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, family and the media > Comments

Marriage, family and the media : Comments

By Patricia Edgar, published 13/7/2015

The wives are taken out to dinner to be told their husbands have fallen in love with each other and want to get married. They are old, over 70, but they have been at it for years.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
You missed one show that is winning awards in the USA at the moment. The Fosters is a show about a bi-racial lesbian couple raising a mix of biological, adopted and foster children. It has explored issues relating to trans and gay teens. While it has the potential to be exploitative regarding some of the issues it tackles The Fosters takes a generally positive but realistic view of the issues it tackles. And it is just a really nice show amongst a plethora of death, doom and destruction programs intent on shoving your face in the worst that humanity (and others) do to each other.
Posted by Carz, Monday, 13 July 2015 10:16:02 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
IMHO you missed the really important event family wise which was the take-over of the family by the small f feminists in 1970 following the release of Germaine Greer's book The Female Eunuch which, while seen as little more than a rant at first (I remember all those dinner parties in 1970s where the "North Shore Housewives" were more vociferous in their condemnation than the husbands) went on to be accepted as "the family we had to have", depicted by MS B (formerly Mrs B) at the head of the table in American Beauty in 1999.

And never forget that Greer based her vitriol (pun intended) on the nasty Catherine character in Jules and Jim, which Mendes picked up in American Beauty with the King mistaking Caroline for Catherine.
Posted by LittleOzemailPensioner, Monday, 13 July 2015 10:35:11 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
What a load of codswallop!
The Cosby show the Brady bunch and Young Talent Time were all depicting a happy ever after fairy tale ideal of harmonious family life, and all seemingly harboring behind the scenes scandals of seemingly unbelievable proportions?

People who need to recommit in their 70's and 80's must have very shallow tenuous connections to begin with, or have consumed the to death do us part, fairytale BS; or have taken part in organised BS, to ram home a Church initiated message, that they believe that same sex couples shouldn't have what they claim they have as life long commitment inside a state sanctioned union or marriage!

Marriages last because mature compatible people go into it with their eyes wide open and their expectations realistic!

And their longevity supported by little acts of almost daily kindness! And remembering to say thank you, rather than accepting something done for you as your due!

And not because of the fact that they consume a wafer of unleavened bread and recommit to something like, misery loves company, or habit, that they may well want to leave?

Given they get nothing but misery or "yes dear" servitude from their union? Or are terrified of meeting their date with destiny alone and unloved?

I once heard of a couple, who were barely surviving on a state pension, given they had lost their retirement nest egg to some shady shonk preying on others, like Storm financials, on their banker's advice, got a divorce then lived together as friends with benefits sharing accomodation!

As two single pensioners on full single pensions sharing costs they were significantly better off than remaining committed to some elusive ideal!?

When you see folk lined up in their threadbare sunday best to participate in some Church stage managed BS, you have to know that the welfare of the attending couples is the very last thing on Church minds?

But rather that they maintain their control over the lives and financial resources of others?
Insomuch as you do to the least among you, you also do unto me!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 13 July 2015 11:58:38 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
Since when were sitcoms a reliable indicator of political substance?

I don't know what universe you lived in, but the 1970s TV I saw contained blended families, divorced parents, black families, working class single women sharing accomodation, professional single women, etc.
Almost every type of family/not-family scenario.

No, I can't recall any gay couples.
But there were probably no left-handed couples, dwarf couples or blind couples either.
Must there be a tokenistic inclusion of every imaginable possibility before you will stop whining?

"Our Prime Minister may recall Sisyphus was condemned to an eternity of useless efforts and unending frustration."

