriage as a religious institution. Perhaps we would be better to refer to it as the church rather than religion.

I would argue that marriage existed long before the Cathloic, CofE churches existed, almost all cultures have some form of marriage. In todays world in the UK and the US where many cultures co-exist there needs to be some way of recognising all of the marriages. I agree with danielf, there needs to be a situation where there is a civil marriage, whereby anybody can apply for this. I would suggest that there not even need to be a ceremony if people wish, they could apply for a license in a special court or something along those lines. Then on top of this, there are religious marriages in which, for state recognised religions (in order that people just don't make up their own religion) the civil marriage is automatically granted. It is then up to the church to decide whom they will or wont marry.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

At the moment I would imagine that you could not get a statistially significant sample of children raise by same sex partners.

I would think that raising children in a stable relationship is more important than the sexual orientation of the relationship. I would imagine most 'difficult', ' damaged' or whatever word we want to use children come from single parents.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

A thought, in the US there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, so I would interpret that to mean that laws cannot be passed on the basis of religious beliefs. If that is the case, and assuming that these states have not simply ignored this fundamental tenet, it would imply that these laws exist purely as a result of bigotry.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i am not against homosexual relationships, one of my closest friends is gay.....however i think marriage is and should be defined as joining together of a man and a women......... i am not against relationships between men and men or women and women but i think marriage is something special.......

i know some people will disagree but i am not entirely sure that to show that you love someone you have to have a piece of paper anyway

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Pardon my cynical laughter, especially given the present administration!

IMO that is entirely the case. There are many groups (and not just in America) who simply will not tolerate or accept homosexuality and are distressed that the rest of society is becoming more and more tolerant (or, at least, unconcerned) about it.

These groups realise that they've been unable to keep homosexuality illegal, so all they can do now is to make life as difficult as possible for gays.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But what is the critical factor that makes the union of a man and woman "special"? Leaving aside religion there is only one difference, a heterosexual couple have the potential to produce children, the homosexual couple do not. Other than that I cannot see any factor that would warrant the description "special", and if this is the case, then by extension does that not detract from a heterosexual marriage where one of the individuals is sterile?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I've just realised another potentially important benefit of marriage. I'm married to an American. One of the reasons we had to marry to stay together was so either of our Governments would allow us to stay together on their soil (UK or US) and work etc.

This would again be something potentially denied to a gay couple.

Taking this a step further in a lesbian relationship where a child was created by artifical insemination is that any different to a straight relationship where a child was created through AI. Both would have similar parental issues.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

It is something special, so why should same sex couples be denied the right of something special?

I agree with you that if you love someone, having a bit of paper to prove it doesn't really matter. I think mainly what we are arguing is that same sex and unmarried couples do not have the same rights under law as married couples even though the only essential difference is that bit of paper.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

In that case the economic benefits for married people should be taken away. Why should a same sex couple that has been together for say 30 years not have the same pension rights as mixed sex married people?

It's all fine saying that you don't need the paper to show your love, but there is more to it than the piece of paper.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

yes i see your point and i should have chosen my words better, it is hard to describe exactly what you mean on this forum at times......... also surely within a marriage the use of birth control would detract from the speciality also.....because that is obviously stopping a child from being concieved :eek:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Exactly. If that couple is married - not cohabiting.

But why should a heterosexual couple who could have got married (just a quick no fuss legal formality at a registary office) get those benefits when they can already get them by getting married?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Monty Python moment :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

exaplin :confused:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well Scarlett, two issues:

One, there is no discrimination. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same "rights." They can both marry a member of the opposite sex. If a straight man was able to marry a guy but not a homosexual, that would be discrimination. However, since both have the same priviledges, there is no discrimination.

Two, there is no legal right to marry. The Constitution does not guarantee you a right to marriage.


I personally do not recognize a same sex "marriage." If two guys told me they're married, I will not recognize it. The State of Ohio decided the same thing. So, irrelevant of where you are in the world, we do not recognize same sex unions. It just so happens Ohio law can only be applied on Ohio, so for pure legal reasons, yes, if you step into Ohio you are "unmarried."

No? How is that treating you like a heterosexual?

I don't particularly care about same sex relationships. I do NOT want them to rape the tradition of marriage, which has come from centuries, no, millenia, ago. If they want some variation, go ahead. But do not call it marriage.

