..... and off he went to confirm that he knows not what he talks about. (He being the only person who has ever claimed that anyone other than a registrar can be a registrar). Poor lamb.

Strangely, he has not been heard of since.

Should we organise a search party?

It depends what function you place marriage. If we all agree that our primary function is to procreate marriage serves a purpose in that function then it quite clearly isn't the same for a same sex couple.

...or for a couple where one or both partners is infertile, for a couple who are too old to procreate, or for a couple who simply don't wish to start a family.

If we go down the line of stating that marriage is only for procreation, then all of those people I mentioned above should be prevented from marrying. If marriage is not solely for procreation, then there's absolutely no reason that same sex couples should not marry.

You're missing the point. The reason why "marriage" should be for heterosexuals is not procreation per se but as a basis to celebrate the union of a man and a woman - union in the sense of the act of marriage and the act of naturally expression that love via sexual intercourse. Sexual intercouse being an act between man and woman as shown by the realities of sexual reproduction.

As I said previously, I personally have nothing against equal legal rights in terms of tax status, etc but not the hijacking of the term "marriage".

Once again for the hard of understanding, it is the religious (mainly right wing) that have hijacked the term and the ceremony of marriage.

Don't be daft.

I suppose Genghis Khan hijacked the word "gay" too?

How is it daft, there was weddings long before your prophet was around.

Were men marrying men and women marrying women though?

Oh well, that settles it.

I've never, ever heard a better argument.

No, really. Plaudits, Sir.

After all, what we used to do should never change.

It's been downhill since they started accepting that a husband could rape his missus, for instance, and it wasn't just him demanding his conjugal rights.

The [iBible[/i is full of obscenities and yet some believers only ever obsess about gay people.

In the context of BG's comment it was valid.

Can you find evidence that they weren't?
Besides it isn't the pagans that are trying to dictate the rules of something they never owned.

That's because, in the past, homosexuality was often considered to be unnatural or undesirable. It was even considered to be a form of mental illness at one point. We now know that homosexual behaviour may be observed in any number of different species, and that it is anything other than 'unnatural'. Similarly, there isn't a (competent) psychologist or psychiatrist alive today who would recognise being gay as a psychological disorder. So as our understanding of homosexuality as a perfectly normal part of human variation has improved, so, quite rightly, has our collective desire to ensure that people who happen to be born that way are not discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality.

So whilst the union of a man and a woman is indeed an expression of love and a valid basis for marriage, it is not the only one.



This isn't the first time you've trotted out this irrelevant nonsense, and it doesn't get any more sensible for being repeated. It may surprise you to learn that humans are somewhat different to other species. Marriage itself is purely a construct of human society, and, as such, has no parallels within the animal kingdom. That aside, if we judged ourselves by the same standards as those in the animal kingdom, theft, rape, murder and a whole host of other undesirable behaviours would be considered perfectly acceptable.



Yes, but it's certainly not the first time. I feel equally certain it won't be the last.



Done. You're welcome.

Disregarding the majority of this bizarre post, I will restrict my comments to the inherent contradictions within the two paragraphs reproduced above. In the first you invoke zoology to argue that homosexuality is "normal" behavior. It is clearly not normal in the usual sense of the word - ie what most creatures practice most of the time . Then in the second paragraph you claim that humankind is completely different to other animal species and that all these other species carry out various heinous crimes, which of course humans do too. Furthermore, the heinous acts you mention are carried out on a minority basis by humankind, just as homosexual behaviour is carried out by a minority.

how simply you conflate usual and normal

No, you need to decide what you mean by normal or natural ... and why.
We hear people like you saying that homosexuality is not natural ... but zoology shows us that to be untrue because we see it in other species, that is to say "in nature" i.e. natural.
When this is pointed out, the best you can come up with is that it is not "normal" because it is only observed in a minority.
By your logic, any human with minority characteristics such as, say, blonde hair isn't "normal".

However, "normality" is not the issue.
The issue is whether two humans of the same sex should be allowed the same rights to marriage as two humans of different sexes.
Marriage through history has varied between an agreement to care for progeny or to protect property ownership or just as a public declaration of joining together, it is certainly not patented by any religion.
In the past, society has had periods of time where homosexuality was shunned and / or punishable but we are now more enlightened and we recognise that love and /or the desire to raise a family is not solely restricted to heterosexuals.
No-one is forcing Christians to recognise gay marriage as a Christian marriage, on the contrary exemptions are proposed so that they can continue with their superstition- based practices.
In short, if you think that same-sex marriage affects the status of your own marriage, your problem is probably closer to home.

I think the answer is much simpler than that, I think there is a group of Christians who believe that they have bought into a superior product, below them lay Registry Office marriages and below that civil partnerships - I liken it to the outcry you'd hear if Bang and Olufsen started selling mini hi-fi's for £79.99 in Argos.

I think you're absolutely right.
Also, religions see it as an erosion of their role as the (historically dubious) arbiters of morality.

p.s. it's a Register Office.


Even the BBC get that wrong.

Although for the sake of clarity, some Christians - and some Christian groups - are perfectly happy with the idea of equal marriage. The Quakers are one. They don't seem to think it demeans their own marriages or offends their god.

You don't have to be a Christian, or even believe in a deity, to be a Quaker.
Which probably illustrates their open-mindedness.

Really? Well, (not that I know anything about Quakers) everyday's a school day.

Is it just about liking porridge and wearing a tri corn hat then?

Interesting appraisal. Perhaps you could be more specific about which bits you consider to be 'bizarre'.



As has already been pointed out to you by several other posters, 'normal' and 'usual' are not the same thing.

For example, around [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair2-6%[/url of people of 'western' origin have red hair. This is a broadly similar figure to the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientationpercentage of the UK population[/url who don't identify themselves as heterosexual. Having red hair is perfectly 'normal' and 'natural', but it is no more prevalent than being gay, bisexual or 'other'.



Read it again. I never once said that humans don't commit crimes, what I said was that if we judged ourselves by the standards of the animal kingdom, these crimes wouldn't be crimes at all. So it's really not a contradiction to argue that homosexuality is observed in species other than humans (i.e. it is 'natural'), whilst also adopting the position that it's utterly stupid to state that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because they wouldn't be able to produce offspring capable of reproducing.



I'm struggling to see your point here. We judge a type of behaviour on the impact of that behaviour, not on its prevalence. We have rightly legislated against rape, murder and theft in our societies because each of those actions has the capacity to cause harm to other people. Homosexuality between consenting adults has no such capacity, and the only people who would seek to deny equal rights to LGBT people are narrow-minded s. No exceptions.

Even belief in porridge isn't compulsory.
I'd imagine that the Quakers appeal more to deists than atheists though.

Fair point.

I do recall there being a conference at the big Euston Road Friends' House that included Native American animists.

Long had a soft spot for Quakers – they always come across as tolerant and open-minded.

Same here, I live not far from and went to school in the Quaker village of New Earswick in York so know a smattering about the Quakers. As you say they seem far more tolerant and peaceful with a very interesting history. Pacifist, anti-slavery, teetotal, Pennsylvania founded by a Quaker, William Penn, who signed peace treaties with Native American tribes that weren't broken, and of course several big UK companies set up by Quakers along Quaker lines - Cadburys, Rowntrees, Barclays, Lloyds. A shame some of them didnt continue to abide by their Quaker roots.

I was born and bred in Darlington, I am well aware of the massive achievements of Quaker families, apart from businesses like Barclays and Clarks shoes they are also major drivers behind the setting up of Oxfam and Greenpeace.

A good may of the "God-fearing" could do with behaving a bit more like them.