Same sex 'marriage' is currently in the news and at least one political party is considering allowing a consience vote on the issue.

I really could not care about peoples living arrangements, but my dictionary defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

If that is correct, why use the term for same sex union?

Could not some smart wordsmiths come up with a word or words to mean same sex union.

Why redefine and confuse a word that everyone knows what it means?

swedenberg defined much about the spiritual marrage
[ie why are we here]..we are here because
a living egg married with a living sperm.

but it goes much deeper
than mearly marrying a sperm..with an egg

but im reluctant to explain it better
as we are living in a world gone mad

we see that the..*same ratio*..of smokers as non smokers
get cancer..[in other words smoking isnt a cause of cancer]

but just like we spin
the marrage of lies with truth
we are selective in near everything we do

like you will have heard..that smoking cannabis CREATES phycosis
ie 2 in 100..will get phycosis by smoking hemp
yet ammoung the NON smokers its 4/100

but it goes deeper
we hear of crime..and the marrage of criminals
like you can rape..but if you make the raped person..LOOK like a liar
its not rape

or you can STEAL by fraud..our compulsory super
but thats not crime..cause no one important..*complained

but it goes deeper
[this mar-RAGE of spin]

you can say your card got stolen
but if the union...dont complain,,it can bail you out
and no crime..no question

it gets even better
with poker machines just now..we hear that people..[victims]..should be complaining...ie listen to the victims..not the lobby

but hey most people dont complain..!
cause they KNOW..complaining or explaining dont change nothing

but it goes deeper..we got athiests
needing to undermine religeon..wanting to make human being extinct
ie not breeding..needing to denigrate the meaning/intent of marrage

but hey dont worry
here we can talk..set the adgenda
lets talk about the deciets..[the faux marrages]
and miss the fuller reality..we just might find UNDER the spin..if we did talk about..the true marrage

the marrrage of spirit

but no that is too deep
for shallow minds to concieve
believe what youwant to believe

Dear Banjo,

As I've written in the past - each society views
its own patterns of marriage, family, and kinship,
as self-evidently right and proper, and usually
God-given as well. Much of the current concern
about the fate of marriage and the modern family
stems from this kind of ethnocentrism. If we assume
that there is only one "right" marriage/family
form, then naturally any change will be interpreted
as heralding the doom of the whole institution.

My definition of marriage is - it's a
universal institution that involves two adults
living together, engaging in sexual activity and
cooperating economically. However, there are many
variations to this definition - and many exceptions
as well.

It is important to recognize, therefore, that there
is an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship
patterns; that each of these patterns may be, at
least in their own context, perfectly viable; and above
all, that marriage, like any other social institution,
must inevitably change through time, in our own society as
in all others.

What is happening in our society is that we are
increasingly tolerating a variety of alternative marriage
and family styles. The hallmark of our society is our
economic and cultural diversity, combined with a highly
developed sense of individualism. In this environment
people tend to make decisions about marriage, divorce,
abortion, child-rearing, and the like in terms of what
they, personally, want - rather than in terms of
traditional moralities, obligations to kin,, or the other
impersonal pressures that previous generations
unquestioningly accepted.

Pursuing their own vision of self-fulfillment, or
responding to the social and economic predicament in which
they find themselves, many people are modifying the
marriage/family system to suit their individual needs.

Significantly, some of the variant marriage/family
patterns are becoming recognized, formally or informally,
by such official agencies as the Bureau of the Census,
the state and federal courts, the Internal Revenue
Service, and government welfare departments.

It is
therefore apparent that we are moving to a situation
in which variants of marriage/and family will simply
come to be taken for granted in the future.

20 years ago I would have made an insulting remark and said no.
Now politicians, in many country's,some who never went to a church in their lives, make it an issue.
Sex has been controlled from the pulpit for too long, sometimes at the hands of child molesters.
In my view,every parliamentarian should have a free vote on such issues.
This ensures the pending lie, Greens force Labors hand, can not find air to breath in.
And I favor every one, considering if not religion what grounds do we have to continue to tell some who they can live with?

Dear Lexie and Belly,
The World is changing, of that there is no doubt. There are also many reasons why people become homosexual, some of which are borne from a difficult home life as a result of a domineering parent, others can be a result of genetics, there are many reasons, which can be viewed on Google. Love is the most powerful emotion, and if it suits two people to formalise their love for each other, then so be it. I think we will see a trend in the future, whereby populations are more forgiving, I can remember when it was scandalous for white people to marry dark people, they called it 'mixed marriages', thank heavens that we have come a long way from that.
Enjoy your day my two friends,
NSB

Lexi and NSB,
As I said, I do not care if it is a same sex union or whether it is right or wrong.

If two people of the same sex want a union recognised under law that is fine.

My only concern is with the word. The word marriage now has one meaning, so why go and give it multiple meanings.

There was/is a TV show on ABC called 'Can We Help' and a woman appeared every show that seemed to have great knowledge of words, their origin, their history and their meanings. I bet such a person could come up with words meaning same sex union and with reasons of tradition and/or history, origin, etc. Maybe even different words for male unions and female unions.

All it would take then is for State governments to make the unions recognised in law.

I think there is enough words now with multiple meanings, so I am perplexed as to why we would want to make another.

