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.