Hi Runner,

" ..... a very convenient way for those who choose to remain willfully ignorant. No wonder it was largely the uneducated that believed. Nothing has changed."

Own goal, Runner :)

Dear runner,

You keep making my point for me.

It is indeed the ignorant and uneducated that believe
that "nothing has changed," since the time the Bible
was written. As I keep stating : "The things that you're
liable to read in the Bible...It ain't necessarily so!"

Loudmouth
'Own goal, Runner :)'

Only if you believe the dogmas of the secularist/ evolutionist. With all their scientific degrees all they can come up with is that fantasy. No wonder so many educated accept man made gw as science. IT is also the educated who insist that a baby isn't a baby largely due to convenience. Most of the uneducated has more sense than that.

Runner's "god" ordered a man to kill his own child.

Either the legends of the bible are false, or they describe obscenities.

I regard Runner's religion to be invalid to comment on killing fetuses or children, or anybody else. "Moses" is alleged to have ordered the killing of children and I regard such a figure whether fictional or historical as unfit to instruct me or anybody else on "moral" or ethical issues.

Rusty

What I find most peculiar about this thread is the almost complete lack of any mention of children -apart from paedophilia.
Isn't that, or wasn't that the primary reason for marriage?
In my own case, my eldest daughter was 3 before I married, and the primary reason was simply that we found it more convenient for all of our immediate family to share the same surname.
It does seem a little ironic that Gays a making such a big issue about a convention more and more straights are finding irrelevant.
Personally, I would like to see more dedication to children by parents, whomever they may be. Perhaps instead of “til death us do part”, a solemn oath “til children are grown, us do part” would be more meaningful.
If Gays could provide good stable homes for orphans, or kids living on the streets, or in dire poverty, why not?
Call it what you will. Marriage is just a word, and as such will always mean different things to different people.

ybgirp (11.48am, 7/5),

No, we don’t have “always” “have those opposed to change arguing from either personal prejudice or religious prejudice”, but we do usually have those arguing in favour abusing those arguing against, as you do.

It is a fact that marriage is the lifelong and exclusive union of one man and one woman. That’s what it is. By definition, a man cannot have a marriage with another man – and it does not matter if either man is gay or not gay. Similarly, a woman cannot have a marriage with another woman, for the same reason. There is no discrimination involved at all, any more than there is discrimination involved in countless other cases where a thing is what it is and not what someone says it should be.

There are all sorts of domestic living arrangements. One of them is called marriage. Others are not.

Pelican (8.01pm, 7/5),

Definitions do change, but the question is not put that way. It is put as some great discrimination that one group may not do what another group may when in fact the first group may do what the second group may but doesn’t want to. All the first group demands, with the usual complaints and abuse, is the second group’s word.

If marriage is redefined to exclude “one man and one woman” from the meaning, there will be no word left to legally describe just a union of one and one woman. If gays want an exclusive and lifelong union of two men or of two women, all they need to do is come up with their own word.