Why should we have a difficulty with a definition of "marriage" as being between a man and a woman, as has always been the normal case for raising a family, and that any other form of union is either a partnership or a legally recognisable contract or union?

In other words, why do gays insist that only "marriage" will do? Surely gays realise that their "union" could never be considered as identical to the normal concept of "marriage", so just what is the purpose of pushing this envelope? What is really to be gained, except a hollow victory over common sense?

I have to agree wholeheartedly with the first poster on this thread, RitaJ, not only on the basis of the rights of children, but more importantly because to recognise any other union as "marriage" is ridiculous, stupid, a blasphemy and a deviation which threatens to demean and diminish all genuine marriages.

Although I cannot agree with Jay in all he has posted on this, he has a point - the gay movement is going overboard, levied and incited by our increasingly "liberal" attitudes, our (forced) insistence on the criminalisation of any form of discrimination, and our increasingly over-zealous acceptance of "political correctness", no matter how unjustified or unjustifiable. All of us have cause to discriminate in our daily lives - which ads to believe, and which to reject, which political "spin" to believe, which tradesman to employ, and which of these, and so many other counter-intuitive options, to reject.

What would be the outcome of a worldwide plebiscite on "marriage"? Does anyone in their right mind think that the world would be happy to accept gay union as being identical to "marriage"? For the West, or any part of it, including New York, to make such an assertion is to court disbelief and derision - and rightly so!

Gays need to exhibit the liberal attitude they espouse, and accept that "marriage" is for genuine male/female couples, and they should be big enough to accept a "legal union" as adequate recognition of their non-heterosexual partnerships.

Saltpetre
...or start their own religion and work around it that way.
You're right, "Westerners" are a tiny minority of the world's population and the pro "Gay" movement is but a sliver of that percentage.
For example, the vast majority of Christians now reside in the Third world and their numbers are growing very rapidly, and we all know where mainstream Islam stands on this issue.
This relentless attack by "Gays" on a supposed White Christendom is being broadcast to the real Christendom, that is to say the "New Christendom" of Africa and Asia. To someone in the Third World who is not as well educated as us and takes the Bible literally this must seem to be not only an affront but an outright attack on their faith, as you said a blasphemy.
We're asked to show leadership on many issues and we (supposedly)stand as a beacon of hope for the Third world, so how does this crazy revolutionary zeal at the top of the "Gay" movement improve our standing?
The Liberal theology has the "all seeing eye" of world opinion as it's deity, yet it's openly declaring war on ideals and a moral code which are, in many cases the only thing that keep a Third Worlder putting one foot in front of the other every day.

This ties into my point,why not kick the Trotskyites, the straight dilettantes and the Haters to the kerb and put together a serious team of grown ups to negotiate?
My "night of the long knives" quip was in some regards over the top, but it's not far from the way a lot of people see the issue, the SA "troublemakers" were purged from the NSDAP because they threatened the negotiations with mainstream parties for control of the Reichstag.
Less hysterical readers will take my meaning in it's proper context, where the SA were accused of being "brown on the outside and red on the inside" the same is being said of the "Gays", Pink on the outside, Red on the inside.

I'll wrap it up on this thread because I've made my point but, seriously, it's been 40 years and, if you listen to the "Gays" there's still "such a long way to go" and it's "one step forward, two steps back".
I for one don't buy it, I think this revolution is truly open ended and it still holds fast to the original manifesto.
In other areas this type of activism is dead, it's anachronistic and what's more it doesn't work, can't work in the information age, time for the "Gays" to either evolve or step aside.

When it comes to Social Justice, Human rights and equality for all, it would appear civilised belief, is not a part of the beliefs of rightwing religous fundamentalists.
One must ask why they want to live in a democratic society, when there are a number of despotic nations for them to choose from to live!

I am constantly amazed at the utter ignorance of some posters on this forum - but then - hey it's the internet so what was I thinking. Actually, I was hoping for reasoned, intelligent discussion - not generalisations, sweeping statements and total lack of facts.

Talking of facts. Each society views its own patterns of marriage, family, and kinship as self-evidently right and proper, and usually as God given as well.

Much of the current concern about the fate of modern family stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.

If we assume that there is only one "right" family form, then naturally any change will be interpreted as heralding the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognize, therefore, that there is an IMMENSE
range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns, that each of these patterns may be, perfectly viable, and above all, that the family and marriage, like any other social institution, must inevitably change through time, in our own society, as in all others.

Beautifully expressed Lexi.

And it is people like you who prevent OLO from being just a wing-nut blog.