Houellebecq,

Good points. But the reason you can't have babies is (presumably) because you're not anatomically equipped, whereas the reason gays can't get married is essentially because a bunch of grumpy old conservatives have forbidden it, 'coz tories get a warm fuzzy feeling from forbidding things. And grumpy old tories forbidding anything is reason enough to want to do it. Hell, if the religious right were to ban men from nailing their own genitals to walls, I'd actually be tempted to do it just to spite the buggers.

From where I sit, marriage was the worst decision I ever made. It very nearly ruined me.

You're welcome to it.

True Rizla,

But I will never be called a mother. Even though I'm not a mother, I'd like to be called 'mother' as everybody knows mothers are better than fathers. I want to be the mother on the birth certificate. Mothers are special. Like marriage is special and better than de-Taco, mothers are special and better than fathers.

It's only the bigorty of those who want ot keep the label mother for themselves that wont let men be mothers. Even if fathers have the same rights to children as mothers, it's the symbolism of being called a mother, the godly nurturer, the mother nature, that I want.

At the moment, a mother is what we call the birth-giver of the baby (Somewhat akin, you might say, to marriage being what we call heteros who shack up and go the extra mile of getting the governmnet involved). But not all mothers give birth, some adopt and are still called mothers, so why cant men, who also don't give birth, be called mothers. We need to be progressive and protect mens civil rights to be accepted by the government as mothers on birth certificates.

Only when men can be called mothers will society truley be accepting of men's nurturing abilities and will mens relationship with children be sanctified in the same way as children's relationship with mothers is. It's 'symbolic'.

PS: I'm with you on the spite. It's really underrated. I have a very strong anti-authoritarian streak too. Which is why I think the government should say, 'We are no longer in the business of registerring marriages. If you kids cant sort it out, from now on, nobody can get married!'. The individual churches can then decide who is 'married', and the governmnet can tax people based on their existing arbitrary and totolatarian way of categorising two people as having formed a partnership.

Houellebecq,

To be honest, I'm not that big on symbolism myself, being more of a practical bent. But I guess it's important to some folk, and if the symbolism of being called a mother will make you happy, I really can't see the harm in that so it doesn't bother me. And if the only 'harm' it should happen to cause is making putting the collective noses of the religious right out of joint, I'd wholeheartedly support it.

I tend to agree that marriage is not really the business of Government... try telling them that.

As I said Rizla, I'm not really bovvered either. I just see it as an amusing tussle to watch. I enjoy the entertainment value of the antics of both sides, but in the end I lean towards 'get over it'. I suppose that could apply to either side, but possession is 9/10 of the law, and that's fair enough. I cant lose really because I either get to stick it to the fundies or the human rights bleaters.

Marriage is the word we use for hetero marriage, just like mother is the term we use for female parents. How many words do we change for the sensibilities of contrary symbolists. You can call me Susan if it makes you happy. Just remembered that line from Snatch. Or was it smoking barrels?

I have no respect for the argument that, 'for all intents and purposes this wont change anything, but I like the symbolism of it'. You can give me 1 million dollars, and if you don't call me a millionaire, I wont be too offended, trust me.

It's a bit of a paradox. They want to change the definition of marriage to be inclusive of any relationship for the purpose of Gay PR, but it will only happen when that PR isn't necessary any more.

Two generations on it will happen no doubt, I don't see the rush. Old people need time to either change or die. It's their human right.

BTW: I want someone to use the term "they're rubbin' it our faces!". It gives me a chuckle every time.

Please explain how a marriage between a man and a woman discrininates or violates a human right of homosexuals.