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.