>>The simple solution is to find another word, even invent one if needs be, but unfortunately, the word 'married' is taken.

Gays simply need to accept this and move on.<<

Rechtub you need to accept that you can't just lay claim to a word and expect its definition to remain consistent over time: that flies in the face of history. Lot's of words have been 'taken' only to wind up with completely different meanings at some later date. I believe gay was once 'taken' by people with a bright and sunny disposition. Language is a constantly evolving beast. And we don't live in France where they have an official body to oversee their language: English is spoken by people all over the world: to expect it to remain static and unchanging is like trying to command the tides.

Cheers,

Tony

' Until he does I am going to go on assuming that your opposition has got nothing to do with God, and everything to do with human fear and hatred.'

Your right to do so Jon J and I will assume your response has everything to do with your Chritophobic nature and hatred of the natural family.

Other than calling me childish, Jimmy, have you got anything profound to say? Can someone not hold a different opinion regarding this matter without having to be called a name of some sort?

I have many reasons for feeling "marriage" is not the way to go, most of them pragmatic. As stated, I am not wanting to deny couples their rights. Why is this not enough? Can someone tell me?

I have raised my other points before (re equality and point proving) and no one has yet denied them. Might just be a good reason for that...

@rational debate "Other than calling me childish, Jimmy, have you got anything profound to say? Can someone not hold a different opinion regarding this matter without having to be called a name of some sort? "

Well, RD, it was actually you who compared gay people who wish to get married with "children" in your original analogy, or had you forgotten that?

I was merely reiterating the sentiment.

If you're going to dish it out, then please have the good grace not to get all prissy when it's thrown right back at you.

>> "I have raised my other points before (re equality and point proving) and no one has yet denied them. Might just be a good reason for that..."

Well the reason is probably because I haven't read what you wrote previously, natch!

Tell you what, when you've finished stuffing your face with those delicious Tim Tams, why don't you raise one or two of your "points" again, and I'm sure I'll be able to shoot them down for you... without resorting to name-calling! ;-)

Sound reasonable?

An analogy is not name calling but anyway...

How about you start with the above? Why is what is on offer not enough? Why does it have to be marriage?

>>Why is what is on offer not enough? Why does it have to be marriage?<<

In a lot of cases it might be enough. They have full equality before the law if they don't want to get married. But some of them do want to get married. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? Who will be harmed and how if they are allowed to? We live in a free society - if an action doesn't harm anyone why should it be prohibited?

Cheers,

Tony