Clownfish, skin colour is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage.

WmTrevor,

I refer to my 'partner' sometimes, other times my 'girlfriend' (Gets the tounges wagging about the legitimacy of my children and even their paternity) and 'The missus' which can sound strangely chauvenistic but not as much as "'er indoors" wich really rankles feminists which amuses me so, and even at times 'Lady Friend' when I'm in a silly mood, not unlike today.

A little secret, sometimes I just call her my wife! Imagine that, and we're not even married! Scandalous!

I'm all for weakening institutions! Not so much on empty symbolism and changing the meaning of words, pining for acceptance or political correctness

Trav,

'Clownfish, skin colour is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with the purpose of marriage.'

It has nothing to do with any purpose, it's just that there is a facility that is enjoyed by a subset of the heterosexual community. Actually not even a facility, a definition of a word. Woopdy doo!

I really cant see a crime if gay people have an equivalent facility, but not exactly the same by name. It's just semantics. It's like women's only Gyms and guys reckoning that's discrimination. It's ridiculous for people to expect that every avenue of life must be open to them whether it is designed and intended for them or not and regardless if there is an equivalent option available.

We segregate on gender, we segregate on age, we discriminate in insurance, we have different names for gay and heterosexual 'marriage'. Get over it man.

It implys an inferiority complex this assumption that marriage by any other name is not adequate, it must have that moniker! It's wanting to join a club just because the club isn't designed for you and refuses to change for you. Get over yourself and make your own club or find a different club or just ignore the club altogether. It's not compulsory.

That does fly clownfish. The only reason it wouldn't fly is if you considered that somehow either black or white people were inferior.

Just because a distinction is made doesn't mean it's an inequality. It's a segregation or distinction. I am denied the same rights as the other party (black/white, gay/straight), and if you think that's unfair, you must think that black people are inferior to white then? Or are gay people inferior to heteros then? Or is it the other way around?

As I said before, not all avenues to all areas of life should be available to all people. As long as generally people can practically and pragmatically live the same lives then what's the argument. It boils down to an inferiority complex.

If there didn't exist Gyms that men could join, then women's only Gyms would be inequality. If fathers didn't have the exact rights of mothers, men not being able to be officially recognised as a mother to their children would be inequality.

So, Houellebec, you're actually endorsing miscegenation now? You must really miss the days of the Ol' South.

Trav, I realise it must be taxing your poor old Christian brain cells to get your head around it, but a counterexample is a method of evaluating an argument, to see if its premises are valid. In this case, substituting skin colour in place of gender results in an argument that I think reasonable people would find repugnant. Therefore, the premises of your argument are suspect.

But, as to the 'purpose' of marriage, none of you have yet answered my question of whether predicating marriage on a 'purpose' of bearing and raising children means that those marriages which are childless are therefore invalid.

I realise that logical reasoning isn't a strong point for your lot, so I'll put your argument into a simple logical form, to make it easy to follow.

Your argument runs thus:

1) Marriage is for the purpose of bearing and raising children;
2) Homosexual couples cannot ordinarily bear and raise children;

C) Homosexuals couples cannot marry.

Applying this argument, we find that:

1) Marriage is for the purpose of bearing and raising children;
2) Infertile couples cannot ordinarily bear and raise children;

C) Infertile couples cannot marry.

I look forward to you explaining to Hugh Jackman, that his marriage to Deborah-Lee Furness is invalid.

Hello AJ Philips, why the derogatory language: Sky Daddy indeed!

Recorded in the Bible or are you one of these people who believe nothing existed before 100, 200 years ago?

I repeat (ad nauseam) what I said earlier that there are things we can’t not know whether we are believers in Sky Daddies (your words not mine) or not. I would have thought we all understood what “one flesh” meant whether the phrase come from the Bible or not.

“Christians did not invent marriage; marriage was around long before Christianity” - my point exactly. I chose the natural law argument because it is real, substantial, what none, you included “can’t not know”. No point in me using a Biblical argument if you and Kipp are just going to denounce Christian claims with inflammatory language. I wouldn’t bother seeking to demonstrate the truth of such claims to you - indeed in following this course of action I respect you(!) - for I’m certain on the basis of your post your mind is closed to such matters.

“'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.”

Good try Clownfish, but it doesn’t work, apples and pears stuff I’m afraid. No one, at least not nowadays, argues against interracial marriage while observing the opposite sex distinction, but people do argue against same sex marriage (i.e. according to what we can’t not know) and that regardless of racial background.