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 > Greens guilty of gross discrimination > Comments

Greens guilty of gross discrimination : Comments

By Bill Muehlenberg, published 23/5/2012

Marriage might be OK for Adam and Steve according to the Greens, but not for Adam and Steve and Sue.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
There is not the tradition of polyamory though, is there Bill; just the tradition of same-sex relationships as outlined on another Online-Opinion thread yesterday -

..... http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13642&page=0#236174
.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 8:21:48 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
A few thoughts…

This sort of attempt at satirical writing doesn't suit you – best stick to the usual. Even the only phrase that had me giggling "The power couple of Australia's increasingly open polyamorous community…" wasn't yours.

Surely if you were really genuine in your concerns you would have tried to join PolyVic, or adopted a position in Bisexual Alliance Victoria, in order to express your views – not the Greens.

Assuming your preference for male and female role models I might have thought a couple of spares around the house would be a good thing? Reinforcement if you will.

Nonetheless your outrage at the hypocrites motivated me to want to join the Family Council of Victoria in order to exercise my vote (or is it my right?), when you're next up for election as Secretary. But I couldn't locate the membership form on the website. So if you wouldn't mind posting a link here I'd appreciate it.

I'm still curious as to where and when in human history marriage met your ideal?

In the meantime, you have convinced me that neither the government nor any other organisation has a role in the marriage definition business.
Posted by WmTrevor, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 9:15:45 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
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equality

Equality- The state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.

When are groups like "Australian Marriage Equality" going to be honest enough to admit that they still want to maintain marriage inequality, because they are ONLY pushing for marriage equality for ONE group of people only?

The marriage laws are exclusive and thus unequal in several ways. Once the door is opened for these laws to be changed, on the basis of equality, what basis is left to deny the other groups who are currently excluded?

Once gay marriage is established, it will only be fair to open the marriage laws up to children and polygamists. And it isn't just liberal minded hippies who support polygamy, what about Muslims?

For anyone who thinks this is simply a slippery slope, alarmist position....all I have to say is this: Wait ten years. Just wait.
Posted by Trav, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 9:34:15 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 wheel will turn faster than you or I can imagine. In the 1960's, bars still closed at 6pm!

Once we make this misguided notion of "equality" the be all and end all, there will be no reasonable basis left to preserve any kind of exclusivity in the concept of marriage.

What sort of society do we want in the future? Do we want one where polygamists and minors have the same rights and government support behind them as committed, monogamous men and women? I don't, and I don't believe that makes me a bigot.
Posted by Trav, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 9:38:39 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
(Note: I'm not against bars opening till the early hours at all. My point was to get you to consider how quickly things do in fact change. I'm sure there are many other examples you can think of).
Posted by Trav, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 9:40:09 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
McReal wrote:

>>There is not the tradition of polyamory though, is there…>>

But there is.

Muslim men are allowed to take up to four wives.

It was only with great reluctance and after much pressure that Mormons gave up on polygamy.

At last count the president of South Africa had half a dozen or so.

Perhaps some women prefer 25% of an "alpha male" to 100% of a "beta" or "gamma."

Perhaps some men would be happy to share a woman who might like being shared.

Why shouldn't consenting adults be permitted to enter into whatever sorts of relationships suit them?

And who are you or Sarah Hanson-Young to say they may not?

And once we move away from marriage as being between one man and one woman does anyone seriously doubt we'll give other sorts of relationships the legal stamp of approval?

Of course we will because there'll be no reason not to.

The author may have been trying to be satirical but he does have a point. The Greens are being ingenuous on this issue
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 9:52:27 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
stevenlmeyer, I did briefly think of non-Christian traditions of polygamy, such as Mormonism or Islam, but was referring to Christian traditions to align with the point that same-sex relationships have been previously recognised & somewhat formalised, even if not by sexual consummation (sex per se being a lesser aspect to many committed relationships, anyway)
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 10:09:49 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
Great idea to get across your idea. Don't address the issue of discrimination or hypocrisy (divorce, childless couples etc), simply create a straw man (polyamory) and then demolish it. That way you distract from the real issue and look like you create the impression that you've made a significant logical transition. As to the attempt at irony, stick to your day job.
Posted by shal, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 10:41:30 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
Billy, zee ortha, ist einz Mein Fuhrer short off a Blitzkrieg.

