UndercoverElephant wrote:
How can an equal partnership between a man and a woman be misogynistic?

UndercoverElephant wrote:Sorry, I missed your post, Panderos.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Not everything is due to EP, but if you want a theory for this then the obvious one is simple sexual revulsion. People don't like the thought of the physical acts involved. They don't want to have to think about it. They want it hidden.

melchior wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Erm. No, the idea of marriage as being between a man and a woman (one of each) was pretty much the norm since the replacement of paganism with Christianity, and arguably a long time before that.

The denial of reality going on in this thread is quite surprising.

Men and women are not the same. Equal, but different.

No, men and women are not the same and that is why 'marriage' as you define it is one of the last weapons of the patriarchy. 'Marriage' was designed for men to own women, to have their women 'honour and obey' them (lol) and to own their property and control them.

melchior wrote:

In 2012 we should be moving away from this outmoded and historically abusive method of formalising adult commitment.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

SkyMutt wrote:Native American/Amerind cultures (and believe me, these cultures were and are not a monolithic entity), often included monogamous homosexual relationships which were considered "culturally identical" to heterosexual relationships. See The Two Spirit Tradition.

Ah. So one example out of thousands. An exception, not the rule.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

melchior wrote:

In 2012 we should be moving away from this outmoded and historically abusive method of formalising adult commitment.

Actually, in 2012 we need to re-invent the entire way our society is organised, because the current model is broken, because it fails to reflect reality (either in terms of human biology/psychology or ecology.)

We need to go back to living in small communities. (somehow....)

Panderos wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:Sorry, I missed your post, Panderos.

No probs

UndercoverElephant wrote:Not everything is due to EP, but if you want a theory for this then the obvious one is simple sexual revulsion. People don't like the thought of the physical acts involved. They don't want to have to think about it. They want it hidden.

Thank you for your input on tribes and children (not quoted). Now, as to revulsion, what is the driving force behind this revulsion? Revulsion at faeces or dead bodies or rotting food.. easy to explain.

campermon wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

melchior wrote:

In 2012 we should be moving away from this outmoded and historically abusive method of formalising adult commitment.

Actually, in 2012 we need to re-invent the entire way our society is organised, because the current model is broken, because it fails to reflect reality (either in terms of human biology/psychology or ecology.)

We need to go back to living in small communities. (somehow....)

In terms of health and longevity, we have never had it so good.

Granted, there are problems to be solved in our society.

But would you seriously consider that a pre industrial model is some sort of Nirvana?

UndercoverElephant wrote:

campermon wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

melchior wrote:

In 2012 we should be moving away from this outmoded and historically abusive method of formalising adult commitment.

Actually, in 2012 we need to re-invent the entire way our society is organised, because the current model is broken, because it fails to reflect reality (either in terms of human biology/psychology or ecology.)

We need to go back to living in small communities. (somehow....)

In terms of health and longevity, we have never had it so good.

Granted, there are problems to be solved in our society.

But would you seriously consider that a pre industrial model is some sort of Nirvana?

No, I don't think that. We are heading for a post-industrial age. We need to get used to the idea, and prepare for it. No Nirvanas involved.

Panderos wrote:So what is the cause of that revulsion? You said its easy to explain but you didn't explain it.

campermon wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

campermon wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Actually, in 2012 we need to re-invent the entire way our society is organised, because the current model is broken, because it fails to reflect reality (either in terms of human biology/psychology or ecology.)

We need to go back to living in small communities. (somehow....)

In terms of health and longevity, we have never had it so good.

Granted, there are problems to be solved in our society.

But would you seriously consider that a pre industrial model is some sort of Nirvana?

No, I don't think that. We are heading for a post-industrial age. We need to get used to the idea, and prepare for it. No Nirvanas involved.

Not quite sure what a 'post industrial age' is?

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Panderos wrote:So what is the cause of that revulsion? You said its easy to explain but you didn't explain it.

I'm personally revolted by the idea because I'm firmly heterosexual, which I believe to be genetic. I'm biologically programmed to like the idea of heterosexual sex, and not like the idea of gay sex.

Panderos wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Panderos wrote:So what is the cause of that revulsion? You said its easy to explain but you didn't explain it.

I'm personally revolted by the idea because I'm firmly heterosexual, which I believe to be genetic. I'm biologically programmed to like the idea of heterosexual sex, and not like the idea of gay sex.

Biologically programmed to like heterosexual sex sure. But what purpose does not liking gay sex solve? Is it as I said, to prevent you seeking gratification this way and not reproducing?

Does lesbian sex cause you the same level of revulsion?

UndercoverElephant wrote:
It's what will happen when we finally run out of fossil fuels that are worth obtaining.

UndercoverElephant wrote:This is not because I'm a religious fundamentalist or have anything against homosexuals, but because I actually think the view of marriage as an age-old concept of the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family is the correct one.

UndercoverElephant wrote:OK...I'm going to stick my neck out.

I don't think we should permit gay marriage in the UK. This is not because I'm a religious fundamentalist or have anything against homosexuals, but because I actually think the view of marriage as an age-old concept of the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of raising a family is the correct one. We already have civil partnerships, so this is not about "discrimination" in any material sense. In terms of the legal system, we already have the equivalent of gay marriage, and that is just the way it should be. So why do some gays want more than this? Why do they want to actually be able to say they are married? What extra do they gain by doing so? It would seem to me that the only thing they would gain is recognition that a civil partnership between two people of the same gender is equal in all ways to a traditional heterosexual marriage - not just in terms of legal and financial rights, but culturally identical to marriage. And the problem with that is that it's simply not true. Gay partnerships aren't the same as heterosexual partnerships, for the simple reason that no biological children can be produced by the two people in the partnership. To put it metaphorically, it's like saying that Yin and Yin is no different to Yin and Yang, or that 1 + 1 is no different to 1 + -1. I'm sorry, but this is asking too much. It is asking the rest of society to take part in a politically-correct charade in order to make gay people feel like they are no different to heterosexuals. I have a newsflash for them: you're different. That doesn't mean you're bad, or wrong, or should be discriminated against. It just means you're different. What is so bad about that?

I might add that I live in the Hanover district of Brighton, about half a mile from the most concentrated gay community in the UK, and have not the slightest problem with this. Where I come from, the sight of gay couples being obviously gay in public doesn't even raise eyebrows. It's as much a part of the scenery as the seagulls are.