On 10/11/2006, at 3:23 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
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....
JDG
Only from a US-centric-vocabulary point of view.
In the places Charlie has lived, "mate" means "buddy", not "fuck-
buddy".
Further back, John had mentioned polygamy, which is where I replied
"why not?", allowing John to divert to tangent. I can see how you
think John might have misread my last statement, but I don't think he
did, I think the relevant reference to which he referred was snipped.
It was a minor point though. I'm far more concerned about the rights
of the couple right now than I am the rights of the triad, as I think
it's a far more pervasive and important issue. Most people know
openly gay people these days, and many of those will be affected by
the recent movement to prevent them marrying.
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