Peiter
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 11:40:53 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
Just to show the absurdity of involving the state with sanctioning relationships.

Get the state the hell out of our private lives, close the offices of marriage and divorce and remove the words "marry", "marriage", "marital", "marrying", "married", "unmarried", "intermarriage", etc. from all legislation!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 1:13:34 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
Agree completely with Yuyutsu.

However this would mean less control over the legislature for religious groups. Otherwise they would support this.
Posted by Stezza, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 2:30:04 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
<<However this would mean less control over the legislature for religious groups. Otherwise they would support this.>>

Excellent - religious groups should concentrate on religion, not waste their time and energy on politics!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 3:46:17 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
>> ""religious groups should concentrate on religion, not waste their time and energy on politics!"" <<

except religion is >50% politics
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 4:15:19 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
Bill wow! Your conclusion really makes sense:

" what do we expect from the moonbats in the Greens party? What do we mere "earthians" know about anything? Obviously our mental and moral reasoning abilities are in a different league from theirs. And maybe that's a very good thing too.'

ROFL, moonbats?, earthians? Are you okay, Bill? It sounds like you are losing it; practically frothing at the mouth you are.

I bet you read Murdoch's loss-making broadsheet (circulation 128,000) which "exists mainly to scratch the itches of grumpy menopausal men and bitter old culture warriors with intellectual inferiority complexes (which is not a bad description of the paper's editorial management BTW.)"

This wonderful quote is from http://thefailedestate.blogspot.com.au/
Posted by Mollydukes, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 6:58:56 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
The amusing thing is that your attempt at an outraged satirical diatribe actually sounds quite reasonable: because as proponents of gay marriage keep pointing out, there is absolutely no reason why a modern secular state should preferentially recognise one form of consensual relationship over any other. Personally I agree with Yuyutsu, that the state -- and the church -- should keep their noses out of our personal affairs altogether; but as long as politicians claim to have a legitimate interest in our private lives, then they should be held to their declared policies of equity and justice for all.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 7:17:11 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 Jon summed it up pretty well. It would be better for the state to get out of the marriage business but if they are in it then relationships between consenting adult humans (that rules out kids and dogs for the benefit of some of the religious fundies who have leanings in those directions) should be part of the mix.

One of the great failings of many who make an issue of social justice is that they have a habit of determining who they think is worthy of justice and are quite happy to trample over those who don't make the cut.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 7:34:58 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
Well said Bill. Looks like being 'progressive' only goes so far with the Greens. I think the unconscious link between polygamy and Mormonism is too much for them. To be seen as supporting something which could be associated with a Religion gives them the hot sweats.

Its also interesting that one poster thinks this anti-Green attitudes has something to do with Rupert Murdoch supporters. Looks like the Greens top the list in paranoia as well.

Funny how Green supporters are blind to the gaping holes in their belief system and get angry and abusive when you point them out.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 9:47:11 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
There is actually a positive element in this essay, which unfortunately will probably be lost on most of brother Bill's fellow-travellers.

The Judeo-Christian Scriptures - which Bill claims he reads and follows - actually do permit polyamorous unions. From beginning to end. The only teaching anywhere in the Bible about monogamy is where elders or overseers in the early Christian church - episkopEs in the original Greek - are required to be the husband of just one woman.

Nowhere else is there any requirement for monogamy, although it certainly occurs quite frequently and is clearly one of the acceptable options.

The negatives in this essay, of course, pretty much overwhelm this one small positive.

Why does Bill expect the secular Greens to pursue Judeo-Christian theology consistently? Huh?

Now he acknowledges the Scriptural permission for polygamy and other child-rearing arrangements, why does he still claim Scripture forbids gay marriage? It just doesn't.