I am all for keeping things simple, as I have found there is less to go wrong. Giving a word multiple meanings is just making it more complex. One word for each type of union and listeners know exactly what you are talking about.

Dear Banjo,

Sorry, you've lost me. Perhaps you'd like
to give us your definition of marriage then
we can go from there.

Banjo

Marriage is marriage whether a civil celebration or performed in a religious building.

Also, there is nothing in the wedding vows (civil or Christian, don't know about other religions) in Australia that requires a couple to procreate. No mention of children at all.

You want same sex couples to use a different word to everyone else?

Perhaps they should sew a big pink 'X' in their clothes as well.

Bigotry, much.

If that is so, why not just change the meaning to include SS couples?

We have done that with many words as the linguist on 'Can We Help' often explains.

The term 'marriage' was coined based on past cultural norms and societies evolve through education. Why not just make it inclusive. It seems ridiculous to have a different 'word' for the same act.

Banjo, same sex union is called homosexuality, regardless of whether the participants play mummy and daddy or are just horny lovers. Legal rights of a life partner are the issue, not the civil union as such, but the bonus of social acceptance is expected through social familiararity. If the homosexual wants to protect their partner’s future if they are deceased they should make a will.

Just a thought I wonder if the libido in lesbians tends to wane as does the libido in the poor old housewife and mum, not tonight dear I have a headache.

Alternately I wonder if the male couple sex till they drop because of the rampant libido of guys.

Pelican,
Firstly thankyou for the term linguist, I could not think of the word at the time of writing.

Ammonite,
I never mentioned religion or the ceromony, I don't know where you got that idea from. Nor have I mentioned procreation or children.

Why would you think bigotry. I am talking about 3 different types of union, one female/female, another male/male and another male/female. Please read my posts again.

lexi,
My definition of marriage is--- 'The legal union or contract made by a man and a woman to live as husband and wife' My dictionary confirms that.

Because the unions, as mention above, are different to each other, I think there should be differing terms for each. The only commonality is that they are unions. Much the same way as cars, trucks and busses are all vehicles, but we have different names for them because they are different, and it saves further explanation.

By all means give the unions legality, but there is sufficient difference to warrant different terms for them.

Dear Banjo,

Why not simply have the term "marriage,"
as the only term. Regardless whether the consenting
adults are female/female, male/male, or female/
male? Segregating gay couples sets them aside
from mainstream society. If they're married -
they're married. And as they say, "Love and Marriage,
goes together like a horse and carriage."

banjoe i will try to apply my thinking to a new word

so we have people wanting the status of 'husband and wife'
this is a marrage normalis

then we have those who wish to be husband and husband
ie want the band that binds

so let this be a band mar/rage

we also have the one where wife wants a wife
lets call this a duel opening marriage

we of course have the other forms of union
like those seeking a hush/band

or to create a hussy band
or the one that stops the angry father
the marr rage

there are endless marages
[i will avoid labling the spiritual unions
as these all ready have infinite names[as each living thing required a union of spirit as well as flesh]

its a shame i cant type fast enough to include the many other forms of marrage..that appear in my mind

like forced marrage..or under age marrage..
or the name change marrage..or the wife that holds the knife marrage

there is of course the merry old age merryage
and the geezer marrage
or the trweazer and teazer forms of marriage

we got the hoarse and course [coarse]..marrage of course
the marraige of religion and the marrage of the heart
the i just wanna not pay any more style of marriage

or i wanna be paid half your wageriage
and the marriage of con veniances
the venerial and funererial marrages come into mind

there is the marriage of humour and of honour
the marriage of sufferences..and the silent mariage

we take the concepts too lightly
we think that forerlisation of a union...UNDER the authorityb of the state...dont allow the state to hold that over us...

anyhow you should be glad i excluded many sufggested and suggestive forms of union..like the white marriage or the black unions..or the gray brown and green unions

lets talk about the vow marrage
or the marrage for peers ..or the old dears
the marriges for fear..or for hope..or just giving of enough rope

lest we forget the marriages of nuns
to that groom of grooms..the marriage with one bedroom...or many

bah
im ignoring the whole darn topic
its just too complicated

what of the constipated marriage
or the type that makes us sick
or gives more than the runs

its all just the same sick marriage
in a world divided as much by who done it
and who dont intend doing it ever..those who do it to others

till death breaks up our heart

Dear Banjo,

Words change their meaning through time. Several hundred years ago the word, girl, meant a child of either sex.

At far as marriage goes polygyny was an accepted practice in the Bible, and polyandry was an accepted practice in Tibet. In fact anthropologists have found eight kinship systems in various cultures. eg. In some cultures a child regards the mother's brother rather than the biological father as the authority figure. Marriage is one of the most variable of human institutions. Some churches are up in arms about same-sex marriage I don't know what they are getting excited about. They do not have to marry people of the same sex if they don't want to. They are simply trying to control what other people do.

Banjo, careful you do not confuse the OED with the Bible.

The OED is merely a collection of words as used by people from time to time.

Words change meaning, fall out of use, are invented and go into common usage.

One does not have to be a cunning linguist to know these things.

A Bible, on the other hand, is 'never changing' and is not, in the least, the words of mere humans but is, obviously, straight from God's mouth and therefore unchangeable forever and always correct.

