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 > Tying the knot: quest for same-sex marriage in Australia > Comments

Tying the knot: quest for same-sex marriage in Australia : Comments

By Clarrie Burke, published 14/8/2012

The definition of marriage has never stood still - why should it now?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Rightly or wrongly, the organised churches see the issue of gay marriage as a chance to assert and test their political power. If they win they will go on to try and block and roll back other humanitarian reforms: if they lose they will play the sympathy card, demand 'compensations' and loudly proclaim how 'persecuted' they are. As long as there is anyone around who takes them seriously, there will always be opposition to sensible, compassionate, progress.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 7:17:41 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'm a bit concerned OLO hasn't really covered the same sex marriage debate adequately. Such a dearth of articles.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 8:10:03 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
It is entirely possible that articles will continue to be presented until posters demonstrate they understand the distinction between the words disinterested and uninterested.

Some won't be happy until we can restore traditional marriage to its 'rightful' place, and of course the most traditional for which we still have evidence is the code of Hammurabi from c.1800BCE.

I await with bemusement to see the reinstatement of such gems as Code 141: "If the wife of a man who is living in his house, set her face to go out and play the part of a fool, neglect her house, belittle her husband, they shall call her to account; if her husband say "I have put her away," he shall let her go. On her departure nothing shall be given to her for her divorce. If her husband say: "I have not put her away," her husband may take another woman. The first woman shall dwell in the house of her husband as a maid servant."

Can't wait for the chorus of… "Not that there's anything wrong with that."
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 8:36:00 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
...Your amazing WmTrevor: Your knowledge is astounding; why were we not aware of this earlier? (did you keep this a secret)? I just wish that I’d been aware of the code of Hammurabi, and its code 141 before the divorce.

...And in addition, the Hammurabi code makes immensely more logic than gay marriage ever did or will, and proves once more to me, as more evidence of the backward trajectory of humanity as it moves forward in time.
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 10:10:30 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
Judaism/Christianity is clear marriage is the union of a man and woman. God is held to have set the standard.

The argument for same sex marriage sees marriage as a human construct created from the accumulated impact of choices as well as via legislation. Marriage is therefore a construct of society shaped however society wishes.

Is the debate really about marriage?

The debate is there is no God or there are so many Gods none are relevant and therefore marriage can be shaped by convenience. Whatever is allowed is a matter of how society thinks and acts at a point in time (same sex marriage is but one argument in this debate).

It is therefore held God either does not exist, does not care or is incapable of acting and therefore we are free to do as we choose. What is permitted is an expression of current opinion and opinion alone; standards (if such a thing exists) are temporary and afford no protection.

The argument that in history a range of positions has been taken on same sex marriage is ‘dangerous’ (to use a forceful term). The notion that because something was allowed in the past it should therefore be permitted now is being applied by convenience to support this position.

That something happened in the past does not justify it occurring now; stop to consider past practices that may reappear (human sacrifice is an extreme example). One needs external standards that are durable in order to decide what to do. As we have no God and standards are an expression of current sentiment we are left with no standards – as Janis Joplin sang ‘freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose’.

‘The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”’ To argue marriage as a union of a man and woman as being a construct of Jewish/Christian heritage (but not ignoring Islam’s opposition) foisted on society ignores those religions do now own that position. God owns the position not the followers. Is there a God and will God act?
Posted by Cronus, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 10:18:16 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 just told my wife (a female) after reading this article that, "Sorry Love but, according to Clarrie, I should be married to another man. The evidence he presented shows that heteros like us are misguided, on the wrong track!"

"Whatever do you mean?" she asked, her face full of suspicion.

"He presented evidence that, since time began, every man and his dog have had same-sex relationships. And here's me, and us, all the time thinking that what we do every Saturday night was hunky-dory, that it was how things are meant to be!"

"You think your five seconds of huffing and puffing is alright, do you?" she said with a hint of a smile.

"Perhaps it's because I'm in the wrong place."

"Well, dear, why don't you go out and give it a try. Your mate, Algie, he seems as though he'd be up for it!"

"Algie? Struth. If that's my only option, I'll join a monastery."

"They wouldn't have you, you blaspheme too much. Better stick with me, lover. All this talk has...made me feel a bit sexy!"

