My understanding of Christianity is that a 'church marriage' demands that the bride be female and the groom be male. I think its Book stipulates that somewhere. I have thus been of the opinion that should religious bodies in general sanction and perform gay marriages they have exceeded their brief.

If that is the case, it seems to me that those religious bodies would as a result enter the realm of commerce and should be taxed accordingly.

Do they have their backs against the wall?

Fred Niles character has withstood decades of corrupt Labour pollies who no doubt have been rewarded jobs by the current rabbel in Canberra. Personally I would prefer Nile's 'rain chanting'as Kees calls it to the promotion of perversion (gay marriage). Bigots from the homosexual lobby have thrown urine at Fred Nile and slandered him. To me he is a hero. The Dutch might delight in having a homosexual PM while some Australians rejoice in a feminist woman living in sin. So what! She certainly has proved a diaster.

If you wrote it, Kees, congratulations on the funniest article heading I've yet seen on OnLine Opinion.

It just occurred to me that if there are casualties in this battle, Mr. H, the opponents such as runner won't leave their mate's behind.

Houles, sick minds think alike. It’s taken me half an hour to clear the tears of laughter from my eyes and "I don't know which way to turn"?

I’m still trying to type whilst laughing, what with the author’s ”rearguard action”, your "backs to the wall" contribution Houles, then WmTrevor adding the further slip by his reference to not leaving “their mate’s behind”?

Sorry Kees, it’s not that we don’t take your article seriously but you must appreciate your Freudian slip is hilarious? Not to mention the bucket load of “one liners” we could have tipped in.

I really am shocked that no one has offered any consideration for the Family Court in all of this.

How on earth are they going to function, when they get divorce among these funny people.

They won't be able to follow their standard blue print for the distribution of the assets with this lot. They won't be able to take everything from the male, & give it to the female, in either case.

If you see a large mushroom cloud, some time soon, hanging over the legal district of a city near you, don't worry, it's not a nuclear invasion. It's merely the family court "Justices" exploding after trying to wrestle with such a huge problem

If this poster contributes to answer your first question, spindoc...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=26789

you'll be left gagging.

I just object to the word 'mariage' in the issue of homosexual unions.

The word already has a definate meaning of a union between a male and a female. Leave that as is.

If same sex couples want a legal union, I have no objection to that but they should come up with a word, or words, that mean just that.

I believe they want the word marriage because it indicates a higher moral standard.

Are they really looking to get a legal union, or just after a measure of respectability?

Gay marriage is both an impossibility and an inevitability – an impossibility by definition, an inevitability because we live in an era of sloppy thinking.

Gay marriage is the silliest issue to be taken seriously in the last 40 years, so it is not surprising that those who support it subject those who oppose it are to hate speech as cover for the weakness of their arguments in favour, which are about as valid as declaring that a bus should be called a turnip.

Marriage does not discriminate against gays. No one, gay or not, can marry a person of the same sex.

There is something called marriage – the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman – that gays can have but most definitely do not want. They want something different – the exclusive and life-long union of one man and another man or of one woman and another woman. Instead of pursuing this aim, they and their supporters attempt an arguably unconstitutional word theft by creating mass hysteria about something called “marriage equality” and calling those who disagree religious bigots.

This is as logical as if I, a vegetarian, demanded the right to eat meat, meaning, not the flesh of animals, but the relabelling of vegetables as meat, under the slogan of “meat equality”, and called my logically-minded opponents vegephoic bigots.

I write, not from any religious motivation, but as an English teacher from the era before words meant whatever anyone wanted them to mean. But I recognise that in a few years, “marriage” will be redefined and there will be no word left in the English language that means “the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman”. The inevitability of this triumph of illogicality does not mean I should not point out its foolishness before it happens. Once it happens, we can get on to a campaign for oranges to be called lemons.

But the thing is Chris, words do mean whatever we want them to mean - they are just cultural conventions. I agree with most of what you said, but I come from the other direction. I have no idea why the government has to have a definition of marriage at all. Why not leave it up to individuals what they call their relationship? It's not a matter of human rights, it's just a matter of semantics.

re Chris C's post,

As a matter of clear thinking, 'the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman' need not be defined as 'marriage'.

GrahamY is right Chris C… "It is a usage which regulates the laws and conventions of speech" as Horace wrote in Ars Poetica – though admittedly this would have been in Latin and around 2030 years ago.

