One of the most irritating things about people wanting to change ‘marriage’ is that they limit their definition of\u00a0marriage\u00a0to just two people.<\/p>\n
If the argument for same-sex marriage is\u00a0that, ‘It is my right to be married’, then why not a threesome or\u00a0foursome, etc? Why not polygamy? Why any limitations on who we can marry? Why not marry my mother or my adult offspring? Why limited to consenting adults? Why not marry\u00a0the forest?<\/p>\n
As I have said previously,\u00a0‘marriage’: why corrupt it?<\/a>,<\/p>\n I have never quite understood what drives the militancy of the same sex lobby regarding the name for their relationship. If a same sex couple or triple for that matter, wish to live in that sort of relationship, why not come up with a name for it?<\/p>\n Why choose a pre-existing word and corrupt its meaning?<\/p>\n Marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman.<\/p>\n Same sex is a relationship between two (or more?) people of the same sex. So please,\u00a0\u00a0let\u2019s find a word for it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Current ‘marriage’ debate, see, Vowed to fight for recognition<\/a>.<\/p>\n I stand by my media release of 5 years ago:<\/p>\n \u00a0Church supports current marriage status<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0The Anglican Bishop of Tasmania, the Right Reverend John Harrower, has spoken out in support of the current definition of marriage in Tasmania.<\/p>\n \u00a0Bishop Harrower said, \u201cLast year I was pleased to support the rights of gay and lesbian couples in seeking such things as access to superannuation, visiting rights in hospitals and establishing a register of significant same-sex relationships.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cToday I would like to voice my support of the understanding of marriage as being between a man and a woman.\u00a0 I believe that marriage relationships, understood in this historical way, are a vital foundation of our community life and its definition should remain as is currently the case.<\/p>\n \u00a0Bishop Harrower said, \u201cSame-sex couples have access to register their significant relationships, and I believe it is appropriate to keep this register separate from the registry of marriage.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n See,\u00a0‘marriage’: why corrupt it?<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One of the most irritating things about people wanting to change ‘marriage’ is that they limit their definition of\u00a0marriage\u00a0to just two people. If the argument for same-sex marriage is\u00a0that, ‘It is my right to be married’, then why not a … Continue reading