"Sorry, love, the football is just about to start on tellie. Besides, I've got a headache!"
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 10:43:36 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
quite strange that the God who invented marriage that the'gay' lobby hate and despise want now to adopt His covenant.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 12:26:54 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
All very interesting and all very irrelevant. In Australian society marriage has always been the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman. Any gay person who wants to marry can. Any gay person who wants to not marry but form an exclusive and lifelong union with a person of the same sex can. But that is not called marriage. If we want to reach back into the history of other societies, we can call that union embrotherment and add ensisterment if we like. None of this has the slightest thing to do with religion or with discrimination or with equality. It is about words and their meanings. There are all sorts of relationships. One sort is called marriage. Other sorts are not.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 12:49:48 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 have to give gays an 'A' for effort, as they just won't stop trying to get their relationships acknowledged as a marriage.

The marriage word is taken, get over it!
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 12:51:48 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 argument has never been about equality, it's been about the gay lobby trying to prove a point. It's all or nothing (never an intelligent position to hold). Anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous. I liken it to when I offer a child a chocolate biscuit but they refuse and insist only on a Tim Tam.

I have no issue with same sex unions, equal rights under law, etc. These are essential to protect people's rights in this day and age.

However, marriage is off the table - deal with it.
Posted by rational-debate, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 1:21:40 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 was a recognised state in Greek and Roman times, runner, long before your God got a look in. Since then it's been adopted by the Church as a way of gaining power and income, and more lately taken back by the secular arm. It can be whatever we want it to be; and if your God doesn't like it, well, he's big enough and ugly enough to do something about it himself, isn't he? Why does he keep sending the ignorant, hateful and ineffective to try and do his work for him?
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 3:26:47 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
Jon J

'and if your God doesn't like it, well, he's big enough and ugly enough to do something about it himself, isn't he?'

and you will be the first to scream that its not fair just like those contracting disease through sodomy.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 3:40:39 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
This article seems to be using Boswell's long debunked arguments about ancient liturgical rites for same-sex marriage. See the following articles:
http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2002May/may23tru.htm
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/03/in-the-case-of-john-boswell-4
Posted by aga, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 5:23:27 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
@rational-debate "I liken it to when I offer a child a chocolate biscuit but they refuse and insist only on a Tim Tam."

Of course in that analogy, you would be feeding the Tim Tams to yourself while insisting that others should be satisfied with some stale, broken No-Name brand biscuits!

I have a better food analogy, though...

Opposing gay marriage because you don't believe in it yourself is like demanding that nobody else eats cake when you're on a diet.

Childish.
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 8:52:38 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
@Cronus...

> "Judaism/Christianity is clear marriage is the union of a man and woman."

But Christianity is a load of bollocks, so it's "clear about" is completely irrelevant to anyone but Christians.

Why don't you get that?

> "God is held to have set the standard."

According to the myth, God created Adam and Eve whose children must have mated with each other to produce the human race.

Are you suggesting that God's standard of marriage is incestuous relationships between brothers and sisters?

Weird.

> "‘The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”’ "

Ha ha, Well it would say something like that wouldn't it!

Circular logic like that isn't all convincing to anyone other than a complete fool!

It certainly seems to have convinced YOU though, Cronus. Just sayin'...
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 8:58:37 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
@runner "and you will be the first to scream that its not fair just like those contracting disease through sodomy"

Wonderful sentence, runner! It captures so much that's wrong with Christians today; Your implicit delight at the thought of someone getting their "just desserts", plus the omnipresent, insatiable prurient interest that Christians seem to all have in other people's sexuality.

"Sodomy", runner? Oh please!

What century do you people live in?!

Quaint.
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 9:02:18 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
But runner, why does God need diseases? Why doesn't he just smite a few of the major advocates of gay marriage? He has such an enormous range of options to choose from -- frogs, boils, killing their firstborn -- why on earth should he pick one that couldn't actually be attributed to his direct Divine intervention? Why is that always his modus operandi?

If God wants to block gay marriage then he can tell me so directly in plain speech, and I'll happily submit. Until he does I am going to go on assuming that your opposition has got nothing to do with God, and everything to do with human fear and hatred.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 6:51:49 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
Jimmy Jones, although I am not gay, I am not opposed to gays getting hitched,, what I, and I believe many others are opposed to is when they (gays) want to use the word 'married'.

I say to all gays, by all means live your lives as you wish, but leave ours alone.

The simple solution is to find another word, even invent one if needs be, but unfortunately, the word 'married' is taken.