And the continual falsehoods. Such as:

"The reasoning for polyamory and group marriage is 100% identical to the reasoning for homosexual marriage." Not true.

"Once you throw out the fundamental core criteria of marriage (proper gender, proper number, etc) then of course anything goes." False again.

"And I even have to abide by their [Greens] Charter and Constitution? I can't believe it. This is just so blatantly wrong and discriminatory." False. Nothing wrong with organisations having membership requirements.

"I deplore the Greens, I do not believe in anything they stand for, and I am happy to align myself with other political parties. So they won't let me become a member. How intolerant is that?"

Just embarrassingly stupid nonsense, Bill.

And why, when he is asked genuine questions about his position, does he seldom, if ever, have the courage to respond?

Actually, there is one true statement towards the end: "Obviously our mental and moral reasoning abilities are in a different league from theirs." Now, this is correct.
Posted by Alan Austin, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 10:22:36 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
Atman, If only we where all whiter than white like yourself!!
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 10:23:12 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
Marriage redefinition is a non-solution to any quest for community. It says instead 'we give up' on any notion of the common good, and will replace it with mere adult desire.

There are very great costs.

If we are sovereign 'i's with nothing given in the order of things that truly unites us then we require a massive state, an arch 'I' to police and mediate between us – a thing greatly desired by the state, its experts and functionaries. That they have worked out their way to survive should be nothing to us, it is human and the nature of power. But their way cannot mean liberty to us, for it would leave us naked before Leviathan state, and defenceless to every conceivable conscription into its further Triumph.

'Out of the marriage-business'? Where they meddle in divorce and family law yes. They have almost destroyed it. But the solution isn't exit it is renewal and return to what marriage is.

The idea of contract maybe the only one the liberal state wants 'i's to use (delegitimises non-liberal groups in society – their competition) but the language is for so-called ‘free’ markets. These are only truly open when commerce between voluntary subjects to trade can decline the terms or price demanded for entry into binding — constrained in time and place, and therefore able to be “hedged” with insurance — a contractual relationship.

Marriage is a covenant not a contract precisely because we cannot know the constraints of time and place and attach price or terms in advance. The bond is one-ended (unconditional, lifelong, exclusive fidelity) and cannot be hedged.

What unmarried cohabitors, polyamorists etc attempt is to hedge before price discovery (illogical of course, such a calculation can’t be done if you don’t know the value of the polynomial expression you seek to optimize). We know all this. Our society has tried it. Our children and extended families are paying the massive premiums on our parents’ failed hedge. [Krishan]
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 10:43:43 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
Using the state to reduce ALL Australians' marriage to mere contract, or to two (that number cannot hold) genderless adults, is to have a lie reflected in our law, and to have ALL Australians pay the social costs. Privatised benefit for the few, costs are socialised.

The abolition of marriage means the abolition of Australian democracy, the liberal market-state will be thereafter unreachable to this polity.

Nisbet's 'The Quest for Community' is where a liveable future lies.

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2012/05/multiply-your-associations-and-be-free/

“Marriage is neither a conservative nor a liberal issue;
it is a universal human institution, guaranteeing children
fathers, and pointing men and women toward a special kind
of socially as well as personally fruitful sexual relationship.
Gay marriage is the final step down a long road America has
already traveled toward deinstitutionalizing,denuding and
privatizing marriage. It would set in legal stone some of the
most destructive ideas of the sexual revolution:
There are no differences between men and women that matter,
marriage has nothing to do with procreation, children do
not really need mothers and fathers, the diverse family
forms adults choose are all equally good for children.

What happens in my heart is that I know the difference.
Don’t confuse my people, who have been the victims of
deliberate family destruction,by giving them another
definition of marriage.”

Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress,
Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus,
Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 10:51:55 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
Dear McReal,

<<except religion is >50% politics>>

This saddens me a lot, that religion receive such bad reputation. I cannot blame you for this error: as there is no smoke without fire, it seems that some religious groups and leaders forgot what religion is all about, thus you are watching them and believe that what they do is religion. It is not.

