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 is a private matter > Comments

Marriage is a private matter : Comments

By David Leyonhjelm, published 14/7/2014

Those who oppose same-sex marriage often attempt to fix in law a particular definition of marriage, like trapping an insect in amber.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
I was referring to the English tradition on which our Australian law was based. It wasn’t until the 1753 Marriage Act that marriages became state-sanctioned.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=aQKn3oa4VvQC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=state+sanction+marriage+1753&source=bl&ots=sqsBkqDBod&sig=mdi06oH-8ZMXTc7g5fY6CGx7_TU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KnjDU-WOJs6WkwWO_4DgBA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=66&f=false
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 14 July 2014 4:30:55 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
A lot of people seem to be using the word "gay" as in gay person or gay marriage/s. In orthodox marriages there are many who are gay(not in a sexual way) so its best to use the better desciptive words homosexual or homosexual marriage or deviant marriage instead of using a euphemism with different meanings.
Posted by Roscop, Monday, 14 July 2014 6:58:05 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 word "gay" as in gay person
Roscop
I noticed how Ian Thorpe refrained from using the word gay. He referred to himself as 'not straight'. I have absolutely no problem with him feeling the way he does, it's no skin off my ugly nose but I did have a problem with calling himself a gay man. I would rather describe him as a homosexual male, which is the correct description. He should really hand back his medals because he is not a man as such. Perhaps we should have homosexual olympics after the Paralympics. Remember the furore of those Chinese swimmers when they got banned because others complained that they were more male than female ? Perhaps Transexual Olympics might also be warranted ?
Ah yes and, marriage is between a man & a woman. For males & females who behave contrary to their biological design we really need a different word. Perhaps Gayrriage or Homorriage ?
Posted by individual, Monday, 14 July 2014 8:04:34 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
Rhian,

For your consideration:

"When the state started taxing marriage in the 1690s, the vicar of Tetbury in Gloucestershire carried out a survey of his parishioners to find out how many had been married in church. He was covering his back – clergymen who failed to ensure that their parishioners were officially married were penalised. He discovered that half of them had not been married in church, but clandestinely, making private vows to each other, or married in a private dwelling by some roving clergyman. They were living in stable, but irregular unions.
Given the choice, those unencumbered by property preferred to avoid the expense and rigmarole of an official church wedding and spend their money on drinking to celebrate the new partnership. Dodging the newly imposed tax and resentment at the state's interference in their private business provided further incentives to live in "common law unions" that had no basis in law and did not carry property rights. As long as a couple considered themselves "married in the sight of God" and was "reputed lawful man and wife amongst their neighbours" the forms of ceremony mattered little to them....Indeed, it was the case of one particular man-eater, the beautiful, litigious Con Phillips, whose busy marital and amorous career, involving one legal husband and seven others, which more than any other exposed the flaws in the system and convinced Lord Hardwicke to tighten up the law in 1753. The upshot of this was an exodus of defrocked clergyman across the border to Scotland, where clandestine marriage was still valid, followed by a steady flow of couples eloping to Gretna Green."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/6243761/A-history-of-the-English-marriage.html

Clearly the law was involved before 1753 and in fact the Law has always been involved in marriage in the English speaking world.
Henry VIII came up against the law when he had to change it to get shut of wedlock.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 14 July 2014 8:28:56 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
Very interesting discussion.

I think this is one on which the Liberal Democrats have totally confused liberty with its opposite. What they're trying to do is *extend* state registration and regulation of private consensual relationships.

It is simply factually untrue that gay marriage is "illegal" - unlike the situation with multiple marriage, which is a criminal offence. And it's also untrue that gays "can't get married".

The flaw in the argument is the idea that marriage is constituted by the state. Not even the state has ever claimed this. Statute law, canon law, and common law have always been agreed that marriage is constituted by the act of the parties in taking each other to spouse. What people mistakenly think of as state and church "marriage" is the *recognition* by church and state, for their own purpose,s of a pre-existing marriage constituted by the act of marriage - the exchange of vows.

The act of marriage is NOT the registration of it by a public official! Get your facts straight, ninnies!

Gays currently have the same right to marry as everyone else. What they don't have is the right to register it. But why should they? Why should anyone?

I have never been able to get any SSM advocate to answer:
- what *substantive* difference there is? (they are doing it merely to force their symbolism onto the community); or
- why the same arguments for "marriage equality" don't apply equally to polygamy?

The policy of the LDP should be to
1. repeal the de facto relationships laws - which *impose* marriage law on *non-consenting* parties
2. provide that a contract between the parties overrides the Family Law Act - making the FLA opt-in, not opt-out
3. repeal the Marriage Act
4. repeal the law against bigamy and polygamy - if people want to exchange VOLUNTARY commitments, what business is that of the state's?
5. repeal the laws abolishing legitimacy. Legitimacy of children is to protect *men's* human rights. Men are not to be exploited as money objects.
6. repeal the so-called child support laws.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 15 July 2014 12:23:23 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
I have heard some pretty creative arguments to support complete nonsense before, but David Leyonhjelm really did some metal gymnastics to come up with this one. His argument is, that since the meaning of words change, then we can simply dispense with any words in our laws that may be an impediment to the homosexual lobby's quest for social respectability.

Hahahaha!

Using the same logic, we could really have some fun with our laws and our Constitution. Sporting shooters could get their semi autos back by simply calling semi autos "bolt actions." Paedophiles could screw every kid they wanted to by claiming that the word "children" now meant "adults". The mind boggles. Every legally accepted noun or verb in our laws could be reinterpreted to suite some social groups self interest.

David Leyonhjelm must come from Orwell's 'Oceania" where he works in the Ministry for Truth. Davis wants to create Newspeak where words "mean just what I say they mean, nothing more, nothing less."

Next he will be telling us that WAR IS PEACE, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, FREDOM IS SLAVERY.

The Ministry of Truth knows the value of controlling language to prevent people from thinking straight, and David seems to be one of it's advocates. It is ungood in David's Insol (English Socialist) Newspeak language to think of homosexuals in any way than total equals, and any person who thinks other wise has committed a thoughtcrime and they should be re educated in joycamps.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 15 July 2014 4:34:31 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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