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. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The true test of whether marriage should be continued as an institution would be to desolve all marriages and to see how many would remarry the same person.

I personally think marriage is an archaic institution and it certainly pre dates any of todays formalised religions.

I agree with Robert that if we make one part of the marriage act so important - the opposite sex bit - then we should also hold equally important the - for life bit.

Let gays marry and move on.... Homosexuality isn't catchy... so having gay neighbours living in love and harmony (the great fib of marriage) won't make it spread up the street.

It may just make us all a more tolerant and fair society ... Gee now wouldn't that be a worry for the people who call themselves Christians but then cast the first stone...Ha!
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 22 May 2006 9:42:05 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
Given the way that 'marriage' is treated in modern Australia, perhaps in some post-modern form we should get rid of the concept of marriage altogether, for everyone.

Either that, or the government, at all levels, should butt out of marriage completely.

Marriage used to be, for centuries, a type of two sided contract in which both sides were expected to respect, and that governments had the responsibility to hold people to, in one way or another. Government no longer holds people to this contract, in fact, there is no longer a contract and marriage 'vows' are not vows at all.

It is a 'contract' that one side can opt out of unilaterally, without penalty, and often with reward.

Now the involvement of government in relationships is essentially to ensure fairness of property division and the best interests of the child. These are admirable goals, but they can be carried out without the need for marriage. In the same way that the Family Court deals with children born out of 'wedlock' (what an obsolete term that is - nothing locked in in weddings anymore - except exorbitant caterers bills) and the Supreme Courts of each state deal with financial situations in de facto relationships, there is no reason why this cann ot continue without government being involved in the formalising of relationships.

The Courts can still do their job, the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages can keep registering Births and Deaths, and the churches can keep holding ceremonies.

I say abolish the idea of state registered marriages completely. Marriage no longer exists as the instituation that even two generations ago considered it to be.
Posted by Hamlet, Monday, 22 May 2006 10:22:54 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
is not this christian-based federal definition of marriage, including as it does the 'for life' term, inconsistent with the act providing for divorce? which prevails? has divorce thus been abolished? alternatively, is it not a fundamental breach of the secular nature of the Constitution itself? barbh.
Posted by barb h, Monday, 22 May 2006 11:04:06 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
DFXX, I think your god has got to you, thats not my quote, “The voluntary union between two or more adults” etc., and I disagree with it. Marriage as we know it, is a religious concept and like all religious concepts, they fail in practise.

Basically the debate is over semantics, not reality. Its only those that are fearful, have feelings of inadequacy and lacking in intestinal fortitude, that wish to have what they think others have. Sadly they end up with the same problems and no solutions.

Relationships, can only be judged by their outcomes, anything else is illusionary. Marriage is just another form of control by government and religions. Having a marriage, won't change the problems faced by society, only exasperate it because people expect certain things from a marriage. When you look at the amount of money thrown at the marriage ceremony, you can see how infantile and stupid it is. All it does is create false hope for those participating, but lacks the reality of what you find after the honeymoon period.

The happiest people I know in relationships, aren't married, their in love. No god nor beleif gives you love, just the opposite, it instills fears

People should try spending 2 years living together in a non intimate relationship, that'll develop friendship, trust and compatibility. If you can do that, you have an excellent chance of success in the long term, no ceremony will help. The commitment needed to do that, will show you where your feelings and veracity lie. Without the sex, it won't take long to sort out the reality from the illusion.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 9:02:00 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
Alchemist - spend 2 years living with someone I really want and NOT express my feelings? Thats not assessment of a suitable partner - its living hell. You have got to be kidding!

Anyway - not really sure just what point author is trying to make here. All I know is marriage is not for me (failed on the forever part). However I can't see what the fuss is about two people who wish to formalise their love for each other (regardless of sex). Hardly going to bring on the end of the world (Leigh, is there anything you like or approve of? Must be a real downer living with you).

Finally it is just religious conservatives yet again sticking their noses into the privacy of other people's lives. If they are so anti-gay sex, they should check out what many straights get up to in the boudoir - a lot more than just the missionary position.....

Cheers m'dears
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 10:10:07 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
Could I suggest that most of the commentators refer to http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/laird/Summary.htm as it would appear that their level of anthropological development is actually being demonstrated in real time by this community.

As for the majority of people who, over the centuries, have valued the intrinsic worth of marriage as a social, moral and economic way of developing society, we, in the long run, will triumph as the chaos of the free livin' contributors will see that their kind are not reproduced and no followers or practitioners means no society. Just ask the Pharoahs or Roman Senators of old. Demographic suicide by lifestyle is well recorded in the annals of history...

But I do agree with the other posters...what was the authors point, other than judges appear to be out of step with Parliament / democracy and the majority of thinking (but silenced by media lefties) Australians?
Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 23 May 2006 2:47:54 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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