Dear Martin,

Nobody, I believe, suggested to abolish marriage, only to pry it away from the state's dirty hands. The state is a secular institute, based on violence and with no spiritual credentials. Nothing stops people to marry in churches (and other religious institutes) before God, as ever. In any case, it's the heart which counts, not the piece of paper!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 23 May 2012 11:30:33 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
A very good opinion on the gross hypocrisy, double standards and intellectual vacuousness of the Greens. If they truly support their own warped idea of "marriage equality" then they will have to support polyamorous "marriage" or else they'll be unambiguously logically inconsistent. The fact is marriage equality already exists. A man can marry any woman he wants and a woman can marry any man he wants. What the Greens and the pro-SSM lobbyists are doing is REDEFINING marriage. Good work on exposing the hypocrisy of the Greens!
Posted by Babu, Thursday, 24 May 2012 1:29:33 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
I am treating this article, and most of the resultant comments, as a joke. (Funny, if it wasn't so serious.)

Please do whatever you like in your own bedrooms and cesspits, as long as it is between consenting adults (physical and mental age 18+ preferably), and leave the principles which are the foundation of genuine marriage alone. This is Australia, not Sodom and Gomorrah. Thankfully.

Prefer some other 'libertarian' culture? Please, feel free, don't let any decent folk hold you back. Well, what's stopping you?

>>Secretary of the "Family Council of Victoria"<<??

This must be one very strange organization (or just very badly misnamed) - perhaps like the 'Forest Protection Society' (or some similar title), which is actually the lobby group (or spokesperson) for the loggers of heritage-listed old-growth forests.
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 24 May 2012 1:33:06 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
Don't worry, Saltpetre.

The 'Family Council of Victoria' is just one person, who has virtually no influence whatseover and is notorious for his misrepresentations on all things and his cowardice in refusing to engage in debate.

He has a forum here - to the great credit of this establishment - and on his own website. But nowhere else of significance.

You will not see him defend his position here ever. Why not? Because it is quite intellectually indefensible.

It is a long age since he "lectured in ethics and philosophy" at any reputable theological college - in Melbourne or anywhere else.
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 24 May 2012 2:27:49 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
No where in the Bible does it say God approves of homosexuality, polygamy, adultery ! Its the history of mankind and tells of man's strengths and weaknesses. Recording history doesn't mean approving it if it does in that case all the bad things that happened like the Holocaust, 9/11, abortion, rape, incest that is happening now is approved ? Sorry, think again. Thank you Bill for making sense in our senseless world. In the Bible it clearly shows, love the sinner, NOT the sin so we have to show love to all the misguided people but not to agree with them.
Posted by tweet, Thursday, 24 May 2012 11:50:27 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
Tweet: does 'showing love' to people involve giving them equal rights? Because that would seem to be a fairly important component in any expression of love or respect.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 24 May 2012 2:00:42 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
<<does 'showing love' to people involve giving them equal rights? Because that would seem to be a fairly important component in any expression of love or respect.>>

Why? Can you please explain, Jon, because I can't see a connection between the one and the other!

Also, why should anyone give others any rights in the first place - all that we are asked, especially if we love others, is to abstain from taking away their natural freedoms, rather than chewing those then spitting back what's left of them as 'rights'.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 24 May 2012 2:25:27 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
Fantastic Bill.Another fine piece, and tongue planted firmly in cheek!You are right , the Greens are bigots.How dare they advocate for SSM and ridicule consenting adults that want more than one spouse?Hey , if you can change 1 fundamental , why not others?
Posted by lolas185, Thursday, 24 May 2012 3:13:09 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
Alan Austin has a good in pointing out that Bill has not lectured on ethics either in Australia or anywhere else for a long time now, and certainly not in any reputable tertiary institution whether secular or religious.

Extending Alan's criticism it would be interesting if Bill could tell us when and where he gave such lectures, and also provide solid proof that he actually did so.

If you check out Bill's website and his presence on the internet altogether, including his Amazon book reviews you will find that his ethics really belong to the Ivan Pavlov, John B Watson and B F Skinner school of reductionist "psychology". Altogether he has the ethical sensibility of a drill sergeant.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 24 May 2012 6:16:17 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
@ Tweet:
Just on your comment: “No where in the Bible does it say God approves of homosexuality, polygamy, adultery!”