And as I mentioned, you can love whoever you want, and there is no discrimination.





Philip, a few points. These are not "rights" as I mentioned earlier. Marriage is a priviledge. Second, we have to draw the line somewhere. Next up is polygamy, then marriage to animals, and then children is up next. I have a moral code, and no matter how much society wants to break it down, I will stand my ground.

Marriage is for the protection of the family, especially the children. You should not scar a child for life by giving him two same-sex "parents." No one loves a child more than his genetic parents (ignoring the few cases of parents killing their children). Two men cannot have a child naturally, and two women can't have a child naturally. Therefore, a same-sex union is unnatural. A child needs a mother and a father. Not two of the same. Both have roles to fulfill. (Yes, I'm aware the divore rate is high, and that is very sad too.)

By keeping marriage as a union of a man and a woman, you are protecting the family unit, and our children.

So then you do not need to allow gays to marry. Excellent point.

I am opposed giving any benefit to married couples because

a) marriages don't last these days
b) it discriminates from those that wishes to remain unmarried
c) it discriminates against those that can't get married

I do not want the government mixed up in this. But sadly, that is not the case. I would, however, support incentives from the government to build families and to REMAIN together. If you break up, say goodbye to any sort of incentive for the rest of your life. It harms children, and it breaks down society.



Yes, my choice is in part based on religion, and in part based on common sense. Breaking down pillars is not a good idea, and marriage is a pillar of today's society.

Maybe it is just me, but it sounds like you're scoffing anyone making decisions based on his religion?



That does prevent me, and others, from basing their decisions on religion.






And please, to everyone referring to there "rights," there IS NO RIGHT TO GET MARRIED!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Don't worry, I just thought of the bit in the meaning of life with the catholic and protestant families.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:rofl: ok with you now

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

evidence?
Do this include adoptions and test tube babies?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i am sorry but i totally disagree with you on this point..... there is noway you can say this.....if you look at the number of cases of child abuse, child neglect and so on how can you possibly say this? :eek:
a child can be loved by anyone, biology does not determine this at all

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Notice the *should.* It is an opinion. And I take myself as an example. I do not want two same-sex "parents."

Better yet, go to an elementary school and ask the toddlers if they want two mommies or two daddies instead.

I was referring to natural born children living with the parents. I do not know about the rest.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

And earthquakes, volcanoes, lions and tigers and bears, oh my :rolleyes:

What exactly is it that you are scared of that you can`t accept any form of change? Your arguments do not strike me as being formed on any reasonable grounds, merely out of paranoia and the indoctrination you have received with regard to "right" and "wrong".

As for marriage to children, aren`t there plenty of US states where individuals that most reasonable people would consider to still be children are allowed to get married. Still, at least that is better than executing them.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Not exactly an open question when establishment drones like yourself will never present them with a fair and balanced picture of the situation.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Like I said, in general. Don't always jump to the extreme cases. And biology DOES matter. The Greeks even have a word dedicated for the love a mother has for her child. It is an almost unconditional love.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Are you afraid of what they would say? How about yourself? Would you have rather had two daddies?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

no im sorry but u can not make a general claim without at least acknowledging the other aspects of what you are talking about
and just because the greeks have a special name does that prove that a mothers love is unconditional?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You apparently missed everything else I wrote. Go back and reread. Or maybe I will just copy it over here, so you can't get lost.



Marriage is for the protection of the family, especially the children. You should not scar a child for life by giving him two same-sex "parents." No one loves a child more than his genetic parents (ignoring the few cases of parents killing their children). Two men cannot have a child naturally, and two women can't have a child naturally. Therefore, a same-sex union is unnatural. A child needs a mother and a father. Not two of the same. Both have roles to fulfill. (Yes, I'm aware the divore rate is high, and that is very sad too.)

By keeping marriage as a union of a man and a woman, you are protecting the family unit, and our children.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You could look at it like that, though it seems to be a very tenuous justification. What about marrying the person that you love? There is discrimination there against same-sex couples.

So what does it mean to get married? Being married grants the people certai rights, so why deny certain groups of people the rights of being married.

How is two people who love each other, forming a union called marriage, 'raping' the tradition of marriage? There is a discrimination, because those who can get married are granted certain rights and those who cannot or chose not to get married do not have the same rights.

