Oh so no answer, you're not even married? If marriage is such a valuable environment for kids why shun it yourself and demote gay peoples marriage's and child rearing in the process.

If marriage is to provide a secure and stable environment for children, how exactly is a child of gay parents more secure and stable without his parents being married than with? You should surely favour it? It's not an argument that makes any sense.

None the less, of course, no-one needs a qualification to become a parent, nor should they need one to get a marriage. From the prejudiced to the gay families, they all get a shot now and that to me is a step forward.

Edited by imbored (24 May 2015 3.22am)

Sorry - I'm talking about the initial intention was for man and woman. You're right tho...something had happened and nowadays people are made for same sex if that's how they feel .

The sooner that the Church - any Church - accepts that sexuality is none of their business, the better.

The vote is a very big finger up at the Church. Time up for the traditionalists who cannot bear to be without a hold over their fellow worshipers.

I missed Gaye Marriage's song last night, was it any good?

Hmmmmm....Like I said....I was fed up of answering you when you don't really address points in posts yourself..Plus I wanted to get to the land of Nod....But it's a fresh morning and I have some spare time so I'll answer you.

Yes, I'm not married and I have a young son....Seeing how you appear to wish to personalise this argument.

Marriage is the 'ideal' situation for children to be raised in but I'm not living the ideal because of several personal circumstances. However the boy has a mother and father.

You see Bored, I'm smart enough to realise that there's a difference between an ideal and what some people are prepared for in life. That's ok, not everyone can live the 'ideal'.

However, marriage is essentially a contract between two people. A contract that is often torn up. It isn't the most important aspect.....That is the commitment between the parties.

Just because that isn't the 'ideal' it does not mean that it isn't the best possible realistic outcome in the circumstances. One that can produce healthy, self assured and happy minds....It just isn't the ideal....This is the reality for many people today.....It doesn't need a series of warm words to make people feel more valued....Though many people are there to provide them...It is what it is and it is reality.

I'd like to address something you implied in an earlier post. You suggested that a gay son of mine would have a complex or sense of inferiority about being gay.

No son of mine will grow up feeling inferior gay or whatever. It's a bit of cheek for you to assume that quite frankly. I reject your suggestion that acknowledgement that there are natural differences between people produces a sense of 'inferiority'. Should a short man feel inferirotity over being born shorter than other men? No, they shouldn't feel inferior over genetics even though it has inevitable consequences. Should I feel 'inferiority about not being able to have children because I recognise the difference between men and women. Is it 'equality' if society sorts that out?

What creates 'inferiority' are sustained value judgements. A well raised individual has self acceptance at the very core of themselves. Another person's value judgement matters little once that is in place.

If a 'gay son' of the future wished to get married they would do so. I don't feel you have really understood what I've been saying but instead you are just running off onto your own narritives over your 'equality' mantra.

The way you view 'equality' and the value judgements you attach to it doesn't mean that everyone else agrees with how you see it.

Though 'progressive' society has now feminised enough to agree with you.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 May 2015 10.08am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I think individual perceptions of difference are perfectly fine, especially when, like yourself, you separate the personal from the idea of a truth for all. All people view things differently and that's fine.

Especially honourable, and respectable, is what you say in the first paragraph; which for me, is something to be respected - the idea that what we personally think and feel, shouldn't necessarily be treated as what is right for everyone.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]