Kipp,

It is fair to deduce that Rehctub isn't a mother either. Because society has already specified that one has to be a women to be a mother. That is the pre-requisite, even though many fathers would prefer to have the similar positive stereotyping as mothers and the rights that are accorded to them by family law decisions in particular by virtue of their motherhood.

I guess you will say that Rehctub's 'rights' have been violated as a result. You would say, "What does it matter to others if Rehctub is a mother too?", and "Who does it hurt?".

Just get the 'political 'Progressives' to agree with that ;rights' and 'equality' though. What? You say you don't care either?

'Progressives' are like Humpthy Dumpty, a word means just what they intend it to mean, nothing more and nothing less. That says that 'Progressives' can B.S. that gays 'rights' are 'violated' because the heterosexual marriage law that regulates heterosexual couplings doesn't by definitioin apply to homosexuals.

The Gillard government and the Human Rights commission see no discrimination in the Marriage Act. That is why the 'Progressives' apply their Humpty Dumpty rhetorical trick (a logical fallacy of course) of saying 'rights' instead. What a clever trick! Too easy, next?

What is or who are these "Progressives' you go on about, as this issue is about same sex couples in a committed relationship having the choice that hetrosexual couples have.
Marriage is not compulsory either way, so what ever problem you feel about this issue, be assured nothing in your life will change; when same sex marriage is legal in Australia.

>>Works for me Tony, all but the word wedding.<<

Now you're just being selfish, rechtub. If we must play this silly game of sequestering vocabulary on the basis of sexual orientation then is it too much to ask that you play fair?

You have already staked your claim on the word that is to be the sole preserve of heterosexuals, and that word is 'marry'. We get to keep 'marry' as in 'Alice and Bob are married' or 'You are invited to the marrying of Allan and Bonnie' - but the gays get to keep 'wed'.

Different words, different meanings - 'marry' for sraights, 'wed' for gays. Isn't this what you have been consistently crying out for in these discussions? Two different words, with different meanings? I know 'marrying' is not as easy on the tongue as 'wedding', but isn't a bit of a mouthful to pronounce very occasionally (how often do you go to marryings/weddings, let alone have to say the word) a small price to pay for a clearly delineated vocabulary with no possibility of those filthy poofters stealing your precious words?

But when I make a reasonable suggestion for how this might be achieved you shift the goalposts. Suddenly it's not enough for gays and straights to have different words for their unions - you want to monopolise every word they could use to describe their union, leaving them no words - presumably in the hope that if you remove the language by which we might express such a concept then the concept will die.

How very Orwellian. From the appendix to 1984:

>>The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words... This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.<<

Cheers,

Tony

But when I make a reasonable suggestion for how this might be achieved you shift the goalposts. Suddenly it's not enough for gays and straights to have different words for their unions - you want to monopolise every word they could use to describe their union, leaving them no words - presumably in the hope that if you remove the language by which we might express such a concept then the concept itself will die.

How very Orwellian. From the appendix to 1984:

>>The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words... This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever.<<

Cheers,

Tony

>>Too easy, next?<<

Apply the same arguments to gingers:

!!GINGER WARNING: THE FOLLOWING VIDEO FEATURES GINGERS (and some pretty bad spelling). VIEWERS OF A SENSITIVE DISPOSITION SHOULD NOT FOLLOW THIS LINK!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l66gQy3hguc

Gingers are evil. They have no souls. Way back in the beginning of creation, God cursed the gingers for some long-forgotten misdeed. But it must have been pretty serious, because God took away their souls and cursed them forever with red hair and freckles so that decent Christian folk could easily spot the soulless ones that walk amongst us.

Unfortunately many people have forgotten why God made gingers ginger in the first place - so that we could easily shun them. It has got to the point where the Marriage Act allows gingers to marry and perpetuate their cursed line - as long as they're of the opposite sex.

We may not be able to do much about the gingers already here, but we can certainly do something to curb their numbers: all that is required is a simple amendment to the s5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 so that marriage means the union of a non-ginger man and a non-ginger woman to the exclusion of all others, especially gingers, voluntarily entered into for life.

It wouldn't be discrimination - how can it be discrimination when it's right there in the black and white letter of the law? The Marriage Act wouldn't discriminate against gingers because the non-ginger marriage law that regulates non-ginger couplings couplings doesn't by definition apply to gingers. And it isn't a violation of ginger 'rights'. Gingers have no rights.

Why should we let the Accursed Ones marry but not gays? Some people might say that we should treat everybody equally under the law but these are just the meaningless platitudes of feminist 'Progressives'. Gingers don't deserve to be treated the same way as real people because they aren't real people.

Cheers,

Tony