Ammonite,

See Jay's link.

The institution of marriage is designed to foster and promote societal and relationship respect, responsibility and stability, and so provides particular safeguards and security for the individuals and children involved. It may not be perfect, and some people still can, and do, misuse this institution, but the ideals, objectives and principles involved are most worthy of pursuit and promotion. A marriage partnership needs to be both earned and protected, it is a "life commitment", not just a matter of "love", and certainly not a "convenience".

Marriage is not a "right", it must be earned - just as respect and trust must be earned.

Obviously we see marriage differently, and so it seems do a majority of gays. Only 4.5% of male homosexual relationships surveyed lasted more that 20 years (monogamously?); as against 50+% of traditional marriages. The statistics on monogamous gay relationships were compelling - with virtually zero faithfulness to the "committed" partner, even during the first year! U.S. stats, but why should we expect anything different in Oz?

The "gay" contention appears to be that marriage is simply a sign of a "bond", and a right, irrespective of intensity of commitment - but the evidence suggests that gay relationships in the main just DO NOT LAST! So, gays would be happy to tie up the family law courts with masses of extra "marital" disagreements, just to prove "equality"? However, gays do not demonstrate equality - not in commitment, monogamy, or longevity, not by a very, very long margin.

Adultery is to be abhorred, but in gay relationships it is generally expected and pursued, vigorously by all accounts. Never the twain!

I am no priest, and you, Ammonite, are obviously no saint, and we certainly lead very different lives, and have different "prejudices". I was in a single faithful marriage for 20 years, until my wife died. One five year (and faithful) relationship since.

You and I are different fish; and yours and my view of societal responsibility are poles apart.

I have never been unfaithful in any of my serious long term relationships.

There are many long term gay and lesbian relationships where partners remain monogamous to each each. And many hetero relationships which fail monogamy - divorce does not indicate whether a partner has been unfaithful or not.

Just who are you to state who has the 'right' to marry and who does not?

You're no saint either, yet unlike myself (the only thing I claim to be is human), you presume to judge. For it is how we treat each other that matters not how we stick to anachronistic rules. Neither you nor JoM treat people who hold different views with any acceptance or tolerance.

Finally, I don't give a damn what you do in bed as long as you are not hurting someone against their will.

Live and let live, human.

Pressed the post it key too soon.

>> Marriage is not a "right", it must be earned - just as respect and trust must be earned. <<

Quick question Salt,

Apart from being born heterosexual how did YOU earn the "right" to marry?

Was there an exam?

Marriage 101?

"Respect and trust". Who starts first? What if no-one starts trusting or respecting?

We do seem to be going around in circles in this discussion. I think that we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this subject.

The facts remain one size does not fit all when it comes to the institution of marriage and family. There are already a number of existing variations to traditional marriage and family arrangements, such as single-parent families, cohabitation, serial monogamy, reconstituted families, childless couples, communes, "open" marriage, gay couples and gay parent families, and remaining single. This range is being tolerated in our society in the context of growing individualism of our society and changing life-style circumstances.

Family patterns vary widely. All these patterns can be analyzed in terms of their variation along basic dimensions such as the number of partners, partner preference, residence pattern, authority relationships, descent and inheritance, and family form. Blanket statements are no longer applicable. Industrialisation and urbanisation have been accompanied by a worldwide transformation of the family and as a result of marriage. Therefore what is happening is that our society is increasingly tolerating a variety of marriage and family styles. A hallmark of our society is its economic and cultural diversity, combined with a highly developed sense of individualism. In this environment, people tend to make decisions about marriage, divorce, abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of what they, personally, want - rather in terms of traditional moralities, obligations to kin, or any other personal pressures that previous generations unquestioningly accepted.

Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillment, or responding to the social and economic predicament in which they find themselves, many people are modifying the family/marriage system to suit their individual needs. This with time will be recognised formally whether we approve of it or not.

Aquarius.
Again, you prove my point, how indeed would I know about something which I can't experience?
Homosexual relationships are not the same as heterosexual, so no equality.
I agree with Lexi in that this debate is going nowhere, we have one side pushing formal equality and one testing substantive equality, there's not even a consensus on what we're actually arguing about.

Lexi,

Yes, circles, with no real chance of agreeing or of changing each others' views.

Lexi: "Therefore what is happening is that our society is increasingly tolerating a variety of marriage and family styles."

Tolerating, yes; strenuously embracing, I don't think so. It is still my feeling that a great many people (could I possibly venture, vast majority), would support the "conventional" view of marriage. What proportion of women do you think would wish to get married; what sort of marriage would they prefer?

Some friends of mine decided to marry (second for both) after about 15 years as a couple. None of us looked down on them for living together, but all of us were overjoyed for them when they decided to finally tie the knot. Their choice, no pressure, no urging.

I feel sorry for couples who live together for many years, and raise children but either never marry, or marry later on. I feel sorry for the children too, even though there is no stigma.

Ammonite considers me judgmental, but I consider that I just exercise judgment, to the best of my ability. In my judgment I try to employ ethics, values, morals and ideals, but not ill-will to my fellow man. Judgment is a matter of standards, and I do not look to loose or flexible morals or ethics in determining those standards.

The best I can do for gays etc is to empathise with their predicament. I would not like to be in their shoes, and if I was gay I would choose to be asexual.

Do I think gay "marriage" would denigrate conventional marriage, yes. Why? Because I think it can only offer to lower the ideals and expectations of "marriage" for millions of conventional couples, both now and into the future.

Ammonite,

"I" didn't earn the right to marry, "WE" earned the right - through demonstrated long term unconditional and faithful commitment to each other. We did not enter marriage lightly, nor dishonestly, nor inadvisedly. Was our union ordained by God, not really, but it was celebrated by a Minister of the Cloth.