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 > ‘Can I thee wed?’ Same-sex marriage in Australia > Comments

‘Can I thee wed?’ Same-sex marriage in Australia : Comments

By John Murphy, published 29/7/2011

Civil marriages comprise 70 per cent of all marriages in Australia, and increasing, and almost the same percentage of Australian citizens favor same-sex marriage.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 13
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. All
Get another word, marriage is for man and wife, no one expects they may have to explain their wife is a female. This movement has done nothing but take words away from kids, that have been used for centuries.
Surely you can have a civil union without the word marriage
Posted by a597, Friday, 29 July 2011 3:07:05 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
Births and marriages, divorce and deaths are registered by the State to keep a record of its legal citizens for planning, employment and welfare. Children born within the State are registered citizens of the State and must be accomodated, educated and evacuated. Children are not independent persons from parent or guardians until 18. A Child has a right to know their birth parents.

It is not for the State to keeo a register of relationships where no offspring will ever occurr and call it marriage. There are already laws to cover property and shared responsibility. Calling persons of the same gender in a relationship married does not meet the criterion of of the term married.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 29 July 2011 4:00:21 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
Philo so those Opposite sex couples who cannot have children, should be denied access to IVF treatment or their marriage annulled; including those whom choose not to have children.
Must tell my Dad 80 years and my Stepmother 75 years who years ago lost their respective spouses, and eventually found each other to happily share their lives together, that their marriage is not a true marriage says Philo.
Philo you have a poor understanding of love, and may your god whomever she or he is forgive you.
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 29 July 2011 4:10:37 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
Kipp,
Obvioisly you can only think of exceptions to the principle of healthy sperm and ovum to mount a case. Exception do not establish the principle of marriage. Beside in couples that cannot produce healthy offspring as in the case of infirtility or age the designed act of sex can be fulfilled. The female vagina and womb has no other design purpose than to accomodate the male penis and bearing of children. In both cases the intention and design of gender is fulfilled in an exclusion of all other persons. Are you telling me couples who cannot or choose not to have children abstain from normal gender sex?

My God designed the whole purpose of human sexuality and set some principles in place for the best growth of human society. Only man prefers to pervert its holy purpose. For which perversion there is no forgivness, even as adultry or peadophilia if it is not forsaken as abnormal.

Please explain to me how same sex or anul sex fulfills Divine or evolutionary design.
Posted by Philo, Friday, 29 July 2011 5:23:36 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
Love in any form is beautiful and has absolutly nothing to do with religion, or anyone else.
Anal sex is common in hetrosexual relationships, and your detailed interest in the sexual act borders on the bizarre.
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 29 July 2011 5:37:07 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
" Disguising your homophobia as 'will someone please think of the children?' is so 1990's".

Quoting a UN Convention to which Australia is a signatory constitutes "disguising homophobia"! I don't disguise any of my opinions (I'm steadfast in standing by them - they are all well-considered) or phobias, even my claustrophobia.

Why not label me racist and, or, misogynist/misandrist? There is equal justification for that in my post, viz none that is rational.

The more I see/hear/read of people like "Cosmogirl", hurling her ill-informed, ill-considered, puerile abuse from the coward's cover of a pseudonym the more I tend to misanthropy.

The 90's were definitely better, albeit nowhere as good as the golden 60's.
Posted by L.B.Loveday, Friday, 29 July 2011 5:48:23 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. ...
  8. 13
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. All

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