Well xcuse me for breathing Muse2!
I can see a very rarified and special person who needs to come down from the mists of Mount Olympus and as the British lower classes say, ‘muck in.’ You live in a pluralistic society my friend, that no longer follows only Judeo-Christian values which is really what ur describing with all ur exclusive pretension and faux manners
No- one OWNS marriage. It is a civil right. Gay ppl , black ppl white ppl all pay taxes. If you feel so precious and exclusive, save it for church and go spray ur ‘special’ brand of exclusive bigotry there.
Ul b in good company.

Why play the man? I wish to defend marriage against any attempt to highjack it or corrupt it. A good marriage is a delight to behold not a mocking tool. I was introduced to a couple who clebrated their 70 wedding anniversary and he told me with a twinkle in his eye that he was still on his honeymoon. Lucky character.

Yes he does live in a pluralistc society, so should not society respect his choices and respect marriage?

Dictionary Marriage: Wedlock, State of being married, Wedding, Close union.
Sorry Muse it does not mention Gender or that you have the right to dictate, who should have their loving relationship legally recognised.

"Yes he does live in a pluralistc society, so should not society respect his choices and respect marriage?"
Posted by Muse2, Saturday, 7 May 2011 7:01:39 PM

Yes, yet should society acknowledge that others' choices do Not disrespect his marriage?

sauropod
"But that's an argument for fixing marriage registration, laws on de facto couples etc, not an argument to do nothing on gay marriage."

Yes it is, it's an argument to do nothing on gay marriage, and abolish marriage registration and laws on de facto couples. It's an argument to get government out of people's bedrooms.

In all the nearly one hundred responses to my article I don't think I have read one argument in favour of same-sex marriage, apart from "we don't have it and we want it", which is not actually an argument but a demand. Some people have suggested that it is not fair, but have not specified where the unfairness lies. Fairness doesn't mean treating everyone the same – we don't all have the same needs – but treating everyone according to their differing needs. If same-sex unions are legalised and equal in every respect except they are not called "marriage", what has been lost? I have presented an argument that by calling them "marriages" something is lost – a relevant distinction and a significant symbol. It is incumbent on supporters of same-sex marriage to show that by calling legally recognised same-sex unions "marriages" something important is gained and this gain is greater than what is at the same time being lost.

It has nothing to do with human rights. Having any union between two people being called "marriage" in not a human right. It is a matter of how society decides to best order its affairs and define its terms. This is open to rational discussion. I wait in hope.

Ian Robinson [original author]