Australia's Roman Catholic Prime Minister (with an out-and proud-lesbian sister) is jumping on the bandwagon I see. Not that he supports it (sensible man). Nor mind you, does he go as far as the 11th century French woman Heloise (of the Abelard and Heloise love story - Abelard was castrated, you'll recall) who valued love and disdained marriage (not my position - I disdain both)Similar Threads:
kommie, am I right in thinking that it's not only gay marriage that you disapprove of, but marriage in itself?
Hitchhiking's more of a challenge on the road less travelled.
You are absolutely correct there joe. It's a medieval institution that has no place (except in private between consenting adults) in the 21st century. And if in private neither number nor gender are relevant. Given that we have a huge stake in monogamy - our entire legal system is built around it (think pensions, for example) - I don't see changes happening soon, but I keep chipping away.Originally Posted by joe552
One of the questions raised during our recent debate was: shouldn't people have the choice to marry if they want? If you don't want to avail of that right, that's your choice, but people should have the right to choose to marry if they wish.
Hitchhiking's more of a challenge on the road less travelled.
My point is that there should be no such thing as marriage as a government regulated relationship. That by the way is the Libertarian position, not something I've dreamt up.
"Ah sure, who'd have ye?" some might say (obviously I wouldn't be saying that).
Hitchhiking's more of a challenge on the road less travelled.
Always go for the ad hominem argument Joe, it makes thinking irrelevant.It's known in my circle as "the a447 defence".
Not so much jumping on the bandwagon, as being pushed aboard.
..........and that's the way it is.
Reply With Quote
