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 > Couples are not couples unless they can marry > Comments

Couples are not couples unless they can marry : Comments

By Rodney Croome, published 15/4/2009

Far from being a remedy for discrimination in marriage, civil unions perpetuate discrimination.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. 25
  10. All
"Throughout our party’s history successive Labor governments have sought to achieve this by helping people overcome disadvantages based on ... religion, cultural background and racial prejudice."

Oh, ho ho ho. Even I, a scion of a stalwart Labor family (who only finally deserted Labor with the advent of Rudd), know that that is utter b*llsh*t.

Racial prejudice especially coloured the Labor Party from its inception until probably the 1970s.

For much of its history, Labor was unabashedly the party of the lower-class Anglo-Saxon. "Two Wongs don't a white" - remember that one?
Posted by Clownfish, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 9:12:59 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
It's no wonder that people are losing faith in politicians and tend to hold them in the same regard that was once reserved for used-car salesmen.

The juxtaposition this article pointed out between "helping people overcome disadvantages based on social class, gender, sexuality, disability, religion, cultural background and racial prejudice. We have always pursued the fair go, tolerance and respect. We oppose all attempts to divide Australians by pandering to prejudice." and the stand taken on the issue of same-sex marriage is indefensible.

I cannot see any way in which these two pov's can exist together. Nor, I am sure, can many other people. It is an embarrassment that those whom we are taught are our leaders can still claim credibility or respect while expecting us not to notice that the admirable ethos they claim and the laws they enact are mutually exclusive.
Posted by Romany, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 10:29:51 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
Rodney,
So even former High Court Justice Michael Kirby supports SSM.
What a surprise!
I guess the fact that he's also a homosexual activist like yourself has no bearing on his objectivity on this issue.
Next thing Senator Bob Brown and his boyfriend will come out and shock us all with their support for SSM.
But it won't end there will it Rodney.
The next stage after the legalisation of the travesty that is SSM is the criminalisation of those who continue to argue that SSM goes against the laws of nature and commonsense.
Such hate mongers will have to be crushed.
I weep for those poor kids who are the victims of SSAdoption and SSParenting.
Like the victims of the UK's first "gay" trophy foster daddies who were able to abuse a string of young boys because of their priviledged status which forbade criticism.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480151/Gay-couple-left-free-abuse-boys--social-workers-feared-branded-homophobic.html
Or how about the fearless “gay” freedom fighters in Philadelphia who shut down the Boy Scouts because the scouts didn’t want homosexual men in tents with their young boys.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06scouts.html
Or how about those proud “gay” fighters for freedom of expression in San Francisco who just want the right to engage in oral and anal sex in public. (Warning: some may find these images taken on the public streets of San Francisco at a “gay pride” event extremely offensive)
http://zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
It’s interesting to note that marriage is defined in their constitutions as being between a man and a woman in all thirty US states which have had citizen initiated referenda on the issue whereas the states that you laud have all been victims of judicial activism. But we all know that democracy is only for bigots don’t we.
Go on Rodney, shut me down before people find out what they’re in for.
Or perhaps I should leave the last word to British homosexual journalist Simon Fanshawe who, reflecting on the “gay” lifestyle, asked "Are we just swimming around in a sewer which we're just sort of saying is normal?"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091011.html
Posted by KMB, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 11:10:30 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
"Throughout our party’s history successive Labor governments have sought to achieve this by helping people overcome disadvantages based on... religion, cultural background and racial prejudice."

Rubbish ! The Apartheid Loving Party consistently supports division of rights and responsibilities for all Australians on basis of decisions/deemings as to their race.

Ia about power and control, by them; Those who see themselves as knowing better, the enlightened ones... and all their wailing supporters.

Need only look all those fake wailers misinformation campaigns around the core human rights as set out in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Was fine until these political activists started trying to fine tune those initial easy to understand and enforce principles, with result they negate those same core principles, making their substance secondary to all their exemptions...

Recent attempts to enforce simple legal principle, the requirement that tenants obtain leases where public funding provided for housing (long term) being negated to support the activists promoting racial separatism...

The wailers object to tenants having leases, for leases give rights.

Wailers believe appropriate denial to fellow Australians leases, specially where they use the term Aboriginal.

Wailers support segregation of families on basis of racial testing.

These wailers believe appropriate denial fellow Australians - particularly youth, an education enabling them to interact, become involved in the wider Australian community, particularly where term Aboriginal applied.

The LibNats long failed to object to such behavior.

Liberals disassociation term "Liberal" with "liberal",

Is such adopted cowardice - moral error, a core principle or protocol for politics ?

As to marriage, well the concept of formal relationship lasted a long time, likely will endure - joining together then later going separate ways, however current legal format may well be past its use by date.

Rewrite legislation to repair or replace this ancient relationship, perhaps simple use of partnership agreements with stated common interests and responsibilities, whilst ignoring the sex/roles of partners.

Then again, this is all about tax - payment and concessions...
Posted by polpak, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 11:14:14 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
This is not a question of equal rights – it is a question of social justice. Why should taxpayers money be spent acknowledging and administering any marriage?

Why should governments be involved at all in anyone’s relationships unless it be necessary to do so? If people want to live together that should be their right. If they want to marry then it should be their right as well but why does it have to have government sanction or involvement of any kind. If there is discrimination at all it is towards people who are not in relationships.

Of course people have the right to get married but why do they want to? What does marriage or any acknowledgement of the relationship by anyone else add to that relationship? Are they marrying just for what they can get out of the government?

‘Couples are not couples unless they can marry’. There are a great many people who are married who are definitely not ‘couples’ and there are a great many people who are not married or do not have their relationship ‘sanctioned’ in anyway who definitely are couples.

Relationships are of no business to government unless laws are being broken and if there are laws about marriage and relationships they should be removed. Laws which just protect people’s insecurity of union are a waste of taxpayer resources.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 11:39:46 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
Go on, KMB, demonstrate that gay relationships are any less moral than straight ones. There is no such argument.

In my opinion, the state should only recognise civil unions, regardless of sex. "Marriage", like genital mutilation, should be the preserve of religions.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 15 April 2009 1:04:16 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. 25
  10. All

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