[extropy-chat] FWD [SK] Re: Just curious, it's not natural!

[Terry Colvin]

-----Forwarded Message-----
>
>On 01/11/2006, at 12:32 PM, James H.G. Redekop wrote:
>
>> On 10/31/06, Terry Colvin <fortean1 at mindspring.com> forwarded:
>>> >
>>> >I think that gay people should have every right to be
>>> >"married", i'm just not sure whether it should be
>>> >called a "marriage"?.
>>> >
>>> >The word "marriage" is described as a union, joined
>>> >for life, creating a family, it's been around
>>> >for centuries, it's scriptural, and so on, it's
>>> >already been named.  Why change it?
>>> >
>>> >Why wouldn't the gay communities want their own
>>> >word for their union and still keep the basic
>>> >laws for spouse and marital?
>>
>> Maybe because they're forming a union, joined for life, and creating
>> a family -- so there's a perfectly good word for that already in
>> existence.
>>
>> In any case, it's not "scriptural" -- the institution predates and is
>> independent of any particular scripture.
>>
>>> >I can't pressume to understand the relationship
>>> >between 2 men or 2 women and who am I to judge what
>>> >"Union" they want but as a heterosexual woman, don't I
>>> >have every right to keep the word "marriage"?.
>>
>> Sure you do. Your marriage won't suddenly become a "flerm" just
>> because someone else got married. Did all heterosexual marriages
>> suddenly change somehow in 1989, when Denmark recognized gay marriage?
>>
>> What you don't necessarily have is the right to deny the word to  
>> other people.
>
>You might like to consider the pragmatic solution that is likely to  
>happen in Oz in the near future.
>
>While legal discrimination against homosexuals was outlawed long ago,  
>there remained a number of areas in which gay couples suffered  
>serious disadvantages when compared to heterosexual couples, whether  
>married of in a de facto relationship.  It involved inheritance law,  
>and a wide variety of other matters where couples can gain a  
>financial break by appearing as a family.
>
>A backbench MP in the federal; parliament then sought leave to  
>present a "private member's bill" (ie, not a government policy  
>matter) and the major parties allowed a conscience vote (ie members  
>did not have to conform to the party whip) to remove all these  
>disadvantages .  It is very likely to pass by a large majority and  
>should be law before long.  Incidentally it will also help  non-gay  
>peoples (mainly elderly people) such as siblings or old friends  
>sharing a home in their dotage, etc.
>
>An interesting sidelight is that the MP proposing the bill is a  
>married senior ex-Army officer who once made a living catching wild  
>bulls, is a member of the government party and who represents a rural  
>constituency in arguably our most conservative state (Queensland -  
>nothing should be read into the name).
>
>Sure, it isn't marriage, but it removes (almost) all discrimination  
>that previously distinguished homo- from heterosexual relationships,  
>which should help. As it happens none of my gay acquaintances (and  
>quite a few hetero ones too) would get married even if was legal.   
>One of the downsides, of course,  is that accepting the marriage laws  
>means also accepting the divorce laws, which can be quite fraught.
>
>PS It looks as though we will also get pretty reasonable therapeutic  
>cloning laws as well following another private member's bill onn  
>which the conscience vote has been allowed by all major parties.   
>Latest figures suggest it will pass in both the Senate (where there  
>was some doubt) and the Reps easily.
>
>
>Barry Williams