>>Why change our world, when we are quite happy with the way it is.<<

How is the definition of marriage being extended to include gay unions going to change your world rechtub? Will it rain blood? Will you have to buy a new dictionary? Will it accelerate global warming? Will Mrs. Rechtub love you any less? Will you love her any less? There must be some perceived negative outcome that you think will befall you if gays are allowed to marry or you wouldn't care so much. So what is it? What do you find so threatening about gay people being allowed to get married?

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Doctor
Nice to see some new blood.

....Another word cannot be used, otherwise it keeps same sex relationships as separate, not equal.

There is nothinHg in my argument about equality, as I have no problems with them getting
Legally hitched, just like my wife and I did 27 years ago.

My point is, and this should answer TL's question as well, when I married my wife, marriage was a very special union between a man and a woman.

We took our vows and, despite hitting a few bumps along the way, pretty normal I believe, we love and respect each other and have raised two children, now adults, who love and respect us just as much as we do them.

At no point, back in 1985, was there any suggestion that gays might be allowed to marry, and marriage was important to us, and certainly not something we thought we would have to share with same sex couples as we chose not to have children who would be born without a family name. No disrespect to anyone who didn't.

Now I accept that due to the squeaky wheel scenario, you are likely to get your wish, but as I have repeatedly stated, being legal and being accepted are two different things.

>>My point is, and this should answer TL's question as well, when I married my wife, marriage was a very special union between a man and a woman.

We took our vows and, despite hitting a few bumps along the way, pretty normal I believe, we love and respect each other and have raised two children, now adults, who love and respect us just as much as we do them.<<

I don't think it will stop being a very special union between men and women if we also allow it to be a very special union between men and men or women and women. I think people will stall fall in love, still get married, still start families. I don't think they'll be in any way put off from it because gays can do it too: people usually do things on the basis of their own utility.

>>At no point, back in 1985, was there any suggestion that gays might be allowed to marry, and marriage was important to us, and certainly not something we thought we would have to share with same sex couples<<

If there had been suggestion that gays be allowed to marry back then would you have not got married? Would marriage have been less important to you and your wife if you had to share it with gay couples?

Cheers,

Tony

TL...If there had been suggestion that gays be allowed to marry back then would you have not got married? Would marriage have been less important to you and your wife if you had to share it with gay couples?

Good point and one i can't answer, but it wasn't.

As for gays sharing marriage, not for me sorry, nor do I support them having children, but that's another issue all together.

Too mixed up for my liking.

rechtub, I don't support anyone having children! Seven thousand million and rising is proving disastrous. But that's beside the point. I want to thank you for your opinions on 'gay' marriage, because it confirms my opinion that most people hold opinions because they want to, not because they have thought about it, in the same way as religious people believe because they want to, despite contrary evidence. Why people want to believe irrational things is another question that's outside the remit if this article I suppose.

ybgirp,

I have to agree that humans hold beliefs because ‘they want to’ and it was a very kind way of putting it. However, why people ‘want to hold beliefs’ that don’t fit within rational evaluation is well within the confines of investigation of the subject matter in this thread.

What is the point of continually giving analgesics to relieve the pain of an illness without investigating the cause of that pain? That would be bad medical practice.

The analogy here is that the pain is the prejudice held by those who do not want to look at the evidence as you have succinctly pointed out. The cause of that ‘illness’ is the elephant in the room that some in society refuse to acknowledge.

The elephant is indoctrination of the young whether that is cultural in nature or worse. Cultural can and does include innate evolutionary propensities which can be altered by the need for cooperation as a species.

The evidence is overwhelming that it can be much worse when the cultural has a religious or other ideological component. The combinations of cultural & ideological or cultural & ideological & religious are capable of producing horrendous results.

The problem is that once the process is set in place it is most difficult to dislodge. The wiring of the brains of children once fused to an adult accepted formula can remain in that state until death.

What I find disturbing is that this is not news. We all know the alleged Jesuit saying of give me a child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man. (or similar versions) Not only do most of us know this, we accept it for its self-evidential truth.

There is no better time in history to take this into account.

David