By whom is the privilidge afforded? What justifiable reason is there for granting the privilidge to one group and not another? On polygamy, I am fine with that, so long as all of the parties understand fully what they are entering into. Animals and children, no, because they cannot be said to fully understand the implications of the marriage.

Only time will tell on that as there is currently no evidence either way. My personal opinion is that it will be difficult for the child, but will not 'scar them for life'. However, not allowing same-sex couples will not stop them from having children, it is already happening.

Not quite the point I was making. To clarify, marriage gives the couple certain rights, I was arguing that long term couples, whatever their gender, should not have to get married in order to prove their love and should automatically be given the same respect under law as married couples.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Just look at the animal kingdom. Ever tried to take an egg from an ostrich? Or a cub from a lioness?

I find it hard to swallow that you, as a woman, don't know this. Maybe you should ask someone who just had a baby. I find it even more ironic that a GUY is telling you all this. If you want to disagree, fine, disagree. You may not feel a special kind of love to your own child, but I know it is true for most other mothers.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

There was an article in the UK Times newspaper on this a few weeks ago.

In the real life examples, the biological parent was still heavily involved in the the relationship, so the child lived with two mummies or daddies, and knew their other biological parent, thus having a father / mother figure in the relationship also.

The older 5-6 year old that was ofspring of the Lesbian couple had even asked which of her mummies carried her for 9 months.

Which is better two working loving daddies or abandonment by the father and a mother on welfare?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i never disputed the fact that there isnt a bond between a mother and child, that was not the point i was getting at...however i had a problem with your original statement.... i think a child can be loved by same sex parents.....a child needs and deserves love and i am not going to question where they get it from as long as they get it
i love my nephew with all my heart, i love him as though he was my own child....i have been part of his life from when he was a mere hour or so old...but biolgically he is not my child....does that retract from the love that i give him? NO
and funnily enough i do know that i am a women, and just because it is someone male who is telling me does not change anything, you are coming across as increidbly patronising

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Why is it going to scar a child for life is an important question to ask, and I`m sorry, you are one of the people responsible for that scarring taking place, not the same-sex parents.

If there weren`t people like you going around arguing the case that somehow this is unnatural and wrong then there wouldn`t be the context in which the child can be scarred. Don`t blame the parents for this problem, blame the people in society who kick up such a fuss about the issue and create a climate in which the child can be psychologically harmed.

As for your earlier question, I personally couldn`t give a damn whether my parents were a heterosexual or homosexual couple.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

If you're right and the biology issues are important, then the 'problem' can be fixed by hormone injections.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You really are a prime example of an offensive, ignorant little moron. You have absolutely no right to make that kind of insinuation about Bexy or any other member of this board.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

"The person I love is 2 years old. I want to marry him."

No, sorry, that doesn't work.

No. There is NO rights gained when you marry. You're confusing it with priviledges. And I believe I already addressed that in my previous message.

I believe I already addressed this issue too. Please read my messages. The tradition of marriage is a man and a woman.

Bull****, and you need to get your act together. I've already addressed most of this:

1) There is NO discrimination, because both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same priviledges. END OF DISCUSSION.
2) You do NOT GET RIGHTS when you marry. You get PRIVILEDGES. And, at this time, my society has decided those priviledges go to HETEROSEXUALS. I am opposed to any kind of priviledge, but we're in a sort of democracy, and my opinion isn't the only one.

Already addressed this. I would not extend priviledges.

Do you REALLY want to live in a society where five 5 men, 9 women, and 2 transsexuals are married and have kids? Would you like this kind of thing? I wouldn't.

Not in the United States. A federal court uphold Florida's band on homosexuals adopting a few days ago. Kudos to them. I will not support putting children through that kind of torture.

NO. YOU ARE NOT LISTENING-- There are NO RIGHTS. GET IT? NO RIGHTS!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You cannot inject love with an injection downquark.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Why? :confused:

That was the whole point you were getting at, wasn't it. The biological motherly instinct brought on by hormone release?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

How am I responsible for scarring? By protecting an institution created for heterosexual couples? Damn right then.

I don't think that is true, but this is an opinion and I don't think we'll agree, so lets leave it there.

I'm sorry, but no. I will not go down without kicking and screaming.