Gays simply need to accept this and move on.

In fact, once a suitable word is found, we can all move on.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 7:18:28 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 simple solution is to find another word, even invent one if needs be, but unfortunately, the word 'married' is taken.

Gays simply need to accept this and move on.<<

Rechtub you need to accept that you can't just lay claim to a word and expect its definition to remain consistent over time: that flies in the face of history. Lot's of words have been 'taken' only to wind up with completely different meanings at some later date. I believe gay was once 'taken' by people with a bright and sunny disposition. Language is a constantly evolving beast. And we don't live in France where they have an official body to oversee their language: English is spoken by people all over the world: to expect it to remain static and unchanging is like trying to command the tides.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 8:56:11 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
' Until he does I am going to go on assuming that your opposition has got nothing to do with God, and everything to do with human fear and hatred.'

Your right to do so Jon J and I will assume your response has everything to do with your Chritophobic nature and hatred of the natural family.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 9:54:45 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
Other than calling me childish, Jimmy, have you got anything profound to say? Can someone not hold a different opinion regarding this matter without having to be called a name of some sort?

I have many reasons for feeling "marriage" is not the way to go, most of them pragmatic. As stated, I am not wanting to deny couples their rights. Why is this not enough? Can someone tell me?

I have raised my other points before (re equality and point proving) and no one has yet denied them. Might just be a good reason for that...
Posted by rational-debate, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 10:29:24 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
@rational debate "Other than calling me childish, Jimmy, have you got anything profound to say? Can someone not hold a different opinion regarding this matter without having to be called a name of some sort? "

Well, RD, it was actually you who compared gay people who wish to get married with "children" in your original analogy, or had you forgotten that?

I was merely reiterating the sentiment.

If you're going to dish it out, then please have the good grace not to get all prissy when it's thrown right back at you.

>> "I have raised my other points before (re equality and point proving) and no one has yet denied them. Might just be a good reason for that..."

Well the reason is probably because I haven't read what you wrote previously, natch!

Tell you what, when you've finished stuffing your face with those delicious Tim Tams, why don't you raise one or two of your "points" again, and I'm sure I'll be able to shoot them down for you... without resorting to name-calling! ;-)

Sound reasonable?
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 12:01:56 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
An analogy is not name calling but anyway...

How about you start with the above? Why is what is on offer not enough? Why does it have to be marriage?
Posted by rational-debate, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 12:23:18 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
>>Why is what is on offer not enough? Why does it have to be marriage?<<

In a lot of cases it might be enough. They have full equality before the law if they don't want to get married. But some of them do want to get married. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so? Who will be harmed and how if they are allowed to? We live in a free society - if an action doesn't harm anyone why should it be prohibited?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 3:14:16 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
@rational-debate...

> "An analogy is not name calling but anyway..."

haha, if saying marriage-equality advocates are like petulant children isn't "name-calling", then saying those who oppose equality are childish can hardly be name-calling either, now can it?

But anyway...

> "How about you start with the above? Why is what is on offer not enough? Why does it have to be marriage?"

You wrote earlier, "I have raised my other points before (re equality and point proving) and no one has yet denied them. Might just be a good reason for that..."

I assumed you meant you have raised points purportedly demonstrating why the Federal Government of Australia should exclude same-sex couples from its definition of "marriage".

Instead, the "point" you seem to have raised to start with just now is that even though you don't understand why or how marriage would benefit anyone or what problems it may ameliorate, you're against it anyway.

Since I'm short on time and you're manifestly short on empathy, the simplest answer to your question "why does it have to be marriage?" is this: Why does anyone want to get married?

When you've had a think about all the reasons people get married, then you will have your answer.

Now a question for you...

Why is it so important to you that I remain forbidden to marry my guy?

( C'mon now... the real reason it's oh-so important to YOU? And I can spot an excuse constructed after the fact a mile away, so be honest now! )

:-)
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Thursday, 16 August 2012 1:17:23 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
Tony L,the definition of marriage is a union between a man and woman, get over it and move on.
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 17 August 2012 7:19:02 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
At the moment: my point was that you can't automatically assume it will always have that meaning.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/05/31/735843/-The-Mad-Logophile-Words-That-Have-Changed-Their-Meaning-Part-1

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 17 August 2012 8:08:44 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
It will in my world!
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 17 August 2012 12:15:15 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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