The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Dismantling a homosexual marriage myth > Comments

Dismantling a homosexual marriage myth : Comments

By Bill Muehlenberg, published 25/11/2010

The attempt to radically redefine the very essence of marriage is not a minor word change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 20
  10. 21
  11. 22
  12. All
It's interesting that so many people are offended by the truth. The fact is that homosexual activity is anything but healthy and natural. Certain lgbt's want their perversion to be called "normal" and "healthy" and they've decided the best way to do this is have their "marriages" formally recognised. But even if the law is changed, these "marriages" are anything but healthy and natural. It is, in fact, impossible for these people to be married, despite what any state or federal law may say.
Posted by MrAnderson, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:09:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Given that there abound websites catering for extra marital affairs within the heterosexual community, there should not be much surprise that this exists in the gay community too. To take a specific example and generalise about an entire community is an act of extreme ignorance or deliberate falsehood.

While men are more likely to philander, lesbian relationships are generally more stable than heterosexual ones, especially when children are involved.

Most gays indicate that they never intend to get married, but would like the right to do so if they choose.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:22:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All the posts seem to me beside the point.

Marriage existed for centuries, or millenia, before the government first decided in the 19th century to register marriages.

Talk about same-sex marriage assumes that marriage is something that is done to the parties by the state. This is factually and legally wrong. Not even the state claims that; they claim only to register a marriage constituted by the act of the parties. Similarly with the church.

Homosexuals have the same right as everyone else to form and celebrate committed relationships. They do not need governmentís permission or recognition to do so. Their rights on relationship breakdown, or intestacy, are the same as everyone else's because of the effect of Property Relationships Acts, and the Family Provision Acts.

So it is a complete furphy to cast the issue in terms of same-sex *marriage*, or equal rights. Itís about governmental registration of relationships.

I think the whole idea of government registering relationships is wrong, and should be abolished. And I have never been able to find anyone who can explain what substantive difference the homosexual lobby is contending for.

However at least homosexuality is illegal; polygamy is not. If parties enter into a polygamous marriage, even in secret, never mind registering it, it's a criminal offence.

So if it were true that SSM advocates are really concerned about tolerating difference and equality under law and all that jazz, they must be even more concerned for the legalisation of polygamy, than they are for governemntal recognition of homosexual relationships, right?
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 25 November 2010 10:26:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I only been on this sight a little while but I see lots of artcles about Gay Marraige with almost evrybody dissagreeing with the Authors. I'm a Christian and I dont like Sodomy but surely if Gay peoples want get married it is only up to God to judge them NOT all these Onlinopinion Authors who just want to stir people up.
Posted by Huggins, Thursday, 25 November 2010 11:10:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
peter piper,

Many heterosexual couples enjoy rimming. The anus is a very sensitive area.

'The attempt to radically redefine the very essence of marriage is not a minor word change.'

Yeah it is.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 25 November 2010 11:28:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> Clearly the answer is no on this one as not many arguments
>> AGAINST SSM even get a look-in.

Jess, you have no reason to fear that anti-SSM views are being suppressed.

Here on Online Opinion we've had two anti-SSM pieces in two days, and in the last week, publications all over the country have been providing column inches for anti-gay local MPs to make sure their constituents know where they stand:
Border Mail (Albury) http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/ley-resents-calls-for-gay-marriage-probe/2003761.aspx
Daily Mercury (Mackay) http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2010/11/20/mp-wont-support-bill-on-gays/
ABC News (Northern Rivers NSW) http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/19/3071151.htm

Other anti-SSM stories and op-eds include:
The Australian - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gay-marriage-demands-should-be-left-on-shelf/story-e6frg6zo-1225956787304
ABC - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/19/3070792.htm
ABC - http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41134.html
Sydney Morning Herald - http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/liberals-still-oppose-gay-marriage-abetz-20101121-182an.html

However if you are making a point about the scarcity of valid anti-SSM arguments, then you are absolutely correct. In the current article, Muehlenberg is attempting to pass off baseless fear-mongering (wanton homosex is going to destroy marriage) as logical argument. In yesterday's, David van Gend was trying to tell us that (a) marriage isn't a covenant between two adults, it's an arrangement for the raising of children and (b) children raised by same-sex couples are irreparably damaged (i.e. it wasn't about marriage at all).

You have to feel sympathy for media proprietors trying to present both sides of this issue, because the SSM-opponents are unable to provide anything more than visceral distaste, and illogical slippery-slope fear-mongering.

If they could only get over their obsession with homosex, we might actually be able to have a good discussion.
Posted by woulfe, Thursday, 25 November 2010 1:02:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 20
  10. 21
  11. 22
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy