Originally Posted By oc_dean But back on topic .... I appreciate everyone's responses. By the time I get to Queensland for Christmas ... I hope the idiot who called that article a terrific write-up .. is either gone for the day, or wises-up. And should he 'start in' .. I'll have a stack of responses from here to shove in his face, in addition to the huge list of comments that follow that article .. that really call it for what it really is - A load of cr*p !
Originally Posted By JazzCat Here's the first problem I have with that: "The simple fact is that while some marriages do not produce children, no gay relationships can produce children. Children may be involved but they haven’t been produced as a result of the sexual relationship between the couple." My husband and I were not able to have kids. Many married couples may no longer have physical relationship due to health, age, etc... Then there are those people who are widowed, divorced and remarry who have children and don't want more. So now what? Get a divorce? How many married couples out there have sex solely for overpopulating the world? None that I know of! Number two problem: "Gay relationships do not meet our historical/cultural understanding of marriage" My least favorite quote is "but we've always done it that way in the past!" One of my favorite quotes is "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." Grow up! The times, they are a'changin'. Third thing: "The refusal to include gay relationships in the definition of marriage is not discrimination. I am a married father. If I were to apply for a single mothers pension I would not receive it, and rightly so. I would not have been discriminated against, I just didn’t meet the definition." Pure and simple - that is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my life! Only a topic like this makes me come out of hiding. I'll bet you thought I was going to say out of the closet, huh?