Dr Wadd, it seems we have a fundamental difference of opinion. We'll leave it at that.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

How? I wasn't aware you can create instincts in a creature by injections. It would be interesting to see, but I don't think we've gained that level of knowledge over biology just yet.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Then why are you arguing?

It was the point that I was getting at.

I don't think I've said anything to the contrary.

And I agree with you. I don't believe I've said anything to the contrary either.

Well I'm sorry about that. That was not my intent. I was trying to make a point that there is something lost in a same-sex "parent" "family" compared to a natural, heterosexual-relationship family.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

so loving a child is instinct then? ok right, so surely a same sex couple can have the same instinct to love a child?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i am not arguing, this is what i call a discussion..

ok so tell me what IS lost?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Isn't saying something is an instinct just another way of saying we don't know what causes it?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

an instinct is something that we do naturally....some say that eating and sleeping are instincts, we feel hungry therefore we eat....but this is of course disputable, because we could say it was habitual behaviour

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No. Not even a father have that mother-baby relationship.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:rolleyes: To clarify for you then, romantic love

Contrary to your interpretation, there are rights gained when a couple marry. E.g. rights to things like shared pensions, tax reductions, etc. In this country that is, perhaps things are different stateside. These are rights, because by being married, people are entitled to them.

Times and traditions change, once it was forbidden to divorce, once people didn't get a choice in who they married. But the spirit of it carried on, so times change, smae-sex marriages become common. The spirit is still the same so how is that 'raping the tradition of marriage'. I can assure you, I do read your posts, I try to reply and address the issues in a sensible manner based on my opinions.

Please remain calm, I am attempting to understand your viewpoint as well as get mine across.

To answer this, it would not faze me. These things are already in our society, just well hidden (I know this because I have seen it). It is not my personal choice, but I believe that people should have the freedom to live this way if they choose.

Adoption is not the only way. And I certainly do not see it as torture.

Still doesn't say why a caertain section of people are granted a privilidge (which is also a right according to the dictionary :p ) when others are not.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

im sorry but i dont entirely agree with you here....yes there could be an extra special bond between the mother and child, mainly because she carried it inside her for 9months, felt it move, felt it kick, gave birth to it.....however i dont think you can say a fathers love doesnt match that of the mothers

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well then, I know what you're talking about, but those are considered priviledges, not rights.

Yup. "I'm romantically attracted to the two year old. I want to marry him."

"times and traditions change" is not an excuse to break one of society's fundamental pillars down. At this point, it seems we have a fundamental difference of opinion.

I value the traditional marriage. I value real families. I value the way society is. I have no desire to see those twisted "relationships" take form on my society, and I will support and vote accordingly.

You disagree, and I'll respect your opinion to disagree.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

A 2 year old does not have the mental capacity to enter into a marriage - end of story. Whats your point.

But if one of the couple was the father then it would not be an adoption. This is an entirely possible direction that their parenting could take. How do you legislate against that? After all this is a country that lets Michael Jackson adopt!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

My point was it invalidates philip's argument that you should be allowed to marry anyone you love.

I don't know. If a parent divorces, takes the kids, and forms a relationship with a same-sex partner? I don't know. I wouldn't like it, for sure.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

you have no right to make such a claim...... a family can be made up of many kinds of combinations, friends, single parents, husband and wife...you have no right to say the kind of family you have or want is a 'real' family

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

We're talking different kinds of love.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

explain

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yes I do. It is called an opinion, and I have a Bill of Rights that guarantees freedom of speech. And I'm exercising that right.

friends are not part of the family.

single partents, well, that is an incomplete family, but it is still a family because the child was born of a mother and father

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

So your employer grants you pension privilages or pension rights. Hmm Rights I think. Spousal pension privilages or rights. Rights again.

Tax breaks could be deemed a privilage, but they are granted as a right in law otherwise a heavy handed tax official could take them away in instances of their choosing.

The pension, insurance and medical industries have all realised same sex relationships must be addressed, you can grant your spousal pension to a same sex partner, private medical cover can be bought for a same sex couple at the same rates as a heterosexual couple with no children. The commercial world is ahead of governments on this issue.