Now, when Australia allowed 'marriage' to be conducted by a civil celebrant I am sure the Jim Wallace's and Geo. Pell's of todays world were outraged at this 'change' to the meaning of the word 'marriage'.

But wait! Has the nation suffered from this change? No, not at all. Still people marry in churches and temples, chapels and mosques, as before.

Fear is the motive force behind those religious bigots who oppose everything they are offended by.

There was a time, in UK history, when only the wealthy got married, and that was purely for securing property and 'the family line'. Look to Henry VIII for a prime example of the 'sanctity' of marriage.

Then the rising middle classes thought they'd get into the act, followed by the workers, always keen to emulate their masters instead of striking out in a new direction.

Religions had a monopoly, and no one questioned any of it.

Perhaps we need an ACCC investigation into marriage competition and the monopoly of the definition of marriage?

So long as there is no 'requirement' for any of us to become gay to marry I really do not care if 'poofs' get hitched like I did.

I'm not in opposition to any 'sanctity' that is inherent in the word mattiage, nor concerned with a breakdown in an age old institution.

My concern lays in the promotion of a new form of 'marriage' that makes it impossible to reproduce our species without assistance from a third party or scientific intervention. We as a society shouldn't be so easy to accept this course.

Forget about nuclear wars, the end of the homo genus will come about by an inability to breed.

Matthew, are you hinting at the total conversion of all Australian adults into the homosexual world with your comments? Leaving no married couples able to have their own children?

Do you not think at least a rump of heterosexuals might survive to shag humankind into the future by traditional means?

If artificial means of having children is wrong for gay couples it must be wrong all round, surely?

If artificial reproduction is a threat to humanhood, then it is a threat now, surely?

I must say, the turkey baster does not look the least bit attractive to me, but each to their own.

Banjo,
The word for same sex union is - Homosexual. It has always been so and will always be so. Though the term changes in different languages and idiom (i.e. bugger) it has always meant the same. Means persons of the same gender having sexual union. As UOG has rightly explained - it is the union of the sperm and ovum.

The term marry is used extensively in metalurgy when two different substances are melted together to form another substance. When two of the same substances are melted together it still remains the same substance.

darn it i hate slow posting days
just as much as i hate re-reading my own posts
[thats why they are filled with miss-strikes[poor spellings]

but its important to include
the mirage of marriage
[oh know..the image flow begins again]
and i just know...i will end up rep-eating

the husband/hush band
the homo marry-i-age
i know can be painfull

the skin to skin[where nothing goes in]
or the man haters..that yet use plastic members
no...know its enough..im over the materialistic things

so try to return..back to basics
an egg has a spirit..a sperm has its spirit
marrage is when two spirits...love each other enough to become one

but the least of marriages[mirages]..is a minimum of 4 spirits becomming one..[ie the two egg base spirits..that form the conscience and unconscience part of each individual brain..of the two huh?mans getting joined..[regardless of sex or possability of fruitfull union]

in heaven..there is no sex..[as in sexual type of huhman]
yet there is the higher form of union...often into communities of like minded wills...these marriages get together to achive other types of birth[creation]..but to try to explain further is both repeating past posts..as well as going mildly off course

its all about social intercourse
about formalisation of a formalised final form

in its lower being..its about a man and a woman
getting it together..to pass on their gift of life
to create mortal heirs..that inherit or continue their estates
ie the marrage is to create a bio-logical heir

at its highest is gods marrage union
with every living being..where god agrees to sustain them their life

sustain us all our lives
thus the teaching of paul/saul.[in 1 corinthians 12]
but who needs the word of man/men..only one good god is true

its just a shame..we are such lousy wives
untrespectfull of the true marriage
our lifes mirage

Dear Philo, You are not logical. You wrote: "The word for same sex union is - Homosexual."

If that is so then the word for different sex union is - Heterosexual.

Your prejudice overrides your reason. The word for both kinds of union is marriage in the places where same sex union is legal.

Interesting comments and points of view.

Lexi, said we should use the word marriage for all typres of unions, like 'love and marriage' go together, but does not acknowledge that there is different types of horses and different types of carriages which we name differently, because they are different.

So where there are obvious differences it follows there should be different terms used. I suppose we could all use the term 'guys' for both genders like the Yanks do but that may further confuse the matter. I am yet to figure out how a female can be a 'guy'.

I'm beginning to wonder why those that think the word marriage should be used are so insistant. Do they think it adds more respectability to the union or are they trying to disguise the fact it is a same sex union?

Humans are notoriously lazy, so instead of having to explain it is a same sex union, they will find a word to indicate it, such as Doe-marriage or buck-marriage or abbreviate it to ss-marriage. Probaably various places will get differing descriptive term. Interesting to see what becomes the most popular.

How will same sex unions introduce themselves to others? "Hello, I'm Peter and this is my er husband/wife John". Are formal letters sent to Mr and Mr or Mrs and Mrs?

A 'conscience vote' by a bunch of people who are either hardcore religious, or trying not to alienate hardcore religious people- will not go down well.
Yes the supposed point of 'conscience voting' is that the politicians are supposedly forgiven for going against constituents' and lobbyists' wishes- but the fact is, if they were willing to defy them, they wouldn't have bothered getting their support at all.
And thus, the only reason this will be forgiven is if all members had talks with their religious lobbyists and negotiated something to have them look the other way.

