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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 20
  11. 21
  12. 22
  13. All
Thanks Blaise - great article, guaranteed to promote a bit of healthy banter.

What I like about the article is that it isn't written to sway the firm and distorted views of gay-marriage lobbyists (it just infuriates them... ha). Rather it is written for the vast majority of young people in Australia who really don't know much about this issue and don't have any strong reasons to support either side of the debate. By attacking the groupthink attitude as a weak basis for supporting the re-definition of 'marriage' you have influenced any fence-sitters to consider what they actually believe, how this belief has been formed (by media, education, or the cop-out groupthink mentality) and most importantly how much more there is to know about the issue itself and the short and long term ramifications of making any changes to the current working definition.

I don't think all of gen 'Y' is for gay marriage. More likely they just don't care...
Posted by 5SJ, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 12:19:00 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
oh dear another I'm doing it for the kids post.
In this day and age what has marriage got to do with kids?

And as other have pointed out. The fact that my wife and I have no intention to have kids means in your eye at tleast the our church marriage is some how not a real marriage.

Can you see what you've done there...you don't like it and that's where you should have left it. you don't want to get married to a guy then don't, but why stop others
Posted by Kenny, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 12:26:14 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
Blaise,

I am sorry but you are missing the point. The government provides for a contractual agreement between 2 people, presently only available to "a man and a woman", who live as a unit and are considered next of kin. The name of this contract is "Marriage Licence" or Marriage for short.

This contract infers various responsibilities, rights and privileges on those that have it. Various bodies and organisations will only recognise this contract when considering the relationship between two people. I will give you an example, one partner of a same sex relationship is critically ill the other is denied access to be beside the bed of the one he or she loves and has lived with for many years, because, there is no legal proof of kinship, only immediate family are allowed, not a partner of 35 years!

There are many legal issues with the status qua as it allows discrimination on the basis of sex. You seem to state that discrimination is a good thing as it proves one type of relationship, in your mind, is superior to any other. So answer me this Blaise. Why do 50% of Marriages fail, robbing the children of one of their biological parents. Why are there so many single never married parents where children do not ever have 2 parents. What is wrong with 2 parents just because they are the same sex isn't that better than one parent?

The ability to produce children has no bearing on the ability to care and nurture them.
Posted by Robyn Clare, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 12:42:32 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
Blaise and others,
Marriage has its roots in some very unseemly behavior, including but not limited to ritual rape, kidnapping, control of estate illegal for females, dowry as income, enforced slavery.

Marriage has nothing to do with progeny, as progeny can occur before marriage, or not at all. Marriage has more to do with legal/societal status, then with any notions of Love.

Any call for notions of Marriage to meet our contemporary needs should take precedence over romantic revisionist notions of what marriage has apparently meant in the past.

The term itself is meaningless, but the bigotry and hate that follow this argument are not. This is just another chance for us as a "first world" country, to decide how we define ourselves and the individuals that make our society. Should we define ourselves using systems and words that hold an outdated and out grown notion of society that no longer fits?
Given our understanding of the effects of globalisation, and the commercial sectors fetish for unsustainable growth, i hardly think that population growth or the potential for, should be seen as a positive when we train our thoughts onto such matters as the coupling of peoples.

TL:DR? dont tie outdated modes of thought and classification into what is essentially a contemporary conversation.
Posted by JonHenri, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 1:03:52 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 think Gen Y seem so favourable towards ss marriage because they've seen what the baby boomers and Gen X have done to the institution and think, well, it can't get any worse!

But, I tend to agree with the authour - two Dads don't equal a Mum
Posted by TRUTHNOW78, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 1:19:12 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
'Carol83 Blaise (male) by not itdentifying his affiliations, as a supporter and contributor to a political right wing group, dilutes his argument.'

Only if you decide that people who are members of a political right wing group should always be ignored. Come to think of it...

The argument stands and lives and dies on its merits. That you wish to be able to use your prejudice while reading it says a lot more about you.

Play the ball.

I'm so sick of the whole argument. As a de-facto parent living with the mother of my children, I am more concerned the government has married me off via de-facto law, when I have made no explicit contract with my partner.

The government should totally step away from marriage altogether, and let individual churches recognise same sex marriage if they so wish, or not as the case will probably be.

Existing law that has designated me as married in the eyes of the government can then be applied to all romantic relationships the government has decided are married. It does it already, so by definition the idea of official marriage is already redundant.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 14 September 2011 1:40:15 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 20
  11. 21
  12. 22
  13. All

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