And the Loony Left may recall Icarus.
Fly my pretties, fly!
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 13 July 2015 12:59:31 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
As best I can tell Patricia is in favor of those seeking "marriage equality" while at the same time drawing attention to the dysfunctional lives that are lived by some but not all individuals involved in a "traditional marriage".
If marriage is such a grim prospect for the commitment of opposite sex individuals to each other then I am at loss to understand why the LGBT community would want anything to do with the words marriage or married.
Why would the LGBT community not prefer their own term for solemnifying a lifetime commitment to another individual that is based on mutual respect?
Enshrining the legal rights and responsibilities that can and should be conferred on same sex unions is not dependent upon using the word marriage.
Indeed some opposite sex couples formalising their union may prefer the option of using an alternative term because it makes it clear to others that their respectful commitment to each other is not based on religious dogma or past social norms.
Those at both extremes of the marriage equality debate seem hell bent on denigrating the life styles of those who do not share their own beliefs. This vindictive intolerance of the choices made by others is quite wrong. It is equally wrong to assert that diametrically opposed views cannot be legitimately held by well meaning individuals in both camps.
Incompatible views only become a problem if one group seeks to impose their views on the other group. The coexistence of diametrically opposed views does not of itself constitute an inequality of human rights. Indeed human rights must guarantee the right to difference.
My preferred definition of equality is the freedom to live in a manner that does not impinge on the freedom of others. Under such a definition it is inappropriate to insist on redefining the meaning of a word that has long standing religious and/or emotional significance to a significant segment of society.
Posted by Logical?, Monday, 13 July 2015 2:40:46 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
Aggrandising your profession, Patricia?
Truly believing that "In the beginning the Media created heaven and earth"?...

Real people have a real life and real relationships, so we do not bother watching your silly media and certainly do not base their values around your idiotic form of mental-masturbation.

Come off the air so we can save on energy costs!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 13 July 2015 3:31:26 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
Logical:

The equality that same-sex couples want is not the equality of relationships but the equality of sexuality. Whilst they claim to want their relationship to be equal in all respects to that of opposite sex couples what they are really seeking is an affirmation from society that homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality.

You can have equality without calling your relationship a marriage. Whatever advantages that marriage supposedly provides can be provided to any relationship. You do not have to be ‘married ‘. Both married people and couples benefit equally and if they don’t then pressure should be brought to bear on those who discriminate. Same-sex couples should be treated equally but they do not need to be married for this to happen.

They should be content to come up with a new name that describes their relationship and to make sure that those in authority give them everything that heterosexual couples have in their relationships. Then they would have equality in every sense of that word except that their relationships would have a different name. What is so hard about that?

If you can have the equality that you claim you want without causing so much angst to another group of people (those who see marriage as being the name of the relationship given to some opposite sex couples) then why would you not do this? You can have what you want and all the grief could stop. The only reason you would see this as unreasonable is if you were actually agitating for something other than equality of relationship. This is what they are doing.

The government and society should call their bluff by creating a new type of relationship and making sure they have all the equality except in name only. We would soon see how dedicated to equality they were. Wanting that word for no good reason is like the petulant child who wants the medicine that the mother is giving the sibling even though it does not need it. It is not the medicine it craves but the attention.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 13 July 2015 8:46:17 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
Phanto
I agree with your assessment and in particular your statement "what they are really seeking is an affirmation from society that homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality".
In my view no one should demand that everyone else approves of their personal preferences.
A legislated redefining of the traditional meaning of the word marriage only gives the illusion of the desired affirmation. Redefining words will not reconcile competing views.
Unfortunately some individuals may seek to redefine the word marriage as a mechanism to hurt their opponents rather than gain equality with them
Posted by Logical?, Monday, 13 July 2015 10:03:09 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
Sounds true and reasonable that "what they are really seeking is an affirmation from society that homosexuality is as valid as heterosexuality"

But if they seek society's affirmation, then why are they asking it from the government? Don't they realise that the government is the people's enemy, so whatever the government approves society will despise?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 13 July 2015 10:43:06 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:

Whether you like it or not the government in a democracy is representative of a majority of the society.

If they can get such a representative to affirm their sexuality rather than just give them equality then it shows the power they can generate by their emotional manipulation. This gives them the confidence to try even more manipulation so that they can begin to seek advantages to which they do not have a right. If you are not restricted by reason because your government is too weak to enforce it then you can do some real damage to a society.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 12:15:31 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
Dear Phanto,

<<the government in a democracy is representative of a majority of the society.>>

Still there is no democracy in Australia. The electoral system is designed so that ordinary people will never be represented.

Anyway, it is true that a pressure group can obtain advantages from government, but this way they will never receive affirmation from the people: they could possibly achieve fear-based obedience but they will never be loved or even respected if they take that path.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 14 July 2015 12:32:51 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. All

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