Being slightly more up-to-date the word marriage patently didn't exclusively meet your meaning at the beginning of the 16th century when Henry Tudor 'married' his brother Arthur's widow before demonstrating five more times that he didn't agree with your definition.

Still if we are going to pretend to be pedantic should you modify your proposed campaign to: geoluhreads to be called lemons?

I still like 'tax the churches'. It has a nice ring and a solid history.

I'm still with you Chris. The ridiculousnessnessness of it offends me. I abhor such symbolism and I really cant for the life of me understand why it is a matter of 'equality'. I mean really.

What's going to happen. The next day after gay people are allowed to marry all bigots and homophobes will suddenly see the light, and gay couples who have loved each other for 20 years will suddenly get married and it will make their relationships complete? Give me a break!

I'm not religious, and I don't really care that much, but I CAN see the stupidity of it all. I'm a good spotter of stupidity I am.

Once again, I feel I must take this opportunity to highlight the inequity in me not being recognised as the mother of my children. Sure I am their father,I am their parent, but to be the mother, well that brings with it a more genuine and legitimate connotation of being a nurturer of children, and I want that title. If the government refuses to acknowledge the motherly relationship I have with my children, and recognise me as a mother, even though I am male, I just cant go on. I want equality!

I suggest this string be given the chop - it's getting beyond stupid

Well, mother is just a word. Words change meaning all the time.

I'm sure all the mothers out there wont find it upsetting at all. How does it affect their mothering of their children for me to become a mother? It's bigotry I tell you! Of masclaphobia! They just don't like men and they don't want men to be able to be societally accepted as nurturing mothers.

See, if I could be called a mother, the next time I take photos of my kids at the beach, nobody would be at all suspicious I was a filthy pervert. It's part of having my relationship with my children become truly acceptable, and the government must help with some symbolism.

From the responses I know you've elicited from some/many posters in the past, Houellebecq, I don't understand why they're not rushing at the opportunity to call you a real mother-... ?

>>If the government refuses to acknowledge the motherly relationship I have with my children, and recognise me as a mother, even though I am male, I just cant go on. I want equality!<<

And I fully support your right to equality, Houllebecq! But do bear in mind the Horace quote.

I think you'll find that even with a big stamp of approval from the Man, calling yourself a mother won't make people perceive you as a mother. They'll just think you're a weirdo. Whereas I regard committed long-term relationships between homosexuals as marriages in everything but the strictly legal sense. It is a usage which regulates the laws and conventions of speech, not a government decree.

>>See, if I could be called a mother, the next time I take photos of my kids at the beach, nobody would be at all suspicious I was a filthy pervert.<<

Why not just lose the shabby raincoat and brown-tinted aviator sunglasses? They're a bit of a giveaway.

It would take way less effort than single-handedly trying to change patterns of English usage.

Cheers,

Tony

Houellebecq I support you in being a mother, but! please do not buy your frocks from those cheap chain stores, tacky sweetie, very tacky!!

I object to the push to prevent me using the word that comes to mind when ever I hear about homosexuals.

I refuse to waste the perfectly legitimate word "gay",. for these people. They are, & always will be poofters to me. Why should I not so name them?

Suppose thats why you are a "Hasbeen" :)

And proud of it. Better than a never was.

Absolutely Houellebecq, go ahead and call yourself 'Mother', if equality is what you want.

You will just need to wait a little while longer though Houellebecq, because a male 'pregnancy' is still only in the planning stages.

Do call me though, when you are ready to 'push'...
I would love to help you 'push through the pain : )

I am not opposed to gays getting hitched, what ever floats your boat, I say.

However, I have said this before and say it again, find another word, as the Marriage Word is taken.

WmTrevor,

I am not “pretending” to be pedantic. I am not even being pedantic.

GrahamY and prialpang,

I suppose we can go all Alice in Wonderland. We have a current word, “marriage”, with a current meaning. While it is arguably unconstitutional for the federal parliament to redefine it, given that parliament cannot simply make its powers under section 51 cover whatever it wants them to cover (as this would be the end of the federal system), it is certainly within the purview of everybody else to make up new words and redefine old ones and find new words to denote old meanings. Of course, none of this has anything to do with human rights or equality, which is why I find the whole gay marriage push so silly. However, what is the case for removing from the language the meaning “the exclusive and lifelong union of one man and one woman”? None has been presented. If gays want legal recognition of exclusive and life-long same-sex unions, they should invent a word to describe them. I’d do so myself, but I think the word has to come from the gay community to be accepted by the gay community.

