Errm, no. I am not arguing the point to which you refer. Good grief!! I hardly thought my post was of a nature that would induce such apoplectic ranting.

I am arguing for legal recognition of common-law relationships – you will see I also included in brackets “gay or straight” in the excerpt you quote, but maybe you saw the word “gay” and got sidetracked into hysteria.

My understanding of Pierre’s post is that it is not about marriage or civil union partnerships, but about people who choose not to get married and who need legal rights iro that relationship.

Feel better now?

Shock! Horror!

What happens to group hugs! Feelings of affirmed dinity? Singing ‘Kumbaya’ during reminiscenses of the bad old days before the decriminilisation of homosexuality?

Samantha says:
July 19, 2010 at 8:36 am

I believe that it is time that some sort of “common-law” marriage protection be provided to couples (straight or gay) who make the CHOICE not to get married but who wish to live together. The laws regarding marriage are based on a fundamentally Christian premise and in effect, force the concept of marriage on people by providing them with particular rights, which does not apply to people who choose not to get married. To my thinking, this is discriminatory in itself, as it enforces a religious concept as the only acceptable solution to managing relationships.

I believe that it is time that some sort of “common-law” marriage protection be provided to couples (straight or gay) who make the CHOICE not to get married but who wish to live together. The laws regarding marriage are based on a fundamentally Christian premise and in effect, force the concept of marriage on people by providing them with particular rights, which does not apply to people who choose not to get married. To my thinking, this is discriminatory in itself, as it enforces a religious concept as the only acceptable solution to managing relationships.

I fully supported the legislation on Civil Partnerships in light of the rights it bestowed on same-sex couples, but I would be more supportive of legislation that bestows rights on couples who CHOOSE not to “legalise” or “solemnise” their relationships.

There are far too many unhappy and acrimonious marriages that cannot be dissolved because of financial and/or other reasons to justify the idea that only those who are married are entitled to specific rights.

“President Robert Mugabe has vowed that the new constitution currently being drafted in Zimbabwe will have no provision for gay rights”

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Mugabe-says-no-to-gay-rights-in-Zimbabwe/Article1-574298.aspx

Gay rights have made huge positive strides over the past 40 years. If I cast my mind back to the days that I was in high school it was almost unheard of that anyone would admit to be being gay.

What will the future bring in terms of levelling the hetero / homosexual playing field? Could we see militant homosexual demands for the notional right to procreate.

All I can add is that the concept of ‘gay marriage’ is parasitic. Gays like Herman Lategan are demonstrating that they are independent thinkers and do not need to follow an outdated and outmoded heterosexual institution.