tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6239389364027886295.post5384428227514814550..comments2022-12-11T08:09:00.946+00:00Comments on Charlotte Simpson: A redefinition of nothing at allCharlotte Simpsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01676621692324143325noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6239389364027886295.post-19611458119415854992012-06-18T10:23:30.799+01:002012-06-18T10:23:30.799+01:00Hi Mrs.D, thanks so much for reading my blog and f...Hi Mrs.D, thanks so much for reading my blog and for commenting. I can't agree with your suggestion that marriage is unchangeable - given that in the Judeo-Christian tradition its meaning has already changed from one where polygamy was acceptable to one where it is not. The whole question of the children is complicated. Of course you're right that protecting women and children was and remains a key benefit of marriage but it has never been the only reason for marrying. As an old romantic I like to believe that the desire to commit your love to someone forever isn't a new thing - surely there have always been romantic people out there? But also there's never been a prohibition to stop post-menopausal women or infertile people from marrying. Furthermore, in our democracy, the political decision has been made that it is ok for gay people to adopt children or to have fertility treatment - so many gay couples do have exactly the same parenting responsibilities as straight ones. Politicians in a democracy have to respond to the will of the majority while protecting the rights of minorities. In this instance the majority supports a broadening of the understanding of marriage to include gay people. Now the politicians need to work very hard to make sure that their promises to religious people - to protect their freedom to teach and practise whatever they want to about marriage - are watertight. There are instances where equality legislation has had unintended consequences - such as the closure of Catholic adoption agencies - so let's hope that the government's lawyers do a better job this time. But I believe it would be undemocratic to go against the will of the majority on this issue simply because some people of faith oppose it. Ultimately - how does it affect happily married Mr and Mrs X if their neighbours down the road, Mr and Mr Y are allowed to get married? I've heard talk of gay marriage cheapening, weakening or bringing into disrepute the institution of marriage - but for those of us who support gay marriage it's quite the opposite - surely the more people who commit to lifelong relationships rather than short-term flings, the more stability in families and communities?Charlotte Simpsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01676621692324143325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6239389364027886295.post-67597373161294332232012-06-18T09:41:26.958+01:002012-06-18T09:41:26.958+01:00I'm sorry that people do not understand the de...I'm sorry that people do not understand the deep concept behind 'marriage' and the long history of it. Marriage was developed by society to allow men to satisfy their sexual urges by contracting, to the woman of their choice, that he would support her and any children of that sexual contract. Now gays may shout all they like about wanting equality, but two men or two women can spend 24 hours a day being sexually intimate, but that intimacy is not going to produce children, their sexual relationship and therefore their responsibilities, are not equal to that between man and woman and there is nothing that any politician can do to change it. Why try to redefine something that is unchangeable?Mrs.Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08853306570867209858noreply@blogger.com