We have legal recognition of marriage for historical reasons. Changes to law over decades have extended the rights and responsibilities inherent in marriage to other relationships, though we do not yet legally call de facto relationships marriage, any more than we call geoluhreads oranges. The law is not going to vacate the field of relationships because there are children and property involved.

Houellebecq,

I hope you are not working on a plot to get presents on Mothers’ Day as well as Fathers’ Day.

"find another word, as the Marriage Word is taken."

It might be taken but for many the thing it's taken by does not seem to bear much in common with a life time loving relationship.

R0bert

Perhaps, R0bert, *marriages* should only be recognised in retrospect.

Perhaps a union (of anybody) might only be (provisionally) recognised if all parties adherent agree after some specified period as to what it is or was.

Two divorced people might specify later they were in fact married, or shackled, or convenienced or that it was not a "marriage", merely a "disaster".

Any description short of Death or Divorce is obviously already merely provisional and/or anticipatory, regardless of current perceptions, we could recognise that in law and tax dis/advantages could be withheld pending a final assessment.

Rusty

Rusty, maybe "Cruel and unusual punishment" might fit for some.

R0bert

Yes, its a trivial issue made into a political arguement for all the wrong reasons. I support gay rights, the same way I support women's rights and other sections of our national community who all contribute significantly to our sense of diversity and the especially our cultural competence to accept difference as being a normal part the human condition. We should see this issue as an opportunity to grow, not regress and rely upon beliefs founded on insecurity and prejudice - which at the end of the day - stunts our collective intellectual growth.

'Australia will have embraced it'

Here is your problem.

You acknowledge, 'most Australians don't really care about this issue'.

I am one of those and I'm not inclined to embrace anything when it is promoted by a very small minority using as justification the 'rights' of that minority.

That smacks of rule by minority.

While governments do define marriage, that has only occurred because a majority of citizens once wished that be the case.

That was rule by the najority.

Until a majority of people actively 'care' about this issue and there is overwhelming displayed ans acknowledged interest then I'll not 'embrace' anything.

That's my right... and everybody's right. To abuse or label people simply because they oppose or are indiferent to your cause is hardly an effective way to change the law... and minority rule won't do.

If I had a position then it would probably be to have all who wish to have partnerships be required to register as Civil Unions and then leave 'society' to use whatever words they want, until common usage, develops different word labels for the great variety of partnerships ... even those between a man and his boat.

Interesting.

Words change their meaning as we know and as it
happens dictionary entries are updated to reflect
the changes. The word "gay" has changed its meaning
in the course of the last 100 years. The meaning of
marriage also appears to be shifting. Dictionary
entries of course only tell you how a word is
currently used - not how it should be used. In
other words dictionaries are apolitical entities.
The people who compile them do not (cannot) allow
their feelings to influence the entries. And that is
as it should be.

Each society views its own patterns of marriage, as
self-evidently right and proper, and usually as
God-given as well. Much of the current concern
about the fate of modern marriage stems from this
kind of ethnocentrism. If we assume that there is
only one "right" marriage form, then naturally any
change will be interpreted as heralding the doom
of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is
an immense range in marriage patterns, that each of
these patterns may be, at least in its own context,
perfectly viable; and above all, that marriage, like
any other social institution, must inevitably change
through time, in our own society as in all others.

Perhaps at some point it will be no longer necessary
to clarify what kind of union is under discussion
and the various forms of mariage will simply be referred
to as "marriage." Only time will tell.

Now you're talking nutter, I had a great relationship with my boat, & she was more reliable & faithful than most women.

19 years we were together, longer than most relationships, homo or heterosexual. & you're right, I should have married her.

Dear Hasbeen,

What happened to her after 19 years?
Perhaps that's a clue as to whether she would
have stayed with you for a longer term.

lexi,
Disagree, words normally do not change their meaning, in fact the only two common usage words I can think of are 'gay' which was introduced by the homosexuals and the Americanism of 'guys', which apparently can now mean both sexes which is beyond me how that can be. I refuse to use both words.

But rain is still rain and oranges are still oranges. Someone is trying to get us to call lemons, 'oranges' and it will never be.

The word marriage has a definate meaning of a union between a male and a female. If same sex unions are to be defined then new words are required. Wordsmiths would be pleased to introduce new words, after all the computer era has seen the introduction of new words.

There is no need to hyjack a word with a definate meaning.

