Marriage makes a husband & wife. What would marriage make in a gay union ?
Who is the wife/husband in both Lesbian & homosexual terms ?
Do homosexual/lesbian wives out-live their husbands as in heterosexual couples ?
Or do statistics not mean anything when it's convenient ?

Good morning all,

@diver dan: Re “Your attempt to demean the opposition is a failure!”

Certainly hope so, Dan.

@ GlenC: “If, as you say, same sex marriage used to be sort-of legal by default in that no pre-2004 legislation actually ruled that it wasn't, I hadn't appreciated that.”

Yes, Australia has quietly accepted the small number of same-sex couples married overseas. Similarly, Australia accepted the unobtrusive polygamous marriages – in Indigenous communities and within migrant groups from countries where polygamy is normal.

These were all regarded as valid marriages by the Family Court and most other bodies dealing with marital matters.

The 2004 legislation explicitly put these outside the law. Of course, this only impacted a minuscule minority.

Re: “I insist that 2004 actually confirmed, not changed, the meaning we had long assumed ‘marriage’ to have.”

Correct, Glen. So, no, I didn't intend the inference which you have reasonably drawn. Will be more careful next time.

Re: “I'm not aware that any research specifically establishes that most Australians are also happy for those contracts to be called ‘marriage’.”

No, neither am I, Glen. I was thinking of the Galaxy poll in August which sampled 865 people nationally yielding 64% “support for same-sex marriage” – the highest since polling started in 2009.

But, no, that did not deal with terminology.

@Jason: Re “when you start to have a discussion on homosexuality they quickly become hostile and often abusive towards others …”

Have some familiarity with this, Jason. But have also had the exhilarating experience of engaging with ‘opponents’ who have changed sides following extended discussion and analysis of data.

So the debate is well worth continuing, despite hostility frequently encountered. Of course, neither ‘side’ is innocent of hostility and abuse.

Re: “you have people claiming that it says in the bible that Jesus was against gay marriage …”

Twice this year the publisher of this site has run summaries of significant changes taking place across the Judeo-Christian communities. (The second was just last week.)

So the shift is well underway, Jason.

Loved Mr Deity, btw. Thanks for onpassing.

Cheers, AA

AA

...I don’t think there are too many out there who give "two hoots" if homosexuals suffer disproportionately in bad health, just as I don’t think there are too many people out there who give a “tinkers damn” if any others’ health from any other particular group fails.

...What you present in support of your subtly buried treasure of homosexual marriage advocacy, is a “straw argument” built on a sympathy seeking headline. It is how people work; they get sucked in by it! Not this little black duck!...Better luck next time Al...

Tony, I have to confess to having had quite a few goes at thinking up a word that sounds and feels like "marry/marriage" — one that would work sensibly in contexts such as "Will you … me?". Tom/Sue and I are …", "You are invited to the … of X and Y", and have failed. I'm normally pretty good with words and had hoped to save the situation by coming up with a word that would be different from "marriage" but work to everyone's satisfaction while the people worked out whether they really did want two words or were happy to allow "marriage" to be all embracing.

I still think there ought to be such a word. Any ideas?

Glen, keep working on this. You must! The future of western Christian civilisation depends on you!

As you know, many Christians define marriage very carefully: Opposite sex, lifelong, faithful and for three purposes.

Many don’t allow remarriage for divorcees.

Hence the term ‘marriage’ = M1W1 in a monogamous, faithful, lifelong union for the purposes of companionship, sex and children. Jim Wallace will confirm this.

So, while you are at it, we need new words for these:

1. M2 or W2 in a monogamous, faithful union for all three agreed purposes: companionship, sex and raising kids.

2. M1W1 in a lifelong union where one partner has extra-marital affairs.

3. M1W1 in a lifelong union where both have affairs.

4. M1W1 in a lifelong union where they agree occasionally to invite a third person to join them for sex.

5. M1W1 in a lifelong union where neither want children.

6. M1W1 in a lifelong union but where both partners have agreed, because of age, incapacity or personal choice, they don’t want sex.

7. M1W1 in a lifelong union where the woman before the union was pregnant to a third party.

8. M2 or W2 (heterosexual or homosexual) together for two purposes: companionship and raising adopted kids. They don’t want sex.

9. M2 or W2 in a lifelong union who agree, because of age or incapacity or just personal choice, that they don’t want to have sexual relations or children – just companionship.

10. M2 or W2 in a lifelong union but where partners have agreed that they don’t want children.

11. M1W2 in a union which continues as a faithful threesome throughout their lives. Or M2W1.

12. M1W1 in a union but where one or both has already been in an earlier faithful marriage.

13. M2 or W2 in a union but where one or both has already been in an earlier marriage.

14. M1W1 in a union with a prenup covering future separation, which both parties agree will take place at a mutually agreeable time.

We need 14 new words, Glen. No hurry. Any time tomorrow is fine.

Cheers, AA

>>I still think there ought to be such a word. Any ideas?<<

Wed? It may be a bit old fashioned but I say we dust it off and put it back to use: 'Will you wed me?', 'Alice and Bonnie are wedded', 'You are invited to the wedding of Allan and Bob' all work for me.

Skywriters won't be happy though.

Cheers,

Tony