Josephus,

We've been through this before (when you used to be Philo)

The biological union of man and women is called "sex".

The "social" (not biological) union of man and woman is called "marriage".

>>The biological design of male and female reproductive organs when united form a marriage of a human unit.<<

Bullsh!t. Marriage is not and has never been a biological term - you're the only one who uses marriage in a biological context and you're not a biologist so you don't get a say in what jargon they use. You are a liar. Why is that you can't argue the case on its facts and feel the need to tell lies instead?

Cheers,

Tony

How did you define your own marriage Poirot, assuming that you were once married? What contractual performances and accountabilities did you expect of your spouse?

Do you define it in the casual, no responsibility or accountability terms of the 'Progressives' advocating gay marriage, and they hope an end to what they regard as an outmoded, patriarchical institution one day?

-'Marriage' as simply a public declaration of 'love'. 'Love' being up for the convenient interpretation of the user.

I am not a betting person, but I would lay London to a brick that when your lawyers said good riddance on your behalf to your previous spouse and sought the lioness's share of the assets and provision for your future they applied a far broader and deeper definition of that marriage you scorn as just a public, attention-seeking declaration of 'love'.

Gays will come to reget being railroaded into de facto family law and marriage by a few noisy activists and the much larger rump of the push, the bossy, controlling, 'we-always-know-what-is-best-for -you' "Progressives".

Just think, all of those gays who were previously able to enter into and dissolve whatever relationships they liked at their will and choosing. But now the 'Progressives' have decreed that gays must kow tow to State regulation of their affairs, and the State can tell them whether they are in de facto relationships or not.

The 'gay sympathetic' lawyers, and the feminists so well represented in the 'Progressives' must be secretly applauding their own cleverness. On one hand the 'Progressives' say they are opposed to marriage and State interference in the bedroom, yet on the other they are corralling gays into the institution they say they hate and would do away with if they could. Hypocrisy.

onthebeach,

Who said I scorned marriage?

I merely pointed out to Josephus that the act of marriage was a social act and not a biological one.

But I'll make allowances for you as you appear to have a penchant for ascribing views, experiences and words to people which they do not hold, have or say respectively.

People who have casual sexual affairs with women and use them no better than prostitutes and are incapable of making a lifelong committment to any; have no right to determine what is responsible social policy on marriage.

Yes marriage is a social commitment, but of what? It is an exclusive mutual loving sexual relationship that is for life that is declared publicly. That is the social aspect of marriage, the actual marriage is not consumated till they both are sexually united. As I have said before marriage like birth and death are a biological and organic event. That two people live together in a social union and never had sex is not marriage. That brothers and sisters, or two sisters or live in housekeeper etc are not classed as husband a wife or as married. The marriage contract itself registered by the State is not the marriage, nor the saying of vows they only represent the mutual committment to marriage.

Quite reasonably, I asked for your definition of marriage. Simple enough for most, but a slippery thing for a 'Progressive'.