Dear Joe,

Thank You for sharing your views with us in this
discussion.

People tend to see things from a viewpoint of
subjectivity. An interpretation based on personal
values and experiences. We can adopt varying
perspectives on the same problem and can come to
different and even contradictory conclusions as
a result.

If the world consisted simply of some self evident
reality that everyone perceived in exactly the
same way, there might be no disagreement among
people. But the truth of the matter is that what
we see in the world is not determined by what exists
"out there." It is shaped by what our values,
past experiences has prepared us to see and by what
we consciously or unconsciously want to see.

Knowledge and belief do not exist in a vacuum; they are
social products whose content depends on the context
in which they are produced. For example a fundamentalist
preacher will tend to view pornography in one way; the
owner of a strip-tease establishment in another way.
Each is inclined to perceive facts selectively and to
interpret them accordingly.

The same applies to marriage. If we assume that there is
only one "right" marriage form, then naturally any change
will be interpreted as heralding the doom of the whole
institution. As I've stated earlier - it is important
therefore, that we recognise that there is an immense
range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns and that
marriage like any other social institution will change
over time, in our own society as well as in others.

Gay marriage will have no impact on heterosexual
communities just as racial integration in the 60s had no
negative impact on the majority of white communities.

Dearest Foxy,

You suggest that " .... it is important therefore, that we recognise that there is an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns and that marriage like any other social institution will change over time, in our own society as well as in others."

Well, no, there may have been "an immense range in marriage patterns", but not such that any society has ever recognised homosexual relationships as 'marriage', anywhere, at any time.

Call it something else and move on: I've never, for the life of me, seen anything particularly progressive about the extension of homosexual rights: I always associated homosexuality with the effete and corrupt English upper classes, who married for convenience and shacked up with their boyfriends otherwise. I ask myself, what would Marx have thought ?

Good luck to them, but leave at least some bits and pieces of culture alone.

Ah, I get it: all of OUR culture is to be criticised, ripped apart, disparaged and degraded as just another Western or bourgeois institution to be torn down - while everybody else's cultural practices are to be carefully bathed in praise and love, by comparison.

So I'm relieved that you " .... don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage." I agree that there are far more important issues to focus on.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Gay unions and marriages have been around for
centuries. Google the subject for yourself.
There are many articles on the web to choose
from. This is but one example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Ah dearest Foxy,

Pea-and-thimble trick ? Definitional slides galore ? But 'marriages' ? I don't think so, not from the examples on Wikipedia. Older men rooting little boys is not marriage, even if it's part of their culture and 'therefore' good. Coupling is not 'marriage'.

If you can show me that, in any way, homosexual 'marriage' is progressive, I'll pay it some attention. But otherwise, there are vastly, vastly, more important issues to be concerned about.

So I'm quite relieved that you " .... don't want to make this discussion simply about Gay marriage.""

Love,

Joe

'progressive'. more like Sodom and Gomorrah. That is regressive.

Dear Joe,

Define what you mean by "Progressive?"
And in what way are heterosexual marriages
Progressive?"

Dear runner,

Please explain your reference to "regressive?"
And how do you what kind of sex Gays
or any couple for that matter, partake in
that has a negative impact on anyone else?