Chris C,

So it's really all about pedantics it seems.

Anyhooo...it seems Obama calls it marriage.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-10/pm-reacts-to-obamas-support-for-gay-marriage/4003116

Chris your bias thinking saying marriage is between a man and a woman, when the english dictionary does not mention gender in the defination of marriage, other than take as a Husband or wife.
You stated that in some distant past you supported the decriminalisation of homosexuality, very magnamimous of you, though your attitude to acceptance of homosexuals is only on your terms, as to what rights they are entitled to, and it would seem as long as they don't scare your dog!
Nothing is being taken away from you, if same sex couples wish to make legal and public commitment to each other, you should rejoice that there is love in the world.
Love comes in many forms and is always beautifu

>>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.<<

What if marriage is redefined so it includes "one man and one woman" but also includes "one man and one man" or "one woman and one woman"? As the apparent spokesman for L'Academie Anglaise what terrible fate do you think will befall us if we slightly change the definition of marriage so that it means "one consenting non-related adult and another consenting non-related adult" without mentioning gender? Will it rain blood? Will the dead rise from their graves and feast upon the flesh of the living? Will Flock of Seagulls re-form for a reunion tour? Or do you think it's more likely that there will be no negative consequences from changing the meaning of one word slightly?

What if we adopt marriage as the umbrella term for lifelong and exclusive unions between "one consenting non-related adult and another consenting non-related adult" and let the different camps worry about further sub-classification if they feel the need? Heterosexuals, lesbians and gays can all come up with their different words - if they want - but everyone will still fall under the category of married.

Cheers,

Tony

Poirot,

No, it’s not pedantic at all. There is a institution which has a word to describe it. Some people who are equally entitled to that institution don’t want it but do want the word that describes it to be used to describe want they really want. As I explained earlier, it is akin to carnivorous vegetarianism, a contradiction in terms.

Kipp,

There is no bias. I pointed out that I supported the legalisation of homosexual relations years ago to forestall the usual tactic of the pro-gay marriage lobby of accusing their opponents of bigotry, prejudice, bias, etc – not that it worked of course. The pro-gay marriage lobby regularly uses abuse as a debating tactic in the hope of silencing the opposition. That doesn’t work either.

You are missing the point. It is not about rights or acceptance. It never has been. These claims are just debating tactics. The fact that marriage means the exclusive and lifelong union of one male and one female does not detract from the rights of gays any more than the fact that a car is not a train detracts from the rights of people being transported from one place to another. If “same sex couples wish to make legal and public commitment to each other”, that is fine by me. If they want a lifelong and exclusive union of one man and another man and of one woman and another woman, that is fine by me. If they want legal recognition of that union, that is also fine by me. But it is not marriage, just as, in our society, one man cannot legally have two wives.

Tony,

Leaving aside the constitutional question that the power over marriage granted to the federal parliament had a specific meaning when granted and that federal parliament cannot redefine its powers to mean anything it likes (as that would destroy the federation), I don’t envisage any terrible fate if marriage is redefined as you suggest. But it would remove a meaning from the language on the most spurious of grounds.

It seems we do indeed need some new words.
What should we call the (overwhelming majority of) marriages that end in divorce? Should they be described as "proto-marriages", only to be officially ratified if one or both partners die?
Then...What;
Homo-Proto-marriage,
Lesbo-Proto-marriage,
Poly-Proto-marriage...
How about something a little more innovative, like homiage, or lesbiage.
Pericles might be heteriaged and Davidf might be blissfiaged...
Here's another thought: Why must people and their relationships be classified at all?

I wonder what moderate Muslims would think about this issue? And, could our approach possibly be of interest in the development or improvement of international relations? Should we care what other cultures, mainstream religious groups and nations think about or conclude from our Western tendency towards an increasingly laissez-faire cultural outlook? SSM - a step too far, or one to be applauded, or just another meaningless example of Western decadence?

While we tend to deride or snub our noses at radical religious groups, and particularly those with exceedingly restrictive, even punitive, approaches to individual rights, is our example more likely to induce some of these to move towards a more relaxed outlook, or to dig their toes in even more tenaciously?

We fear that which we do not understand, and we espouse the development of greater understanding through language and cultural studies, but do we really practice understanding and tolerance, or are we proven to be hypocrites by our arrogant disregard for the foundations and mores of other cultures with whom we share this shrinking planet?

Are we moving in the right direction, or could we be rushing blindly or conceitedly towards increasing isolation and division? The bigger picture, or narrow self-interest? Is a community of nations something worth striving for? If so, what we do matters.