Individual,

My point, there, was that society is not bound by dictionary definitions; definitions can reflect how we live, but they don’t tell us how to live.

How hierarchies and atrocities have any relevance to what I said is beyond me, but to derive self-loathing and feminist undertones from a simple analogy doesn’t say much for your ability to think rationally and objectively about these things.

Irrelevancies*

Whilst we are in the mood for language correction, Trav and others…

I'd like some suggestions from those who hold to the author's point of view.

That is, I wouldn't want to cause offence or institutional weakening by describing any heterosexual couples who – just because they have a government licence or recognition – regard themselves as being 'married' when they don't meet the criteria: one man and one woman, lifelong, no other sexual partners and fecund.

Espoused might work but seems quaint. Any suggestions?

The thing is Gay people CAN get married. Just not to people of the same gender.

And really, I DON'T have the right to marry people of the same gender either and I'm not gay.

There is no discrimination or lack of equality.

There's a facility for people to get married. Some heterosexual people still like to do it, most don't, and homosexual people aren't likely to be interested but a lot actually have in the past. It's called marriage, the union of a man and a woman.

Now since homosexuals generally don't really like marriage, and athiests and non-conformers and anti-authoritarians don't like to get married, then we have a concept of civil unions and de-facto marriage, that have all the rights of marriage.

I think the government calls some people married when it's a man and a woman, but it has no real practical effect on the rights and responsibilites so it really doesn't matter.

Hello Kipp, I seem to misread you several times over.

I see you have resorted to the usual denigration of religious belief: “antiquated beliefs”, “religious fundamentalists” , “sky fairies”, “religious bigot”, etc

I had hoped you might have engaged in my argument which as I said before is based on “what we all can’t not know”, regardless of whether I might be a “religious bigot” or you a loving, caring secularist (actually not sure what you are, but I’ll be generous).

Thank you for replying Clownfish.

Regarding my assertion that marriage is 'about bearing and raising children' (I do acknowledge it is also about companionship, complementary fulfilling lives and other good things) I think the evidence is staring you in the face, if you can’t see it, I not sure what else I can do: a) marriages, historically, at least 80% plus produce children, without the children that come from marriages there would be no human race.

I don’t ignore “the glaring example of married couples who are childless either by circumstance or by choice” – I simple say the exception does not negate the rule. I am saddened to hear that people marry but don’t want children. I am saddened when people who marry and want children are unable to have children. This was a very personal sorrow of my wife and I.

Regarding Jesus and the possibility of same sex couples qualifying for marriage, if he favoured this he would have had to say so and given a reason, given how incomprehensible, indeed abhorrent same sex marriage would have been in first century Palestine

Hmm, Houellebecq, let's try a counterexample:

'The thing is Black people CAN get married. Just not to people of different colour.

And really, I DON'T have the right to marry people of different colour either and I'm not black.'

Let's see you try and make that one fly.