paulry

And besides that, what would your wife say?

paulry

So now that it is widely accepted that gender has no relevance in a marriage, is it not high time we blew it further open to any number of people in a single marriage? After all, we had alpha males and their many women who were happy to share that one man long before marriage was ever thought of. And it would be bigoted to require that a marriage can only be between two people.

GarryP

Personally I'd say that there are a bunch of factors that determine how 'good' a set of parent is, or will be. I'd say male<>female is preferable to same sex for a variety of reasons, but there are many other factors to - and you might well find a same sex couple 'scoring' higher than a conventional.

One thing I do think that should come out of all this is the trope that mothers are more important than fathers, and thus in divorces the kids go with the mother, should get stamped on with size 9s. You want rampant sexism and inequality, that's one of the worst examples around today. If a couple of gays can adopt kids, then you can ensure that fathers are explicitly viewed as equal to mothers, and if they have well paying jobs that can provide for them, superior - and are not shafted twice over.

Beoz

Excellent point. Fair is fair.

Swerv-o

I have no problems with polygamyst marriages, but it's not really my cup of tea. Though I guess on the plus side the wife would have somebody to talk to after sex...


S

moneypenny20

I'm curious why some people consider other people's private lives to be open for public discussion. Personally I couldn't give a damn what other people do behind closed doors providing anyone behind those doors are all on the same page. If more than two people decide they want a group relationship or two guys make each other happy etc etc what possible business is it to anyone else? What makes certain individuals believe they have a right to denigrate other people's personal choices?

Gordon Barlow

Perhaps our society needs to go back to enforcing the traditional marriage contract - which, if my memory serves me well, was a lifetime commitment: "till death do us part", or some such legal jargon. Those yearning for a return to traditional marriages must logically disfavour divorce. Well, maybe not divorce, so much as the supposed re-marriage of divorced persons. Traditional marriage was not serial monogamy.

Beoz

Gossip .......... Human beings like a bit of gossip. ........ without it, we would have no Channel 9.

paulry

Hmmm... But you might very easily end up being the meat in the sandwich!

Pollyana

And wouldnt that be a sad loss to the world.......

Beoz

No.

Sarcasm off

paulry

That's a very strong and valid point. Why cant the LGBT brigade create and develop their very own gay marriage construct and traditions?

moneypenny20

And again I ask why they should. They want to be treated the same as you and I. The whole point is that they are not different, they don't want to be treated differently. Why is this so hard to understand?

paulry

They should out of tolerance and respect for long existing traditions. They are not the same as you and I, they do not fit in the traditional marriage mold. If they want to formalise their relationships in a union that is recognised by law then they should take the opportunity to develop something of their own and build their own traditions within in. Why is this so hard to understand?

Edit:

Before anyone falls off their moral outrage trolley I should add that while they are not the same as us they are not less than us either. They just don't fit into the traditional marriage mold.

Pollyana

They are human beings, the same flesh and blood ceatures as you and I. And the whole point is that they want to be treated the same as you and I. Forcing them to create ther own version f marriage just reinforces the difference , and that is the one thing they dont want.
Why should the parents with 2 straight kids and 1 gay kid have to treat that one differently from the other two?