I have no desire to learn to fly a plane; but I would be very annoyed if I was told that I couldn't obtain a pilot's licence anyway, because I was bald. I would want to know what possible logical connection there could be between the amount of hair on my head and my ability to satisfy the requirements of safe flying.

And this is exactly what gay people want to know about the legal definition of 'marriage'. What possible connection logical can there be between the gender of the person you love and your entitlement to make a legal commitment to them?

The answer so far? <CRICKETS CHIRPING>

'gays can’t marry because marriage is between a man and a woman'

Hmmm...

'Men can't be mothers because mothers are women.'

A transgender reassignment operation could be the answer Houellbecq!

.

Dear Bernard, if I may,

.

France is due to become the 12th country in the world to pass legislation permitting same-sex wedlock, sometime during the present legislature. This was on the list of social reforms which enabled François Holland to be elected president earlier this year despite strong opposition from Catholic and Muslim lobbys.

Perhaps you may like to check out the debate on same-sex wedlock on another thread on this forum:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14128#244175

.

Same sex marriage may be the norm when people wake up to the ENVIRONMENTAL damage being done by cuddly cute child bearing women and their sexually immature fan-males.

Just saw a Sunday clip on the teev where mature mums were saying how clever they are in producing superior babies!

Its like watching an episode of 'V' where you strip away the masks and you see the real aliens swallowing &chomping away on endangered species while plotting the enslavement & downfall of their Planet Earth human-partners.

Every child born to every cuddly "V" alien mum requires 100 trees to be felled, thousands of tons of toxic wastes into dying oceans, new mines and oil wells eating up pristine locations and the extinction of at least 1/100th of an endangered species. And that is without even considering all the toxic beauty products necessary to get them a mate or invitroed.
If same sex marriage highlights this injustice support it.

If it can enact laws to force women to only have one child per lifetime then its a MUST!

Another story today was inciting a bogus Gen-Y Versus Baby-Boomer war for the profit of companies that would supply materiel to those 'wars'.

If that incitement stupidity is 'allowed' then women can't complain about being incited against for what amounts to be the No 1 crime (child birth) of this 21st century. Nor can they claim misogyny for they are environmental criminals and any criminal must be held accountable for their crimes and there must be no gender or other "V" mask to hide behind if humankind is to survive the next 30 years without utter internecine alienation & destruction.

Another solution is to remove the VOTE from women with more than one child and reward women of courage and intellect who understand the above TRUTH and who will fight for a sustainable future for all humankind no matter the color, creed or sexuality.

Oh how cuddly mums to be!

Oh look its ugly "V".

And God help male children awarded to their "V" cuddly mums by out-to-lunch family court judges. Mind-boggling!

Let's define our terms and see where we can get:

When gay-marriage advocates say "marriage" they mean "a lasting legal commitment to cohabiting love between two consenting adults".

When traditional marriage advocates say "marriage" they mean "a lasting legal commitment to exclusive cohabiting love between a consenting male and a female, with a commitment to nurture (any) children that result from the natural biological union of the couple".

Clearly there are two definitions there, and as Bernard argued, it is not discrimination or homophobia to adhere to the traditional definition. According to the traditional definition, homosexuals cannot be married because they are simply not a couple consisting of a male and female that is naturally capable of bearing and nurturing children.

But if we change the law of marriage and adopt the first definition above then marriage would no longer necessarily have anything to do with the natural sexual reproduction, and nothing to do with the subsequent building of a natural family.

Now we must ask ourselves, do we really want to radically change the definition of marriage? Do we really want to tamper with our current marriage laws that are designed to protect children and are based upon biological and sociological bedrock? Is it really necessary to cast away the traditional meaning of marriage so that homosexual couples can profess a commitment to lasting, cohabiting love?

If anyone wants to "marry" according to the "inclusive" definition there is nothing stopping them right now. All they need to do is invent a ceremony, have guests (or not), and sign a commitment to each other. After all, if marriage is only about a commitment to lasting cohabiting love between any two adults without regard to gender then the only two people who have to agree with homosexual marriage are the two people committing themselves to each other.