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 > Marriage past, present and future? > Comments

Marriage past, present and future? : Comments

By Ellen Goodman, published 29/3/2011

If Jim and John marry, and Jane and Josie marry then neither of those marriages has any affect whatsoever on the marriage between Frederick and Francine.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
Agreed, Peter Hume.

>>Pericles Marriage is by definition an act of faith, namely, undertaking to be bound by the marriage vows, so good luck with trying to winnow out the spiritual aspects from the practical.<<

That is precisely why I believe that the spiritual part - the "faith" part, if you like - should be of no interest to the government. Or, quite frankly, to anyone else apart from the protagonists themselves.

The practical part, which I use as a close analogue of legal in this context, is where the situation between two people guides taxation, individual financial responsibilities, duty of care and so on. The government need only decide, say, that it will only "recognize" one partner at a time, and then lays down sensible rules that govern responsibilities for children, it has reached the limit of its mandate. Problems mostly arise when the various religions, pseudo-religions and sects claim a favoured status, based upon that religion's, pseudo-religion's or sect's personal preferences.

By the way, be very careful what you wish for.

>>And I want multiple wives!<<

But I guess, so long as you simultaneously acquire the wisdom of Solomon, the patience of a saint, the stamina of an ox and the riches of Croesus, you should be ok.

Mostly.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 29 March 2011 12:16:42 PM
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 am in agreement with Peter Hume and Pericles on this one. The government should not be involved in regulating personal relationships. This is not just limited to marriage either, a person classified as a defacto has different rights than a single person, regardless of their financial situation (i.e. no joint accounts, shared investments etc.).

I would be interested to hear valid arguments against this opinion, as I only seem to hear the usual lines of argument such as:

1. The rights of children to a mother and father.
2. Moral arguments/christian values
3. Homosexuality is unnatural

My brief response to these are:
1. Argument against single parenting. If you support this line of argument do you also support banning divorce, or forcing widows to remarry?
2. Yes, some christian values have served us well, others have not. As a progressive society we can disregard some of these that do not help improve our society. Unless you take a literalist point of view of your bible then you already agree with this.
3. Define natural. The regulation of the relationships of individuals by a collective is not natural. Homosexuality has been observed in many cases in nature.

I am happy for religious groups to offer marriage as part of their (exclusive) community, and they can chose who they will and will not marry. It is when this minority tries to enforce their interpretation of marriage to the majority, we see these problems. Treat all individuals equally, provide the carers of children with assistance if it is required, and repeal the marriage act.
Posted by Stezza, Tuesday, 29 March 2011 1:57:01 PM
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. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

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