Still, it's better than nothing I guess.

King Hazza, funny how there is never a conscience vote when economics comes up, or war, or borders, eh?

A bigger bunch of deadshits could not be found outside our ACT bolthole.

Pretenders, shams, pea-n-thimble merchants the lot of 'em.

Shysters, frauds, afeared nincompoops.

To Hell with the lot of them, every last one.

Banjo,

But you've got no problem with the word in more ambiguous terms?

Marriage doesn't JUST mean a legal/religious union of a man and woman with a ceremony. Marriage can also mean union, blending, alliance etc.

I have no issue with gays falling within the definition.

Banjo,
Husband, wife - exactly! Marriage can only biologically take place between a man (male) and a woman (wombed man). Man being generic and common to both. Marriage can only identify the consenting and life long committment to a heterosexual union.

Philo,

Marriage isn't a biological act - it's a social act.

Ther are several countries that recognize this, so that means ther are also options available.

Those who now wish to change the laws to suit their very very very small minority should consider the fact that they have chosen to live in a country that does not recognize these laws.

It will be damaging to children's lives as they will be con fussed and ridiculed throughout their lives.

My best solution has always bee that if you are a very small minority and you don't like the laws of the land, then move to somewhere where you will be accepted.

At least then the rest of us who live an everyday normal life can continue to enjoy our peaceful existence.

No offense, but don't Chang our world simply to suit yourselves.

Dear rehctub,

Justice is for all not only the majority. If a small minority is treated unfairly under law that injustice should be remedied. If the population were only 0.5% Christian it would still be wrong to discriminate against Christians.

Whether there should be same-sex marriage is another question. However, if it is right to have it, it should not be denied because it would affect only only a small percentage.

I am not a homosexual.
I do not look for, activly avoid the company of those who are.
That is my problem not theirs.
I can, in their company not find trouble.
They are usually intelligent and not intrusive in to my life.
Once thought of them as , well leave that.
I think we should let them wed,call it what you like but just why not?
WASP males, in any pub, trust me, drink along side men who are Heterosexual.
And who have, had sex with half the women in town, predators who find ways to get in bed with their drinking mates Lady's.
In that same bar, you can bet on it,two men who are a couple will be.
Why is it so often politics or Church that has the last word.
Some who from within the Church, any Church,who condemn this are pedophiles?

Poirot,
I have heard of sex in the city. I would hope you do not perform your sex in public. Though the intended union is declared to society; what is declared is: that this man and this woman have agreed to live together as husband and wife. That is a natural biological act. In some cultures before marriage it was established that the bride was virgin - indicating she had not been married before. This is a biological position. Marriage is a natural biological act between a husband and wife.

Dear Philo,

Poirot is right. One can engage in a sexual act without a formal union of any kind. A formal union involves societal recognition. That makes it a social act. Social acts are defined by the society in which they occur. Marriage is a social act uniting two or more people in a formal bond. Generally where there is polygamy one partner is added at a time, but there is no reason that there cannot be a mass cremony.

If 'marriage' was such a wonderful and God given gift as the speakers-for are suggesting, then why do the royal fambly have such a problem with it?

After all, Queenie is there, like the Pope, as God's agent on Earth yet her kiddies seem to have a real problem with getting hitched and staying that way, do they not?

It is not exactly a closely guarded secret that kings and princes are 'putting it about' as if they had no 'little missus' waiting for them at home.

The Belly anecdote is for real across the boozers of the land, but also in the boardrooms and the church pews.

Only the wilfully blind, obtuse and/or stupid would really believe that 'marriage' is anything more than a useful social convention, liable to change over time, as it already has done over even the last 100 years.

You fear-mongers seem to believe that 'marriage' is a totally fixed structure, which it clearly is not.

Wake up to yourselves, and if you go to the pub, particularly Belly's pub, look your mates in the eye and wonder, 'has he or hasn't he?' and then go home and wonder 'has she or hasn't she?'

It's no good putting your 'faith' in your marriage certificate, or your BIG church wedding, this is about people and their quirks.

The 'marriage' bit that you value so much is but an empty shell all too often, so why not let others crawl into it too, if they want to?

david f,
The marriage arrangements and living arrangements in various cultures is interesting. I had never thought of a mass polygamous ceremony. Do you know if this has occured? Big night for the groom, viagra sales would escalate.

With the increasing imbalance of genders in China, it would not surprise me if polyandry became more common there. The Chinese are fairly pragmatic people and will find ways to overcome a problem.

I understand that in some places in India it is common for the husbands brother to also have sex with the wife. Others house both genders of children together where sex is the norm. Incest is more common in those places where common or dormatory sleeping arrangement prevail. In Japan it is common for a husband to also have a mistress which seems to be the accepted norm. I saw a paper that claimed that one third of boys, in Japan, have their first sexual encounter with their mother.

However back to subject, if governments only approve of the word marriage for same sex unions I wonder what terms Aussies will come up with?. A letter in the smh suggests that we should abandon the Marriage Act completely, but I think some sections desire the legality of it.

Abandon the Marriage Act?

Or, abandon sex, otherwise known as 'the marriage act' by the overzealous supporters here?

Forget martial arts, perhaps 'the marital arts' should be awarded with black belts for those who 'get it right'?