'Wit is the sudden marriage of ideas which before their union were not perceived to have any relation'.
Mark Twain

Written over 120 years ago. The interpretation of marriage as 'a combination of two or more things' (Cambridge Dictionaries Online) has been around a while.

The Oxford Dictionary also has 'a combination or mixture of elements', while dictionary.com uses 'any close or intimate association or union'.

Lexi, you're right, I was unfaithful. And worse than that, the other woman in my life kept cluttering up the countryside with kids. If only I had been able to discover the reason for that, I may have been able to stop it. Eventually we did not all fit, & moved to the land.

Be that as it may, my lovely lady hated sitting tied in a muddy creek. I let her go to a man who took her out again, to where the water is clean & blue.

My son who was 7, & had only a couple of thousand miles sailing, has never quite forgiven me, but sometimes our hand is forced.

Dear Hasbeen,

Such is life.

But at least the memories have lasted a lifetime.
(sigh).

G'day Banjo? "words normally do not change their meaning…" Really?

I hope you're not inextricably married to that concept?

Maybe you've spent too much time recently on your computer (Oops there's a third - used to mean a person who calculated) surfing (Oops a fourth - verb not now requiring the ocean) the web (Oops a fifth - where did the spider go) to notice the reality is the exact opposite.

Then there are calques and true and false cognates to worry about, let alone the insistence of teenagers around the world to talk nonsense.

Words are constantly changing their meaning (and from your examples their spelling also) through usage - what does vary is the timeframe - which is why we don't speak Proto-Indo-European, Uralic, Dravidian or Afroasiatic.

None of which of course means that we wish language wouldn't…

To the point, personally I like espousal since it allows for the gender neutral and single syllable reference to one's spouse.

But maybe this is too fricative for some to get their tongue around to be comfortable?

Dear Banjo,

You can disagree about words all you like.
It doesn't make you right. What you need to
do is Google - the origin of words and names.

Just to give you a few examples:

1) Artificial - originally meant "full of artistic or
technical skill." Today its meaning has a very
different slant.

2)Nice - comes from the Latin "not to know."
Originally a "nice person" was someone who was
ignorant or unaware.

3) Awful - used to mean - "full of awe." That is,
something wonderful, delightful, amazing. Over time
it has evolved to mean exactly the opposite.

4) Counterfeit - once meant a "perfect copy."
Now it means anything but.

5) Tell - originally meant "to count."
Hence the term - "bank teller."

And so on.

Words are quite interesting - but they do change over
time - and whether you like it or not - that's a fact!
If you do bother to look up some of their origins on
the web - you may even learn where "orange," came from.

As for "marriage," as I stated earlier - at some point
in the future - it will no longr be necessary to
clarify what kind of union is under discussion and
as the institution of marriage (the various forms) are
changing - so will the word itself - where the various
forms of marriage will simply be referred to as "marriage."
Time and evidence will bear this out. You can protest
all you like - changes will continue to happen despite
you.

Things change no one denies that, words adapt to new realities. But natures remain; personal identity remains as we grow and change we don't become essentially someone else. Apple meant just heirloom varieties, now fuji, gala etc but appleness remains. Humans only came in black years ago now they can be white, but human nature, humanness remains. Marriage has had different erotic, religious, social and political implications but men, women, procreation and child rearing remain. And will remain after modern liberal nation states have dissolved into dysfunctionality.

No one blames a governing class for at least TRYING to arrogate to itself control of marriage and the male-female sexual relationship, or the power to define nature. The more it stakes a claim to aspects of human life the more powerful and indispensable they make themselves. This is as natural to governments as men and women marrying and raising children. To say it is 'rear guard' to make these simple points against claims by the political class is just to say tyranny has made large headway.

Latest polls in England and recent MP electorate survey in Australia showed at least 70% against abolishing marriage. It would be pretty discriminatory to make everyone's marriage a gay 'marriage' by redefining it as two genderless adults. And keeping it to to two is even more exclusionary if male/female/procreation is thought mere prejudice. What of muslim polygamy? polyandrous 3's,4's, groups? 'bigots', 'haters' 'equal love' ? Resistance 'rear guard' too?

No. Of gays (1% of the population), only a tiny fraction actually want (or are stupid enough) to legally submit to marriage laws. They are useful tools of the political class nothing more. They'll quite happily let them squabble over the dregs of an evacuated institution. They feel quite chuffed that people think their freedom and autonomy has to be mediated by them. They'll certainly cast homosexuals aside when, with this new omnipotence and nature creating power, find them a small and unnecessary group - perhaps after a Weimar type change of political scene.

