On 10/11/2006, at 2:35 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <charlie@> wrote:
The former of your definitions has only recently been added to
marriage law in Australia. The latter, well why not? *shrug*
Provided
people make provision for the children of such unions (adopted,
fostered or biological), what business is it of anyone else.
Despite your cavalier attitude - "shrug" - you are, nevertheless,
talking about a dramatic reordering of our basic societal
structure.
What? How? It doesn't change my marriage if my mate and his ?
partner's
relationship is recognised too.
You were just advocating marriages between three or more people....
And there are polygamous stable partnerships already. They're rare,
but they do exist in "the West", and in other parts of the world
they're more common. I'm not advocating such marriages as I don't
think they'd work for many people, I just think that legally
recognising such things, rare as they are, provides more social
cohesion that banning them (just as while I'm made uncomfortable by
overt body piercing and by certain types of sexual behaviour, I am
not so arrogant to suggest that either of those are "wrong"). I still
don't see how allowing a tiny minority of people to formalise an
unusual domestic relationship makes for a "dramatic reordering" of
anything. I happily admit that few will see it that way, though.
I also don't see that actively seeking bans on gay marriage does
anything other than foster more bigotry and cause pain for gay
couples and their children.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