Pillo for those who do not know is a full on Christian.
And from a time most people had been like that.
No offense meant mate you do sink the boot in to any one not one of yours.
Have you ever thought why we let the Church turn our sex lives in to a formal thing called wedding?
Long before the story of your Christ child was in part taken from earlier Gods Baal most closely related, ceremony's took place to tie couples together.
We can say it is not true but facts is many increasingly live out side wedlock.
Why not?
And why not let same sex, who in your view are on the way to a hell that does not exist, wed?
Some belief lets first cousins wed, pre teens be taken as wives.
Lets look closer at that not let bigotry control others in the name of Gods.

Dear Banjo,

Typically in Tibet where they have or did have polyandry a woman will marry brothers and be wife to all of them. This is different from polygyny where I think wives are taken one at a time. I suspect that the ceremony of marriage to a group of brothers would involve all of them in the same ceremony.

David, was that situation in Tibet caused by the drain of males into the Buddhist priesthood and the need to remain celibate?

Another argument against those religious orders who make silly rules to coerce people into 'correct behaviour'.

Dear Blue Cross, I think it was a practical arrangement. Tibet did not have the wherewithal to stand a great population increase. Some women would have several husbands and others would not have any. Buddhist monks are different from Christian monks. Buddhist monks and nuns may take holy orders for a stated term rather than life.

Marriage in natural biological act between a man and a woman celebrated by supporting friends in a ceremony. In ancient religions the actual initial sex act was precided over by priests in an enclosed area with attendants to ensure the marriage was culminated. They would display the blood on the sheets to indicate the bride was a virgin. The guests did not witness the union but were there to celebrate the marriage union. When this happened the society recognised them as husband and wife. The giving of a ring for the finger circumvents that intimate ceremony today.

Dear Philo,

Your repetition has a robotic quality.

Maybe Philo is a robot...and his program seems to have provided him with the erroneous information that the "social institution or ceremony" of marriage is somehow a biological act.

Sex is a biological act. Social mechanisms are "not" biological acts.

Jeez, should we go back to the 'blood on the sheets' era do you reckon?

How's that, a bunch of horny celibate priests watching 'the marital arts' getting a run through.

Let's hope they were not as badly behaved as our footballers, all 'holding their own' as they take turns with the under age starlets in their 'breaking in' ceremony (or is that 'ceremoaning'?).

The Blue Cross,
The priests were neither celibate nor Christian. The Priests are of Indian origin and Religion, and still practised in some places even today.
Sex is a biological act always has been and always will be. The whole celebration of that act is marriage that entails a lifelong commitment. Marriage is an action word not a piece of signed paper at a party. The action is that the two shall live together as husband and wife (means in a natural sexual relationship) sharing equally in love and honour of each other, providing for each other’s needs. Marriage is a lifelong action merely defined by the word “marriage” not just a once of ceremony saying "I love you". This is the design put in place by God and how we have naturally evolved for the sustainability of the human race. Anything else in human relationship is not defined by the term “marriage”.

You demonstrate a perverted Western mind regarding sex.

living beings want cer-taint-ies
thus look to formalise every aspect of material relations

it is cetrtainly certain..those asking for a 'marriage'..dont really know..just what they ask

carefull reading..of the bible..reveals jesus said
let your yes be yes
and your no mean know
[informed concent is implicite]

thus mathew 23[16-25]..must be wrote upon the heart
[the mirage of marriage..is the quivelent to 16 and 18]

but james 5..[12]..expands the realities
[9-20]..but many take the words of peter 2..[12-25..plus peter 3 too far]...and often too literally..the bible wasnt assembled into its fullness..to subvert logic or reason.

the instument of owning a subserviant slave
is designed to enslave us all..[thus become a perversion of state]

the state allows a cloak of legiimacy..to be cast over the material law[that goes beyond the spirit of the law]..because its well known..the devils love laws..[everybit the embodyment of satan]
as much as the twin towers hole's of rememberances..is meant to be the gate way..into and out from hell..

but its litle use trying to explain
spirit/thinking to those caught up in material slavery

a word to the wise..should be enough to assist them to stop
and think

jesus informed us we can know the ultimate good[god]
one to one...we dont need ritual or rite..or even form or formalisations[we are commanded to love god..by loving other]

yet others hold different commands
[like those who think to control god/church/state]
those claiming the spirit..have their own rules
just as govt has its own rules

and taking the oath of mariage
is an oath of man[and the command is let your yes be yes]
to wit do not take oath..![dont swear by the alter..nor the temple..nor god!]

marriage is a material mirage
[how can one good wife..bound[destined for heaven
be bound to a hush band..bound for hell...they never can be joined]

its time we lost the material hate's..that contractually bind
from the spirit..bound only by love

be carefull for what you ask
only demons need you bound

Poirot,
I assume you identify your sexuality as a social mechanism?

Why, thank you Philo, Honey.

Philo,

Sorry to pop your bubble, but sex is not the same as marriage. Marriage is a social institution.
Sex is a biological imperative...marriage isn't.

Or should I say, sex is a biological imperative for the reproduction of the species.....marriage is more like a social imperative (?) for the support of offspring.

Poirot,
A marriage has not taken place until there has been a sexual union between a man and a woman. Ask the the 800,000 Muslims in Australia: what constitutes a marriage? Forget the 20,000 gays what they think marriage is, they do not marry they just engage in homosexual acts.

Philo,

So you're saying that the social institution of marriage is not validated until the biological act of sexual union has been undertaken....oksy.
But marriage is still not a biological act. It is a social mechanism for the validation of a sexual union.

I'm not interested in replying to your prejudice regarding homosexuals.

Poirot, I think Philo is only referring to a Muslim act-of-marriage.

There was no mention of Christians or 'others' in the post where you were advised of the thinking of some 800,000 Muslims in Oz.

Odd, but there you go.

Learn something every day here.

I don’t know how the so called Christians can take the high moral ground on anything, including marriage. Their record speaks for itself. All religions have failed; they should stick to their superstitious and oppressive bigotry and leave the rest of us alone.

Quite so Paul 1405. Just watched Compass last night. Yet another round of Roman Catholic 'buggers' in denial of what their church encourages every day.

Not just the sexual abuse but also the lies from Bishops and higher.

To Hell with the Vatican.

Paul1405,
We all live in an educated world and the sort of emotional bigotry you express shows you are ill informed of the reality of nature.

Marriage takes place for the procreation of children, that happened long before the State ever got involved and formulated laws. God created marriage to be a natural act between a man and a woman for the procreation and protection of children, that can only happen between a man and a woman. When two men evole give birth to children then we can talk about undoing our views of how nature dis-criminates against homosexuals. You can change the name but you will never change the FACTS!

Dear Philo,

You made questionable statements:

You wrote: Marriage takes place for the procreation of children, that happened long before the State ever got involved and formulated laws.

Wrong. To procreate children one doesn't need marriage. Somebody has to care of children. That may be neither the biological father nor mother.

You wrote: God created marriage to be a natural act between a man and a woman for the procreation and protection of children, that can only happen between a man and a woman.

Wrong. Marriage has developed by societal agreement. In some tribal cultures same sex marriage is an accepted practice.

You also wrote: You can change the name but you will never change the FACTS!

Right. You cannot change facts. When you cite facts instead of robot-like iterating your prejudices there will be no no argument.

Philo, I have to agree with david f, and suggest you remove your religious blinkers for five minutes.

I know many heterosexual couples, male and female, who married but had no intention of having children.

Two of them my siblings, who made sound decisions, in my view and, more important, in their own.

You Philo, would condemn them? For not carrying out your gods plan?

Really Philo, you do have a cheek you know.

Now, just how many children did you have?

One a year for all your child-making days?

No?

SINNER!

“God created marriage to be a natural act between a man and a woman for the procreation and protection of children.” Philo your whole argument assumes that there is a God. It’s all well and good to reinforce your line with references to God. The deaths of millions of innocent people have taken place according to some with the blessing of God. Can’t rely on God to gives us good advice can we.

paul quote...""The deaths of millions of innocent people
have taken place according to some*..with the blessing of God.""

this isnt gods 'fault'
those who truelly seek to know god
know all good is of god..[and all murder rape etc..is that of man/woman..CHOSING to do vile]

god gives no licence..for men to do much that they CHOSE to do

""Can’t rely on God to gives us good advice can we.""

he is the one...all can trust
but its the peverse [including much 'religeon'..
that proves it simply cant be trusted..this is nought to do with good[god]

i went over the roots accorded to marrage
that claims to have its beginning in genesis

and that is only able to be made
by clever maniplulation of fact

the CLAIMED authority...immediatly follows the warning
[re not eating of the fuits of the tree]

and god only chose to make..'the man'..a helper
not a wife

in fact wife dont even rate a mention till later
gen 12.1..when abraham was asked to leave*

this *leave..is also mentioned at gen 2;24
for this reason..a man will leave his father

this 'leave is based on eph 5;28-30
where gen 2'23..records its words

the words quioted read

''this is now bone of my bones
andf flesh of my flesh

she shall be called woman
for she was taken out of man''

gen 2;24 speaks of leave father/mother..
''and be united *to his wife
and they will become one flesh'

and lo the marriage mirage was born
it then further says

the man and his wife
were both naked..and they felt no shame

next it goes on to gen 3
and eve chattying with the 'serphant'

the sequence has a kind of flow
naked chick talking to a serphant

anyhow the roots of the mirage of marrage are vague
i still hold its more to do with the state
than with love

lets face it god giving you..your opposing sex...*clone
[to wit your sister/daughter..as a wife]..
that dont sound very xtian dont it?

but then who is not your brother/sister

Marriage is a sexual act between a man and a woman covered today by a legal contract. It is the physical sexual union of a man and a woman who are committed exclusively to each other for life.

Marriage is not a registered contract with the State! Marriage is not the declaration of love. Though in marriage we recognise holds both ot these. Though homosexuals pretend marriage is just these.

Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species, a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights to descendants, and the protection of family bloodlines. The State instituted the act of marriage to handle these needs.
The word marriage may be taken to denote the conjugal union and the union itself as an enduring condition. It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of some kind of natural law, while the phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union.

Philo,

Marriage is not a sexual act. Nor is it any kind of biological act. It is not a "sexual union".

"All" societies need a secure environment for the optimum ability to perpetuate of the species.