I disagree Prialprang. This truly has been a marvelous string/thread, of infinite jest and most excellent fancy.
For better or worse, if it wasn't for Online, it really could have quickly descended into catcalls and spittle, so often the case in matters surrounding this topic.
Thanks to the likes of Pearson, Conrad and Online, it is possible to make reasoned headway.
Change is inevitable, both happily and sadly.

Lexi,

given your examples of words altering meaning, marriage in future will probably come to mean the exact opposite ... don't you think?

Good god hasbeen ... do you realise you've raised your son to fall in love with a boat and worse ... her big Spanish sister ... la mar. I hope you've told him of the dangers of el Hornes.

lexi,
The 5 words you quoted in your last post have not changed in my lifetime nor, I suspect, in my fathers and grandfathers time either.

Few words, out of all the words we use actually change their meanings.

I do fight to stop, or slow down, the Americanization of our language, which is a constant losing battle because of the vast influence of the US entertainment industries.

The use of the words gay and guy came from the US, as did the change to the word surfing which still only means the original to me. Just because Americans use a word or phrase their way does not mean we have to follow suit. Should we call footpaths sidewalks or car bonnets hoods or car boots trunks, I think not. I hope I am long gone before an official at an Anzac service refers to our diggers as GIs. It is all part of our culture and is what makes us different to others.

Therefore I will still maintain that the word marriage has a definate meaning of a union of a male and female.

Proponants of same sex unions can come up with their own words to mean just that. Interesting to see if Aussies come up with our own slang words for same sex unions.

Dear Banjo,

I repeat that you need to Google the meaning and
origin of words and
names to fully comprehend the point that I am making.
Words change their meaning - and dictionary entries
are updated to reflect the changes. The word "gay" has
changed its meaning in the course of the last 100 years.
And the meaning of marriage has likewise shifted - from
it's original meaning to which you refer.
The Oxford Dictionaries online explains how it is
currently used. But you need to do your own research on
the topic. You don't have to take my word for it.

lexi,
Have done a bit of family history and the meaning of the word marriage has not changed in the last 500 years. Parish records verify that.

Dear Banjo,

The only constant in life is change.
Parish records are only a very limited source
or indication of marriage patterns. As you know
they are weddings performed by religious officials.
However there are registrations of unions by a judge
or other government servants, marriage celebrants,
and so on. Same sex marriages are slowly being accepted
in places around the globe - and undoubtedly its only
a question of time before this is done in this country.
The matter is already being discussed in our Parliament
and suggestions of a "conscience vote" are being made.

However, as I stated in my earlier post - each society
views its own patterns of marriage as self-evidently
right and proper, and usually as God-given as well.
Much of the current concern about the fate of
marriage stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.
If you assume there is only one "right" marriage form,
then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole institution.

I don't happen to see things as you do. However, you
are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.
See you on another thread.

Nothing against them, but I'd be pleased if they were gay - most seem to be pretty miserable types.

Lexi,
Positions against changing the definition of marriage which come from an ethnocentric or religious point of view are automatically dismissed, your side is not open to discussion or challenge on those points so this idea of "tolerance" in the debate is farcical since we're not allowed to put forth any argument in defence of our principles, your side is not tolerant nor is it inclusive.
Heterosexual marriage has been the most effective vehicle for the growth in population and social stability of my ethnic group, on that basis I reject any changes to the law which diminish or demean the importance of those institutions which are most beneficial to the continued health of people of White Australian ethnicity.

Hi Jay,

I'm not sure that you understood what I posted earlier -
so I'll repeat it here for you. Here goes -

Each society views its own patterns of marriage
as self evidently right and proper, and usually
as God-given as well. Much of the current concern
about the fate of modern marriage stems from
this kind of ethnocentrism. If we assume that
there is only one "right" marriage form, then
naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise therefore that there
is an immense range in marriage patterns,
that each of these patterns may be, at least
in its own context, perfectly viable,
and above all, that marriage, like any other
social institution must inevitably change through
time, in our society as in all others.

Your attitude is perfectly explainable - given
your circumstances and to you makes perfect sense.
We all understand that. But of course this does not
mean that we agree with you. The same as I don't
expect you to agree with me. Individual
differences are part and parcel of our society,
afterall.

cont'd ...

BTW - I'm not advocating any sort of "religious stance,"
you obviously did not understand my earlier posts.
And of course religious stances are not
inclusive. Neither is yours for obvious reasons.