What arrogance to claim it is only of your god. And what act of hubris and pride is it to claim to know what that god wants.

Surely if this offends your god so much he is not that impotent that he cannot prevent a law being put forward.
Who knows maybe your god wants gay marriage to happen.

Marriage is a human social construct and has changed and morphed in its meaning over the centuries and cultures. And will continue to do so.

In what way will your marriage be “redefined” once this goes through? How will it change?

Ok, so I laughed at that one. How exactly?
……

I’m sure you’ll find irrelevant examples to the contrary to try to discredit this assertion. But you’ll just look desperate, so don’t bother.

I am afraid the joke’s on you, kk.
In your very own post you admit there is more to marriage than your own narrow definition. And immediately dismiss them as irrelevant.

That exactly is the redefining part.

Truth is, marriage has always had many facets and attributes. In order to exclude gays from marriage, you try to eliminate those attributes that would apply to homosexuals and narrowly redefine it to the ones that that don’t: Coitus and naturally conceiving children.

You are the very one who is not only redefining marriage, but devaluing marriage by reducing it to this bare-bone definition, insulting the marriages of all those couples who don’t meet that definition.

And all that merely to exclude a few people from getting married.

The institution of marriage, which defines the married relationship type, and it’s ideal outcomes is important to me.

I would have thought the ‘value’ you place in marriage has more to do with the kind relationship you have with the other half. The feelings you have for each other. The tightness of the bond you share. The loyalty. The amount of trust you place in each other.

To value marriage based on who else they’re handing out marriage certificates to seems a bit strange to me.

In that context, the last few decades must have been very tough on you. With the divorce rate skyrocketing, ever more marriages of convenience, cheating, mail-order brides, elderly marriages, repeat offenders marrying for the 4th/5th/6th time etc.

I guess by the time Britney Spears had her drunken 55 hour marriage anulled, you were already using your marriage certificate as toilet paper.

Marriage has always* been about a man and a woman committing together with the objectives of monogamy of sexual commitment, permanence of relationship and creation & nurturing of family.

[...]

*I’m sure you’ll find irrelevant examples to the contrary to try to discredit this assertion. But you’ll just look desperate, so don’t bother.

Irrelevant how? The fact that there have been societies in the past that allowed gay marriage or that there are and were societies where husband and wife don’t live together and don’t raise their children together.

Amusing to see the anti-gay-marriage crowd trying to redefining marriage to suit their agenda.

Ok, so I laughed at that one. How exactly? Marriage has always* been about a man and a woman committing together with the objectives of monogamy of sexual commitment, permanence of relationship and creation & nurturing of family.

The liberal gay agenda in this matter is nothing more than a hijacking of the title ‘married’. It creates nothing, solves nothing. It devalues the relationship type that is optimum for creating and raising the next generation. All so a few gays and their fellow travellers can congratulate themselves this stories of how ‘normal’ and ‘progressive’ they are.

For the record, I’m married. Committed to my wife for life. We have raised two well balanced children who are now your independent adults, educated, stable, wise(!) and socially mature. The institution of marriage, which defines the married relationship type, and it’s ideal outcomes is important to me. The minute the term married is redefined to mean any realationship type between any people (or animals or objects) is the minute the value I place in the term married is damaged.

Which is, I think, the objective.

*I’m sure you’ll find irrelevant examples to the contrary to try to discredit this assertion. But you’ll just look desperate, so don’t bother.

Just because gays are more accepted than at any time in history doesn’t mean that they are universally accepted. There is still a fair amount of homophobia, taunting and even gay bashing here in NZ. Nor does it mean that have reached some sort of maximum level of acceptance. As some of the comments in this very thread demonstrate there is still considerable room for improvement.

do we really want to promote this kind of lifestyle to others (especially children) as being normal?

Yet it is this kind of attitude that helps cause problems. People do not choose to be gay, and it therefore meaningless to talk of “promoting” this lifestyle as though there was some sort of recruitment going on. Teaching kids about homosexuality is about explaining to them that it is a normal part of human society, like left-handedness, and not some sort of icky repulsive moral degeneracy.

One researcher, Cornell University’s Ritch Savin-Williams, examined the two studies that had asserted the high gay teen suicide rate and found many methodological flaws. For example, the researchers failed to account for the fact that “most individuals with same-sex attractions do not identify themselves as gay,” Savin-Williams wrote in the December 2001 issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

“The net effect is that conclusions about suicide risk among sexual-minority youths are based not on same-sex attractions but on self-identification [and] researchers who rely solely on gay-identified youths might be omitting significant, more diverse and representative populations of youths with same-sex attractions.”

So, in other words, many suicide studies may be underestimating the proportion that may be gay.

Woman Attacks Her Wife With ‘Turkey Baster’ Full of Sperm
Posted by: ~Julie Phineas~ on March 16, 2009.on September 21, 2010.

491725991_2e50f0949bIn Pittsfield, MA Stephanie K. Lighten, 26, allegedly tried to artificially impregnate her wife Jennifer A. Lighten, 33, against her will.

Jennifer Lighten told police that her wife was “all liquored up” when she allegedly tried to use a syringe to inseminate her, and that Stephanie had been talking about trying to impregnate her for some time. According to the police report “Jennifer said that Stephanie had a ‘turkey baster and her brother’s semen in a sealed container.’ Jennifer said she told Stephanie that she didn’t want to get pregnant.” (According to police the ‘turkey baster’ was actually a large syringe with a catheter tip.)

I didn’t notice that…….David must have removed it…..no demerits, so it must be valid.

But then again if the advancement of gay rights is your overriding objective then obviously not.

Two men cannot naturally produce children,neither can two women. Indeed if the gay men “help” the gay women to naturally have children they are not being monogamous. Which is where my posting on this thread started!

Sure some heterosexual couples cannot have children. Usually they find this out after being married for some years. Of course we don’t require them to divorce. That would be cruel. But heterosexual couples have the potential to have children. Gay couples do not.

They are equal as MOST people who get married and don’t want children eventually DO have children. These people who don’t want children are not refused marriage, as if they change their minds after getting married the child is then in the best enviroment to develop into an adult.

Some don’t go on to have children but they are known as a statistical abberation – hardly a sound arguement to base ‘equality’ on.

Good try ezette

\

The total potential of reproduction of all the exclusive ‘loving’ homosexual relationships in the world is zero.

Incorrect. A male homosexual couple can help female homosexual couple to have children. Happens all the time, i know several examples.

However that’s beside the point.

Do you think that heterosexual marriages without children are not equal to marriages with children?

It’s just the same old nonsensical argument that marriage is solely about the ability to have children. Or solely about coitus.
Amusing to see the anti-gay-marriage crowd trying to redefining marriage to suit their agenda.

Now while some couples due to age or infirmity may not be able to perform sexual intercourse. that does not invalidate the notion that marriage is a relationship of a sexual nature and sexual intercourse is normally part of marriage. Like isn’t this obvious?

While people may want “trust, honesty, support, mutual respect” these are not what specifically define marriage. The qualities you refer to can exist between friends or between brothers. Those relationships do not constitute marriage.