Lego,

You must really lack any valid points when you need to resort to name calling and bigotry.

I am happily married (to a woman) and the homosexual people I know are either married already or do not want to be married. So I personally have nothing to gain (or lose)in this debate. There is no evil "lobby" with the aim to destroy your way of life.

Once you calm down from all of the thoughts of anal sex (it is interesting that you seem to think of gay men, and not women), you can go back and read my posts. Then you will see that I do not take a position either way regarding the definition of the word marriage. Personally I don't care what you, or any other person thinks 'marriage' means. My relationship with my wife is not defined by legislation.

I just question the need for the government to regulate relationships at all. You seem to answer this question by going on a rant about eugenics and unacceptable bedroom behavior (which is completely unrelated to the topic of marriage). I get it, you don't like homosexual men. If this is what you call tolerance, however, I'd hate to see what you are intolerant of.

It was only a matter of time before this debate sunk down this to level of intolerance and prejudice. You have done very well to miss the point entirely.

Lego anal sex is common in hetrosexual relationships, and procreation does not a marriage make.

'you have my support when you go though the Transgender medical reassignment procedure!'

kipp,

I would think if you want support for being married you would be more open minded about my request. Anything less is highly hypocritical. You ask that I have a reassignment procedure to get married, yet I'm sure you would find it offensive if I expected you to do the same, or change your sexual orientation and marry a woman.

It's obvious you're just avoiding the analogy as you have no answer. It's exactly the same thing as you are asking for; To change the meaning of a word and be recognised by the government under the definition.

I have all the rights of a parent and a father, but I want to be recognised as the more maternal nurturing mother by having that title recognised by the government.

You have all the rights of a heterosexual married couple, yet you want to be recognised under the word marriage as a somehow more legitimate loving couple by the government.

Each request is pure symbolism. Each request requires re-defining a word. Each is ridiculous.

ozbib,

I’m not arguing a moral case. I am pointing out that the word, “marriage”, has a meaning in our society, the same meaning it has always had, and that to redefine it, which would arguably be unconstitutional, would remove a meaning from the language; there would be no word left to describe the exclusive and life-long union of two people of the opposite sex. Polygamous marriage does not exist in our society. That is not to say that one man cannot live with several women, but it is not a marriage.

Gays have the right to get married now, but they don’t want that right, just as I have the right to eat meat, but I don’t want that right. However, I do not insist that my human rights are being infringed because people won’t call vegetables meat, and my car is not upset that isn’t called a bus.

Chris C.,
You are probably right about the Constitution--
I understand that it is standardly interpreted according to the meaning that its words had in 1901.
I accept your denial that anything follows about what we ought to do, based on the current meaning of the word 'marriage'.

Although there is no polygamous marriage in Australia, that is not enough to determine the meaning of the word. We can talk about polygamous marriages in other societies and make sense--and there is no peculiarity in doing so. So the word is not limited to meaning a lifetime, legally endorsed union between a man and a woman.

It has become part of the current debate that the word is so limited, and that it follows that we should not legislate for gay marriage. That is why I made my comment.

The meaning of the word 'wherefore' is not settled by asking people what it means--they might well say 'where' these days. But it means 'why'--because of the patterns in English of 'wh', 'h' and 'th' prefixes--as in 'where', 'here' and 'there'. The meaning of 'marriage' is similarly not settled by what people will answer without thinking of the various things that are and have been called marriages.

Hi Stezza.

Everybody is intolerent, because if you approve of everything, then you stand for nothing.

And if it is "bigotry" to say that you do not like a particular group of people, and that you are prejudiced against them, then everybody is a bigot. Tell me, do you intend to invite the Hells Angels motorcycle club over to your house, the next time you have a party? If not, why not?

It is also perfectly normal to call people names who are members of a despised group. Everybody does that also. Of course, that can be unhelpful when engaging in reasoned debate. But it can keep the readers amused, so as long as it does not get too nasty, I think a bit of name calling is acceptable.