>>Alternatively, they can simply find another word, it really is that simple.<<

I've offered this suggestion before:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14118#244050

How does 'wed' sound to you rechtub? 'Alice and Bonnie are wedded', 'You are invited to the wedding of Allan and Bob' scan pretty well.

Cheers,

Tony

Gays will regret being railroaded into State (and church!) regulation of their affairs.

Already the defacto changes wrought by the Gillard government intervene in gay relationships, removing their previous freedom to choose whatever relationship they preferred (the State now decides their defacto status, not the individuals themselves) and the State also decides how assets are to be divided on separation. Fine one supposes for those with a wealthy lover to pursue, but what about everyone else?

The 'Progressives' always presume to know what is best for gays too. The joke is on the gays, because the 'Progressives', largely feminists have scant regard for the institution now pushed on gays. While it is true that gays could still chose to be married or not, it is a one shape fits all model of relationship that is being forced on them.

How did gays come to need State intervention, regulation and approval of their personal affairs? Better still, how did gays come to need the State interfering to tell them how to divvy things up on moving out? The 'Progressive' lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.

>>Already the defacto changes wrought by the Gillard government intervene in gay relationships, removing their previous freedom to choose whatever relationship they preferred (the State now decides their defacto status, not the individuals themselves) and the State also decides how assets are to be divided on separation. Fine one supposes for those with a wealthy lover to pursue, but what about everyone else?<<

This all applies equally to straight relationships. I disagree with the way the Government and courts handle defacto relationships too but I'm not sure what it has to do with same-sex marriage?

Cheers,

Tony

@David Morrison ""Marriage equality, marriage for all, equal love"- not arguments but simply meaningless slogans. When proponents are honest and admit that what they are asking for is a radical re-definition of marriage it may be possible to have a genuine discussion."

Genuine discussion is impossible with someone for whom "equality" and "love" are meaningless concepts, David.

....How does 'wed' sound to you rechtub? 'Alice and Bonnie are wedded', 'You are invited to the wedding of Allan and Bob' scan pretty well.

Works for me Tony, all but the word wedding.

Perhaps 'you are invited to the union of...... Would be more appropriate.

Rehctub you and nobody else owns the term Marriage, you and the person you are married to will continue to enjoy life together.
BTW are'nt you anti "Union" also !