And a court of law would ask you to evidence that the two year old boy is romantically attracted to you. You cant.
A similar problem needs to be addressed when a marriage to someone with reduced mental capacity occurs.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Going back to Greek, because English has only one word for which Greek (and Hebrew, Arabic, and other older languages) have more than one word:

AgÃÃâ€*’¡pe - unconditional love. I.e., mother-baby

PhilÃÃâ€*’ÂÂÂÂ*a - love between friends.

StorgÃÃâ€*’© - familial love, especially between parents and their children and also with close relatives.

ÃÃâ€*’â€Â °ros - erotic love

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

right you have a right to your opinion but tp so publically denounce all other kinds of family life is not on........ if you had said "in my opinion the best kind of..." but you didn't you classed it a "real" family

friends are part of the family..... i have a large circle of friends who i class as family members....
i class my boyfriend as a member of my family..... if you have the right to judge the type of family that is real (and that is what you are doing not merely giving your opinion) then i have the right to discuss it with you

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i think you will find that the first type of love is mainly ascribed to the God's ..

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well not quite, because as I also stated, I believe that both parties must be fully cognisant of what they ae doing. I cannot be said that the two year old has any knowledge of romantic attraction or how it applies to them.

I agree with you, that at the end of the day, if we have differing opions all we can do is vote on the isues and make others aware of our opinions.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No. I do not consider friends part of the nuclear family. Not in its strictest sense by definition.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

the term family is ascribed to people who live together and have ties...this could be blood relations or it could be other ties..marriage for example..adding the word nuclear on the front of it merely adds a dimension to the general term family

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

That is not the original Greek definition.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think it's different across the pond, but since he is on this forum he must follow the rule of the mods.

I personally don't have a problem with him expressing this unless it is targeted at specific people to cause insult.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Then we are again separating fly**** from pepper, because you know what I'm talking about. I am going with the dictionary definition. The two parents, and the children.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i see your point, i just feel that this forum is made up of 2000+ people and to, effectively, judge those who aren't in his view in a "real" family is not on

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

that is the dictionary definition of a nuclear family

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

In the eyes of the law they are considered rights, so I don`t see how your opinion can even enter into it. You are entitled to assign whatever label you want, but that doesn`t undermine the legislation in effect.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

You're going with *one* of the dictionary definitions of family, the one that happens to suit your viewpoint. There are other "dictionary definitions" of family that do make perfect allowance for a family with a homosexual couple in the parental role. Don`t just cherry pick the little bits that suit your needs.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:tu: well said :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think Philips liberal view would require consent from both parties. As said already a 2 year old does not. Their parents are unlikely to give it and if they did could be overruled by a child court.

Also when you are quoting can you put the name you are quoting from it makes threading easier to understand the command is [ quote = name ] no spaces obviously.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Maybe so, but if the founding fathers had been able to forsee people like you twisting that to suit their own ends I think they probably would have reconsidered entirely.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

who could also be considered a family. :ghugs:

Perhaps why there have been so few ammendments.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

exactly my point huni :ghugs: :D

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

It's a good law, but you have to take the bad as well as the good. :o

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yep, and all of this is irrelevant because I got my point accross to Miss B. :) You're just trying to argue about a trivial thing like definition. I'm quite sure you've got the brains to know what I meant.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Nope. That is why they left Europe in the first place.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

am i miss b? ohh that makes me sound so mysterious :pp

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Well done, one person agrees with you so other people's opinions no longer count.

Having a memory problem? You were the one who first resorted to bringing out the dictionary.


More importantly, do you have the brains to know what you are going on about?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i certainly do NOT agree with him :eek: :confused:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Waddy boy, she didn't agree, she understood what I meant.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Whoops, didn`t mean to tar you with the same brush.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:LOL: its ok i forgive you just this once..

now :notopic:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Isnt it unseasonally warm today...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

:LOL: we sooooo need an "ontopic" emotcon :rofl:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

i think marriage should be allowed between a gay couple, disallowing it would be a breach of a human right, that is to get married, i dont see a real problem in not allowing it to happen, except the religious section of society sticking there noses in to other peoples business.

marriage is about creating a new bond, solidifying the relationship you have with your partner.

if kids are to come in to the equasion adoption would be the route or the use of donors.............

if a reply to the child needs to given at a later date, as to why he/she has two same sex parents, then it would feasable to 'cover' this up until the child has reached a sufficient age to understand the situation.