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 as a 'social institution' > Comments

Marriage as a 'social institution' : Comments

By Eric Porter, published 5/9/2017

Indeed, if marriage were simply about love, it would render all the legal infrastructure redundant.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All
What a shallow, embarrassingly shallow and unfocussed article!

It isn't a "social institution" in any general way and pretty much constrains marriage to the purposes of controlling male urges, as a means of avoiding inbreeding and as a legal record of social commitment. Plus, for demanding that the female partner produce multiple children, akin to a puppy factory.

If the had got out more during his formative years he would know that there are many females with well-developed urges and minimal control, with nary an intention of childbearing, but I digress. Another digression might be to consider of divorce and the justifications for divorce, which can only exist consequent to marriage - the contract of. Currently, in Australia, that is "irretrievable breakdown", but not so for humanity globally.

Those purposes of marriage are commonly observed in the breach and may never have universally bound any society. If so, marriage is reduced to two primary purposes.

First, religious tradition, is steeped in ritual and meaningless to those of different or no faiths, such as me.

Second, a public register of commitment that brings advantages in a legal sense. In my case, that includes application to my(our) superannuation, home property ownership, to shared responsibility for children until adulthood and to provide default rules for distribution of the estate when one of us expires. Gender is no issue.

Marriage, as a social contract framed in legislation, does not guarantee or demand sexual fidelity and/or specific sexual practices between consenting adults in private, or production of children.

Marriage speaks of private commitment over time.
Marriage is, for some, a religious tradition.
Marriage is a legal tool, as discussed above.
Marriage is not, at its core, a social thing and is not an "institution", social or not.
Posted by SingletonEngineer, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 5:09:47 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
“secure the future of society”

So the state should stop immigration and globalisation.
Far more urgent issues.

Alan B “Remove the word gay from this diatribe and replace it with black, african, negro or lefties, and you might just get a sense of what this ignoramus is trying to argue?”

Remove the word gay and replace it with "incestous" or "polygamous" and you ust might see the holes in the “love is love” argument.

“What's love got to do with it?”
Oh, the irony! Have you seen that movie?
Marriage, marriage, rah, rah, rah!

AJ Philips “without addressing equality in general”

So please AJ, address it.
What is “equality” and why is it a justification for this law reform?

A little game I sometimes like to play is to read posts from elitist snobs and replace “gay” with “incestous” or “polygamous”.

They say nothing or that'll be dealt with some indefinite time in the future.

Too bad for the partners “oppressed” and “discriminated” against in the meantime, just because they're two gay brothers (no threat of mutant children there) or three lesbians.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 5:14:30 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 addressed equality many times before on OLO, Shockadelic. I’m sorry you missed it.

<<So please AJ, address [equality].>>

So often, in fact, that I tend not to go into detail nowadays out of fear of sounding like a broken record. But, just for you…

<<What is “equality” and why is it a justification for this law reform?>>

Equality, in this sense, is the state of being equal with regards to status, rights, or opportunities. It is a justification for law reform because of the legal principle of equality under the law;* because discrimination is demonstrably harmful (when it is not justified (it’s rather sad that I actually have to add that qualifier to pre-empt irrelevant analogies)); and because equality is demonstrably beneficial to societies. There are 195 countries which are a testament to this, and over 100 years of sociological research demonstrating it.

* http://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sexual-orientation-sex-gender-identity/projects/marriage-equality

<<A little game I sometimes like to play is to read posts from elitist snobs and replace “gay” with “incestous” or “polygamous”.>>

Really? And how does that work out for you? Can’t be too well, given your last attempt at analogising same-sex marriage with incest and polygamy.

<<[Elitist snobs] say nothing [in response to incest or polygamy] or [that it will] be dealt with some indefinite time in the future.>>

Is that so? Well, then, refer them to me and I'll give 'em some pointers on dealing with this red herring.

<<Too bad for the partners “oppressed” and “discriminated” against in the meantime, just because they're two gay brothers (no threat of mutant children there) or three lesbians.>>

Perhaps we could fight for their rights too then, if that’s what you want. I don’t see too many gay siblings complaining of discrimination over their inability to marry their same-sex siblings, though.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 5:51:58 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
You keep rabbiting on about marriage and reproduction, but many of today's young ones have opted to bypass marriage and have children anyway. The state actually recognises such arrangements in many areas such as welfare etc.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 6:28:21 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
Hi there DIVER DAN...I couldn't agree with you more! I'm so friggin' sick of this Gay marriage bit, when we're facing a serious power shortage, a lunatic in North Korea wanting to blow the world apart, and here we are going on about same sex marriage. They'll get it anyway, just give it to 'em! I couldn't care less who marries who or what, the local ewe in the next paddock or a sexy looking Rhodesian Ridgeback who has a predilection for a saucy looking Owl, sitting up a tree! Let anyone marry anything; animal, vegetable or mineral they want, but for 'Ch...t' sake shut up about it, please!
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 6:28:48 PM
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
o sung wu

I was a "yes" vote in the past but have now certainly changed my mind with soooo many others.

Advocates of SSM including "Get Up" who have continually decried any form of speech for the no campaign - including latest horrific barrage of attack on a Doctor, and for her to have to contact police due to death threats to her, etc - is so disgraceful and I pose the question for "Get Up" and others who do you think you are when a person of a view contrary to yours, you believe you and your supporters can then destroy a person's integrity within the field as a medical practitioner.

There are many other instances where "Get Up" and others are losing supporters due to their bullying tactics in destroying careers of those who may not support their views - or are employed in an "entity" in which they don't "like".

Is anyone watching this?
Posted by SAINTS, Tuesday, 5 September 2017 7:07:36 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. All

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