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 > Why my generation is wrong about gay marriage > Comments

Why my generation is wrong about gay marriage : Comments

By Blaise Joseph, published 14/9/2011

There is nothing wrong with a definition of marriage that discriminates - it is meant to.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 20
  8. 21
  9. 22
  10. All
Here we go again! If you really believe that children are central to the concept of marriage then you should be opposing marriages between people who are sterile, or too old to have children, shouldn't you? -- and since these are much more common than gay unions, shouldn't you be devoting a much larger part of your efforts to protesting and voting against them? Oh, and shouldn't you be opposing divorce laws and trying to ensure that people stay together forever 'for the children', regardless of how toxic and hateful their relationship is?

You don't give a religious affiliation (or anything else) in your biography, but you don't need to -- I can guess. Only faith-heads are so practiced at ignoring the implications of their claims.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 7:29:33 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
Blaise, you are absolutely right on this issue.

The key question here is, very simply: why have societies and governments back through to ancient times always respected and elevated the idea of marriage above other types of relationships?

Why is marriage more special than other types of relationships?

You simply cannot answer that question without considering the societal benefits of children being raised in long-terms, committed relationships by a mum and dad. By elevating the institution of marriage above other types of relationships, this outcome for children is supported and indeed encouraged.

Conversely, if marriage is just about any two people committing in a relationship, society will implicitly see absolutely nothing special at all in a man and a woman committing for life to create a good environment for children. It will see this as just 'one type of marrriage' or 'one type of relationship'.

Finally, the opinions held by both sides on this issue should be respected and debated in a civilised manner. Threatening people on the basis of religion is just as puerile and ugly as threatening people on the basis of race, ethnicity, environmental views or other personal characteristics.

In this context, we should all pause and stop and think for a minute: have societies really got this one wrong for centuries? Have a bunch of smart young people in 2011 really finally figured out that we had marriage all wrong?

The point is that over time, societies have come and gone. Insitutions and ideology have risen and fallen. Elections have been won and lost. Through the course of all this conflict, many, many smarter people than us have lived and died. So let's consider that through all these years, marriage has continuted to be protected and elevated.

So before we radically redefine it, let's stop and ask the question again: why have societies and governments back through to ancient times always respected and elevated the idea of marriage above other types of relationships?
Posted by Bill Shorten, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 8:58:54 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 a very large oversight in the discussion about gay marriage. The Marriage Act is used frequently in legislation when it decides on taxation laws, property rights, eligibility for social welfare and many other areas which relate to individual rights. It is not just about procreation protection or who gets what in divorces.

A thorough reading of the Act left me with the conclusion that the drafters seem to think in terms of marriage being an economic unit and a financial arrangement far more than its usefulness to proclaim true love or even a haven or otherwise for Children.

To that extent, the rights available in the marriage act are thus something that we as individuals have available to us. Gay couples that argue against civil union legislation are equally missing the point or perhaps just dont realise what it is they are protesting for since civil union legislation, as far as I have seen anyway, offers exactly what they want.

If you want romance, go to a florist!
Posted by AJinDarwin, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 9:04:25 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
The author is exactly on the point of what marriage is.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 9:26:00 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
Even before discussions of same sex marriage there were many children who were raised by two non-biological parents via adoption or via IVF. Does anyone doubt these children were raised by and large by two people who loved them despite the fact there was no biological link.

Children do best in stable relationships which is what the institution of marriage offers (in theory if not always in practice). There is no reason to think that same-gender marriage won't also provide stability, no more than the 40-50% divorce rate in heterosexual unions.

Many heterosexual people marry and have no children.

Societies do change and evolve, so do the institutions that make up those societies.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 9:39:49 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
Blaise it is interesting that you have not identified where your affilliations are.
This throws a very much different light on your essay.

www.menzieshouse.com.au/blaise-joseph/

www.menzieshouse.com.au/editors-html
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 9:52:43 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. 20
  8. 21
  9. 22
  10. All

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