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 > Redefine marriage, encourage polygamy > Comments

Redefine marriage, encourage polygamy : Comments

By Ben-Peter Terpstra, published 25/2/2011

If marriage means whatever you want, then whatever you want is what you can have.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. All
'Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!'

Run for the hills, folks, the gays wanna get married!
Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 25 February 2011 7:10:30 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
Clownfish thanks for the laugh and not addressing the serious sociological and historical questions.

Its not about gays. Its about children. Its also about unintended consequences.

Im sorry your apparent male adults-only libertarian theology forbids you from engaging in serious debates.

BPT (Author)
Posted by BPT, Friday, 25 February 2011 8:23:42 AM
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
I am not a Christian, in fact I have no affiliation with any religion. I find myself in complete agreement with Ben-Peter Terpstra. We are now in the idiotic situation of being expected to tolerate, without complaint, continuous assaults on our most sacred (yes I did say sacred) traditions and values by those who insist that we revere the traditions and values of others and avoid offending members of minorities at all costs. Christians are expected to take it on the chin when they are routinely and gratuitously offended by those who will run to the lawyers when they think they have been offended. Clownfish's inane comment is the sort I've come to expect from such people. My greatest concern is for the welfare of children. I have seen the continued gross abuse and neglect of Aboriginal kids close up because the politically correct put rights to culture, land and language before the right to safety, a decent education and to life itself. I grew up without a father. My wife was expected to go to her husband as his second wife at the age of thirteen. My marriage is the single most important element in my life. Monogamous, hetero-sexual marriage is the best institution we have available for the raising of our kids. Attacks on it threaten the very fabric of our society and the future welfare of all of our kids. Gays and lesbians deserve a fair go. Society should be able to give them one without threatening that which is most precious to us.
Posted by daprhys, Friday, 25 February 2011 8:43:03 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
Y'know this could get really interesting.

Archie marries Brenda, Charlotte and Desdemona. Desdemona, who is bisexual, then marries Eunice. Eunice, who is also bisexual, then marries Archie completing the circle.

Meanwhile Brenda branches out by marrying Freddie who is already married to Gladys and Harry.

Harry, feeling a bit miffed at having to share Freddie with another woman, marries Ivan who is already married to Jaqueline, Karl and Leonora.

Back at the ranch Brenda decides shed like some more action and marries Desdemona.

Poor Charlotte is feeling left out of this so she divorces Archie and becomes a nun.

In another part of town Abdul marries Fatima and Aisha. Aisha marries Rivkah who has just migrated from Israel to Australia with her husband, Moshe, and three kids.

Abdul objects on the grounds that Muslims women are not allowed to have more than one spouse and certainly may not marry Jewish women. Can Abdul stop Aisha marrying Rivkah? Is that grounds for divorce?

Advise your children to become lawyers specialising in family law. The scope is unlimited.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 25 February 2011 9:29:13 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
There is no longer any reason why the Commonwealth [ which took over regulation of marriage and divorce from the States in 1959 / 1961 ] or the States should regulate marriage or divorce . Leave it to the citizens to enter into any relationship they desire , so long as it is betweeen consenting adults . The governments need not register such relationships . There is already legislation which provides for custody and maintenance of children , so retain it . There is no longer any stigma attached to ex - nuptial births and discrimination against same - sex partners in superannuation and similar entitlements has been removed . Persons who desire a Church wedding can still have one but the governments will not give the marriage any recognition . Legislation will remain necessary to regulate division of property when a non - registered relationship is dissolved . Criminal sanctions on incest exist , regardless of registered marriage . Whether to retain these should be debated .
Posted by jaylex, Friday, 25 February 2011 9:45:10 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
Interesting.

>>Canadian multiculturalists are pushing polygamy<<

I had a look at the illustration provided by the author, and found that the reference point was a bunch of Christians who had "formed a community" for themselves, called "Bountiful".

"While the Attorneys-General of B.C. and Canada are arguing that the law [against polygamy] should be upheld, a court-appointed amicus curiae says the law is unconstitutional because it violates religious freedom."

There you go. Religion is once again the problem.

If it didn't have such an artificially high profile in these matters, the law would simply be upheld, no argument. But because there is a faction that insists that "freedom of religion" means "freedom to do it my way", we all have to stop what we are doing and make a judgment call.

What a waste of time and energy all round, eh?

I'm trying to imagine a bunch of atheists banding together to insist on polygamy as their "religious freedom".

Nope. Came up empty on that one.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 25 February 2011 10:02:33 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. All

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