Marriage is a social mechanism whereby "legitimacy" and "validation" are satisfied.

i call my second witness

introducing..'the marriage act'
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/

religions can only IF APPROVED..
conduct marriages under the act

""PART IV--SOLEMNISATION OF MARRIAGES IN AUSTRALIA

Division 1--Authorised celebrants

Subdivision A--Ministers of religion

25. Interpretation
26. Recognised denominations*

27. Registers of ministers of religion
28. Transfer of State registers
29. Qualifications for registration under this Subdivision
30. Registrar to register applicant
31. Applicant may be refused registration in certain circumstances

it continues on
but what is the point

govt fully control and require marriages to be regesterd
then via the regestration...fully control all applicants[seeking advantage

who by virtue of applying
[apply means beg]...
thus fall under the act

it has nothing to do with god

[noting religeons..APPROVED religeons...get other advantages
thus have sold their soul cheaply]

never under estimate the effectivness the demons of satan
in this the material/satanic realm..jesus was wise enough to refuse
[after satan offerd it to him]

this single act..makes all who beg[apply]..
to fall under the act..affectivly slaves unto govt and the act

please note further
the births act..[ie eregesterd under the births act
means govt[satan]..rules it over the slaves

how did govt get that right?
topop easy...i explained it too many times
simply by ALLOWING you to regester..to vot..regester to marry..even regester your birth..[we are enslaved from cradel to grave]..and the one sex..[homo got no idea want they BEG for]

if you apply to fall under the terms of ANY act
your subject to ALL THE ACTS

as i explained again here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12516&page=0

oh and the mark of the beast
thats your sig-nature

pleasse sign on the dotted line
>>>>>........<<<<<

and your enslaved

*from cradle to grave

yes they got an act for that TOO!

where satans demons tell you what you CAN do
and what you cant do

please note the wisdom
of mathew..5;33-37
matthew 23;16-25
james 5;8-20

be carefull what you beg
app-LIE..for

your required to swear,..IN WRITING..that you know your birthdetails etc to be true and correct
when patently..you were only a newborn babe..[at the time]
and thus took it on trust[and now realise your trust has ben betrayed..by those who were too clever

ie lawers..bankers and ursurors
who run grand scemes..DE-SIGNED
to reap/rape your body as well as your soul

and what did the pope do
sold you out..!

I don’t have a problem with the Jesus people doing what they like in their bedroom. As far as I’m concerned they can read their bible before, during and after sex. But they don’t have the right to dictate who can marry, who can have sex, who can take contraceptives, who can have abortions etc. Religions are unrepresentative, controlled by a small elitist clique who want to dictate to the rest of society.

Paul1405,
Wrong on all counts! Nature decides who can marry and it is always a male with a female no matter the species. Marriage is a biological term. Two bulls in a paddock do not have a productive sexual union, put a cow there and nature is fulfilled. Al your anger about religion and God is ill informed vitriol.

Dear Philo,

Who officiates when a bull marries a cow? Can they still get married if the bull is Catholic and the cow is Jewish?

Phil0,

I think I see where you're becoming confused. You seem to believe that marriage is sex.

Marriage is the institution in which sex is morally legitimised in our society.

I mean to say, Philo, are you suggesting that every time a bull has sex with a cow (any cow) that their act is somehow consecrated as some sort of God-given form of marriage? Why not the same rules for humans then?

No, we are different from other mammals in that we fashion for ourselves religions and moralities, but they all serve a social purpose above all else. Look at marriage as a socially constructed membrane that acts as a support within society for the nurture and protection of offspring.

Marriage is not biological term

david f. I thought cows were all Hindoos.

Have Christians been in to the paddocks too?

But in that sad union you describe, in line with the full loving nature of gods, the families of both moo-beasts would shun their off-spring and never speak to them again, for ever and ever, amen.

So, are paddock weddings linked to 'pastoral care'? Is this what 'pastoral care' actually refers to?

Philo, I used to live on a farm and I have to tell you that bulls are not too fussy about their 'unions' and, at least when younger, will 'have a go' at their comrades if they feel like it.

A bit like rugby players of today.

Do they hope for a Hindoo daughter cow as a result? I'm not sure about that, never having chatted to a bull about this sensitive issue of pastoral care.

When I got married, in a paddock with no signs of any gods, cows or bulls anywhere, Nature did not grant, or withhold, any form of permission.

Can you elaborate please, just in case I need a document I have failed to pick up?

david f,
The term "marriage" is the sexual union, not the ceremony, it is just that in human marriages they are publicly declared and registered.

Though I, once was a stud breeder and chose the bull and registered the offspring with the stud society. The public declaration is not the marriage, not the certificate of registration they sign with the government. The couple mutually agree to live together exclusively as husband and wife. There is every possibility they may produce children unless infertile, or they interfere in their natural fertility of stop having children. Childless couples do not make null the marriage.

Dear Philo,

You may be interested in reading about non-human homosexuality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals contains an article on the subject. Quote from article: One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[8][9] "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."

>> The term "marriage" is the sexual union, not the ceremony <<

ROFL

I have been 'married' many times, and there are a number of people who would be most surprised to know they are my spouses.

Philo

Please stop with this ridiculous talk. Sex is the sex act, marriage is the ceremony and societal acknowledgement of a couple's devotion to each other.

If your interpretation of Christianity declared the sky to be green instead of blue, you would faithfully argue that we'd all better believe the sky is green - or be damned to hell.

BTW - there are many Christians who do not hold your fundamentalist take on the bible and must cringe whenever you post the nonsense you do.

Poor Philo, poofs everywhere, happily having 'unions' until the cows come home.

Best not let Shadow Minister know about these 'unions', he'll see red.

You seem to protest just a little too much about the 'meaning of marriage', Philo.

Did your marriage break up perhaps? Or did it not produce any children?

Philo,

Marriage is a state where, biologically speaking, sexual union takes place. If you refer to it as a "sexual union" meaning a union for the "legitimised" procreation of offspring, it still doesn't render the condition, arrangement or state of marriage a biological entity.

Poirot, "Marriage is a state where, biologically speaking, sexual union takes place", maybe, but marriage is not the 'only' state where sexual union takes place is it?

And it is this aspect of the human relationship that must offend Philo so much, otherwise there would be less insistence that it 'can only' take place within a marriage.

When religious maniacs get a religious grip on matters of the human condition they never let go, sadly, but instead take their mental illness out on the rest of us until we agree to become like them.

I wonder, given that 'the rational' is not known to these poor saps, whether it is ever worth even bothering to respond to their bleatings?

Philo, for instance, will never release his/her grip on this idea that Nature provides a marriage ticket-of-approval and that this is only ever able to be granted to heterosexual couples, be they chickens or people (sheep clearly exempted).

So, we waste our time, apart from the joy of baiting Philo into ever sillier responses.

Discuss

TBC,

Yes, I'm curious how Philo rationalises that marriage is not the only state where sexual union takes place.

Of course, it depends if one is taking the term "sexual union" in its biological sense as the sexual act - or referring to the social union that includes sex in its job description. Clearly, however, although sex is usual in marriage, it's not mandatory, and nor is marriage mandatory for sex physically to take place.

Marriage is social construct. Referring to marriage as a biological act is just silly.

Quite so, but we are 'rational' people and Philo is a religious zealot, which explains all and stumps further intelligent discussion.

Now, what was this thread about?

Banjo asked:

"Could not some smart wordsmiths come up with a word or words to mean same sex union."

Well, that's easy - 'shagging' seems to be widely understood and fits the bill (if not Bill) rather well.

It is all very well you guys ranting and name calling but you have not given a case for marriage.

It appears you neither know the history of the act nor the purpose why Governments keep records of births, deaths and marriages. It was all about Governments keeping records on who are its citizens, for duty of care of children, tax and social responsibility and legal property distribution.

Mount a case why records should be kept for same sex unions. You have not established purpose or motive for such a case.

There is no possible increase in population, and registering an individuals death who has no wife or children has not dissolved a marriage. If a gay person has fathered or given birth to children his / her relationship to children is not the marriage. However his union with the mother of his child ought to be registered with the State because he has a responsibility to his child, as a biological marriage (union) has taken place.

Dear Philo,

There are several justifications for same sex marriage:

1. Stable unions decrease promiscuity and provide stability. They decrease mental disease and social disorder. This lessens social costs.

2. Stable unions decrease promiscuity and curb the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. This curbs the spead of disease and cuts down medical costs.

3. Stable unions promote happiness by providing a more satisfying life style.

4. Hospitals and other institutions may limit visitors to sick people to immediate family members and spouses. Same sex marriage partners should have the same right of visitation as heterosexual partners.

5. Marriage is a social and contractual arrangement which provides for matters such as property rights. These rights should be made available to all partners in committed unions whether the partners are heterosexual or homosexual.

Philo, the thread was not about giving an OK to marriage at all.

I am married simply because it suited us both to get married.

True, in order for that to be recognised by others we had to step through state installed hoops.

I'd point you to david f's brief list to see why it might be a good idea to marry, if that suits people. It did suit us, for many of his reasons.

Now, using your list "who are its citizens, for duty of care of children, tax and social responsibility and legal property distribution" it would seem that each would apply to same sex marriages too.

I know gay men, who were married to women, had children, then decided they were gay, and live with another person now, a bloke, still with children in their care. And there are women in that situation too.

Not every family comes straight out of an Eynid Blyton book Philo.

A shock, I know, but that's life old dear.

TBC

Enid Blyton, life is NOT like "Noddy & Big Ears"?

:(

Well Ammonite, there is a nasty tittle-tattle tale that suggests Noddy and Big Ears are married and that Noddy was attracted to Big Ears because of the size of his equipment.

As radio-hams both, the large ear is a boon and Noddy has such small ones.

You will note that there are no 'issue' from the relationship.

Plod, who is reputed to have as big a truncheon as Big Ears has ears, is suspected of fancying Noddy too, but this is not confirmed.

I am considering doing a PhD on the implied pyscho-sexual relationships in Blyton's books and have been offered a place at the Catholic University, which just shows how wrong we can be about the grip of the Vatican on its educational wing.

david f,
These issues can all be covered in a registered Civil contract, stating next of kin and intention of will. It does not represent marriage. I assume the children spoken of were the product of a marriage not a same sex union.

You are all invited to the wedding of the century between Willie the Bull and Kate the Cow this Saturday afternoon at 3pm. The nuptials will take place in farmer Brown’s back paddock. The newlyweds will be spending their honeymoon in an Indonesian abattoirs.