Hi there JUST GIVE ME ALL THE FACTS...

What you said at the beginning of your thread, that's what really troubles me personally ? You stated inter alia '...in (the)sic our western world we have no option but to now accept Gay marriage...' ? We're forever being told that homosexual behaviour, or homosexuals are in the minority, why then do we 'have' to accept Gay marriage ?

I have no problem accepting the reality of homosexuality, and now it's been completely decriminalised, and protective measures and laws concerning, discrimination etc., are now in place to afford them equal protection under the law as anybody else, and I fully endorse it. But to 'accept' as if it's already been mandated, that's what concerns me ?

AJ asks: “ why marriage can NEVER be between two members of the same sex?”
Because it is axiomatic that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Whatever a same sex relationship might be, it is not a marriage.
If the meaning of the word “marriage” is corrupted by future legislation, then it may be possible to refer to same sex “marriage”, because of the corruption of the word. It will be like “climate change” no longer meaning “climate change” because of the IPCC’s weasel-worded redefinition of the term to mean “climate change as a result of human activity”. Marriage would then no longer mean marriage, in its true sense, because of such a redefinition

Okay then, Leo Lane. So we weren’t talking at cross purposes as I suspected we were before, and all my questions remain relevant and more importantly, unanswered (including how heterosexual-only marriage is axiomatic when it is clearly not self-evident and unquestionable to everyone). Furthermore, all my answers to your questions were being deliberately ignored while you sat there and claimed that I was not answering them.

Acting like a geriatric that has lost their marbles when you get caught shoplifting may work with the police, but it’s not going to work here.

Interesting to note that you have ignored Toni Lavis’s most recent and very direct answers to you too. No doubt you will claim later that he still won’t answer your questions.

So, Leo Lane, how about you start answering my questions? Then we can proceed from there. If heterosexual-only marriage were so axiomatic, then answering them should be no problem at all.

Nice throw-away line regarding climate change there. Now that you've you brought it up, though, I’d have to say that I'm glad that someone like yourself is in the denialist camp. You’re a good example of the calibre of debaters on that topic that I know of. I mean, I was talkin’ to me mate, Simmo, down the pub the other day an’ I asked ‘im what he thought about this global warmin’ stuff, an’ he reckons it’s all a loada crap.

Craig

Your last post to me was straight from the gutter. Nasty, spiteful, putrid and deeply personal. Have you stooped so low that you think that anyone with a feminist opinion is fair game for such filthy personal abuse?

Also, your hatred is for me. So leave my husband out of your spiteful rants. He doesn't deserve it.

//It will be like “climate change” no longer meaning “climate change”//

No, 'climate change' still means 'change in climate' without reference to causal factors. What you're thinking of is referred to as 'anthropogenic climate change'. But anthropogenic is a big word, so I can see why it would give you trouble.

O Sung Wu, I think the point that is being made is that if the law is out of step with the needs of society, then it should most definitely be accepted that the law needs to be changed.

Since there is good evidence that homosexuality is a natural part of the spectrum of human sexuality, then it is not something that the law needs to concern itself with in any special way. Therefore, if a law applies to some aspect of heterosexual relationships, there is no prima facie reason it should not apply equally to homosexual ones.

There may be some consequentialist type of argument made, but it would have to have some strong evidence to support it. I haven't seen anyone present such an argument yet, here or elsewhere.

Killarney, you're quite right, my last post was less than charitable and I apologise. I find you hard to like.