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 > Defining a marriage > Comments

Defining a marriage : Comments

By Kerry Corke, published 22/5/2006

How constitutional are state-based civil union schemes?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Of course he does as long as it is his crowd doing it. The far right is no better then the far left both wish to oppress and control.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 22 May 2006 4:40:09 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
The only reason some homosexuals and lesbians want the right to marry, is because they don't have it. Its the I want, I want syndrome, rather infantile. There are already adequate means to formalise and secure a relationship, even to the point of power of attorney, wills and registered agreements. These are used by many couples wishing to secure their relationships.

Marriage is a failed religious concept, fight the churches if you want some of their stale bread. Or maybe you feel inadequate in your sexuality and want to feel more normal. What you are is what you are, no illusionary rights will improve your life, just you.

Society has many people who spend their lives together either short or long time, yet never marry, nor have their relationship formally recognised. Get a life and stop whining, you defeat your purpose by constantly pushing to disrupt society.

Who cares whose sleeping with, or living with who, as long as its not harming anyone then just get on with it.

The only proviso I have on any relationship, regards children. No child should be brought up without and equal involvement of both biological parents, unless its not possible or can be proven to be dangerous.

Marriage, you gotta be pretty primitive to want a failed religious practise. Get someone to throw a bottle of grog over you both and wish you well, but stop whining
Posted by The alchemist, Monday, 22 May 2006 6:31:33 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
Kerry, you appear to be setting up a test for marriage-like unions when you say “with both marriage and civil registration, you can only be in one relationship at a time. And, for all intents and purposes under ACT law, a civil union is the same as a marriage.” In most jurisdictions, you can only be in one de facto relationship at a time. Is that the same as a marriage? Do you really want to claim that every exclusive pairing is a marriage? This definition could easily be extended to bridge partners, co-authors and dancing-with-the-stars duos.

It’s a really confusing article, Kerry, and it’s not at all clear what your point is. Next time you post, you might like to take advantage of one of Online Opinion’s volunteer editors.
Posted by jpw2040, Monday, 22 May 2006 7:05:11 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
jpw2040

We volunteer editors have enough to do, thanks.
Posted by veryself, Monday, 22 May 2006 7:34:27 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
Alchemist, marriage is an older practice than the practice of any of the monotheistic religions. The idea that a marriage actually has a divine, sacremental significance is a religious concept. Marriage has many functions, the primary one of which is to ensure that enough children are born into our society, and that those children get the upbringing that they deserve: the support of its biological mother and father (where possible) and the stability that comes with that. Marriage is not just about two consenting adults... it is a thing which concerns the whole of society, a thing far greater than mere individuals.

"The voluntary union between two or more adults for as long as is mutually agreed, The union can be dissolved at any time if one or more parties violate on the terms of the union".

So, we're fine for a child to be living in a situation with both multiple mothers and fathers? C'mon! The rights of the child, which always should come before those of parents, would be so obviously violated in that situation, and you'd be setting them up for a life of dislocation, confusion and broken homes.

There are two, in my eyes, driving forces behind the push to expand the definition of marriage: 1. recognition. 2. benefits. On the first, you don't need to get married to recognise a relationships... a family can get together and celebrate two people without a marriage. On the second, apart from being able to see a person in hospital, the are fiscal benefits which are directed to heterosexual families because they bear children.

On the issue of the article, I think that the prediction that anything that mimicks marriage but does so under another aim might mean that the issue will only ever be determined federally might be correct. If the federal government tried to legislated penalties for criminals under another name, the courst would strike that down, and so they should for marriage in any other name.
Posted by DFXK, Monday, 22 May 2006 8:47:42 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
"Things like fidelity, expected contributions (employment, housework, yardwork etc), care of kids, division of assets at termination of the union can be specified to up front.

No place for someone having dated someone for a while and finding themselves needing lawyers to protect their assets if the relationship fails."

R0bert: Important points, though difficult to monitor and actually evaluate at the end without a lot of (presumably intrusive) bureaucracy. Still, I think these are pretty serious issues. I'm extremely wary of marrying, or at least of marrying a western woman.

"It is just one of the areas of decadence which will see the end of Western civilization."

Leigh: Well why not I say?! Western civilisation began with a bunch of guys who enjoyed a bit of man lovin' (the ancient Greeks) and was often continued in a similar vein (eg. Michaelangelo, Wilde). No doubt someone was knocking Michaelangelo back in the day and proclaiming the apocalypse, but that's right, he didn't paint perhaps the single greatest and most recognisable tribute to Bog, someone "unnatural and disgusting" did! Oh the irony.
Posted by shorbe, Monday, 22 May 2006 9:23:37 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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