Are you sure? Many Biblical scholars these days claim that adultery is always condemned in Scripture, but polygamy and same-sex unions are not. Both are in fact perfectly acceptable to God, as has been shown recently in other articles here on this site.

Yes, you are right to say “love the sinner, NOT the sin”. This is correct. But surely we must determine rightly which relationships are sinful and which aren’t, so the Church is not rejecting those who Christ would have us welcome.

A growing number of Christians are rediscovering the Truths of Scripture which affirm people in faithful same-sex unions.

There is a discussion on the Biblical revelation here, Tweet, which you are most welcome to join:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13642

@ lolas185, when you say ‘fundamentals’ do you mean ‘Biblical fundamentals’? Are you sure?
This is pretty important question.
Happy to discuss further.
Posted by Alan Austin, Thursday, 24 May 2012 8:29:12 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
Yuyutsu,
regarding your comments about my assertion religion is a lot of politics, is the 'error' in the reputation or of religion or my insinuation or both?

" .. why should anyone give others any rights in the first place - all that we are asked, especially if we love others, is to abstain from taking away their natural freedoms, rather than chewing those then spitting back what's left of them as 'rights'."
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 24 May 2012 2:25:27 PM

Who has the right to decide whether "others" have rights??! - presumably the same rights those 'deciding' have & enjoy?

What does love have to do with not taking away 'others' freedoms??!

What about less conflated, less ego-centric interactions?
Posted by McReal, Friday, 25 May 2012 5:48:18 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
Dear McReal,

Religion got bad reputation because some religious organisations also do things that are not religious. One should innocently expect religious organisations (loosely called "religions") to only do religion - to help their members to come closer to God, so when they don't, no wonder that you as a lay-person or observer become confused and come to believe that what they do is part of religion and that therefore religion itself is the culprit.

<<Who has the right to decide whether "others" have rights??!>>

Nobody!

Rights are always granted by certain people to others, whereas freedom is natural, God-given. One can only grant a right once freedom has been robbed away, returning, as if a favour, a fake substitute. So no thanks, we should have no rights and give no rights to others, only retain our original God-given freedom. If you love others and are less ego-centric, then you don't try to rob others of their freedoms.

When Alexander the Great asked Diogenes, "what shall I give you? - just ask and I'll give you half the kingdom", Diogenes replied:

"Will your majesty please step slightly away so that he doesn't obstruct the warming rays of the sun from falling on my body".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 25 May 2012 10:23:19 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
This is nonsense. The Greens and pro-marriage equality campaigners are no more hypocrites than civil rights activists in the 1960s. Should campaigners for inter-racial marriage been campagining for gay marriage back then? Well, maybe according to this Opinion piece!Seriously, one step at a time. The time is right to recognise same sex marriages. Poly marriages may be some time off.

As far as polyamory or polygamy are concerned; anyone REALLY advocating for this needs not to slag off the current Gay marriage campaigners. If gay marraige doesn;t get through then they have NO chance of getting what they want either. Saying that, does anyone seriously reckon that Poly-marriages are likely to happen in Australia? As for child marriage etc- that's called pedophillia and is a criminal offence. Hell would freeze over before that was legal in Australia. Marriage is about a consenting ADULT relationship.
Posted by Vanny, Friday, 25 May 2012 12:29:49 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
@Vanny
"As for child marriage etc- that's called pedophillia and is a criminal offence."
That's easy to say now. What would you say if societal attitudes start to change?

"Marriage is about a consenting ADULT relationship."
Not always: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/international/asia/30brides.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/07/world/asia/vice-bride-kidnapping/index.html
http://www.ivorytowerz.com/2009/02/kidnapping-bride-old-tradition-returns.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5PPJcR0RBs (I'm assuming this documentary excerpt is not a joke or being quoted out of context)
Posted by RMW, Friday, 25 May 2012 11:13:23 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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