Phanto, last I checked, marriage licenses were priced on at least a cost-recovery basis.

Since you think we are "discussing principles and ideas", perhaps you could prevail upon those who think that the main principle at stake is the price that one's soul should fetch to name a figure? I'm prepared to make an offer as a job-lot if they act quickly.

Runner, I'd like to take up the discussion at a more suitable time and on a more appropriate thread. If I was to start a discussion in the general section, would you be interested in participating?

Ezhil, I've just run your analysis past my 17 year old son and he has confirmed that you are correct in linking the act of heterosexual sex with the possibility of making babies. He's a very caring lad and he was concerned that I should make sure that you are properly informed of the options, though. Apparently, it's not necessarily a foregone conclusion!

His recommendation is that you investigate the following link and if you have any questions, he is happy to answer them for you.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control

As a gesture of friendship.

Lol Runner, cough up or give it up. You didn't answer my question, because you can't.

I take each person as they come, and have found many wonderfully 'moral' people of both the God-believers and the non-believers.

The same goes for those who are heterosexual or homosexual, they are either good people, or they are not, despite who they 'fornicate' with.
Fornicate is such a horrible word anyway, obviously made up by those who consider sex an unpleasant activity only useful for procreation.

Sad really....

The word marriage is the name of a civil contract between a man and a woman.

If two persons of the same gender wish to have a word to mean a civil contract between those of the same gender, they can come up with a word that means just that.

The only reason they want the word marriage is to try and raise the respectability of their sexual activities, some of which which are seen by many as unclean.

There is more than sufficient difference between a hetrosexual union and a homosexual union to warrant a different word to describe the unions.

The word marriage should be reserved exclusively for a hetrosexual relationship.

Suse,
I too do not believe in a god, but I conceed that the rights and wrongs I was taught as a child and our basic laws are derived from Christen teachings. I see the Christian teachings as far more humane than other religions. Compare to Islam, for example.

Yes Banjo, it's just awful! Running around with gay abandon changing the meaning of perfectly nice words is the sort of thing only a bully would do.

The matrix of society is made up of decent young men chasing cute bimbos before becoming a husband to a fantastic woman and making babies to fill the house with.

Now these homosexual assassins come along and literally broadcast their seedy intentions to garble the Marriage Act, making people nervous. They're as bad as ISIS, the way they want to decimate the place!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/words-literally-changed-meaning-through-2173079

There may be some good reasons for failing to ratify marriage equality, but lexical purity isn't one of them...

//If two persons of the same gender wish to have a word to mean a civil contract between those of the same gender, they can come up with a word that means just that.//

I have. But whenever I suggest it, the 'gays need their own word brigade' dismiss it or ignore it. I smell a red herring.

Oh, it's definitely a red herring, Toni Lavis. Once it was about 'racial purity', now it's about 'lexical purity' (as Craig Minns has put it). But at least racial purity was a genuine concern for some. Lexical purity is a more socially acceptable way for those who just don't like those bloody poofs to express their bigotry.

I'd call that progress, at least.