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 > Same sex marriage: an agnostic's view > Comments

Same sex marriage: an agnostic's view : Comments

By Don Allan, published 14/10/2011

You don't have to be Christian to oppose same sex marriage.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All
You are being a little narrow in your definitions, Philo.

>>The "marriage act" is a piece of paper supposedly defining the reality of marriage. The reality is and always has been that marriage is the lifelong productive union between a man (husband) and a woman (wife) that envisages offspring in their likness [sic].<<

This eliminates widows and widowers getting married, as some of them do later in life, for companionship. Which is pretty mean of you. For examplet, I doubt that Wang Guiying and her husband will envisage "offspring in their likness"...

http://www.boundlessline.org/2009/01/its-never-too-late-to-get-married.html

Presumably you would be monumentally offended by such a marriage, given the strictness of "Philo's Rule" above.

And - just out of curiosity - what's this all about?

>>That females may fertilize themselves is supported by the 5,000 BC Biblical text of Genesis<<

Never knew that. But it is clearly a great relief to lesbian couples to hear that their wishes to raise a family are endorsed by your holy book.

In passing, I'd also like to question the assertion that Genesis is a "5,000 BC Biblical text". Most scholars understand that the Pentateuch was widely sourced, over a period of time.

http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/moses.html

"...the first five books... are composed of a conflation of conflicting and diverse source materials with the component parts composed over a span of many centuries. Finally these divergent sources were edited and then conflated in a single set of manuscripts"

And just to satisfy my craving for detail on these matters, if you are willing to accept the findings of one part of the Bible, are you prepared to accept all?

Or do you pick and choose the bits you like, and separate them from the bits you don't like?

Just askin'
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 9:06:49 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
Poirot,
Catholic Priests have an authorised text from which to teach. That text is accepted as authority by those to whom they teach. Upon what social or moral authoritive text on marriage does TAR base his teaching?
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 1:27:09 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
Oh that's all right then. Philo's benchmark of actually being married as a prerequisite for possessing an opinion on the subject is nullified if one has an authoritative religious text on hand to tell one what one's supposed to think and say.

Some people can actually form an opinion without resorting to an "authoritative text" - it's called thinking for yourself...you should try it sometime.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 3:04:44 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
It strikes me this marriage debate is in part about the right for same sex couples to produce and adopt children.

Of a same sex couple only ONE may have biological involvement in a pregnancy at any one time. There has to be another party contributing either male or female gamete and where both wannabee parents are male, womb for rent. The OTHER partner must adopt the child of that male/female combination. The other choice is adopting a child of separate parentage.

We've had much debate in recent decades about adoption. Since the mid-seventies at least, overwhelming consensus amongst the "Social Engineers" who somehow judge these matters is adoption is HIGHLY UNDESIRABLE, a last resort for infants with no hope of being being reared by biological parent/s. (That this has resulted in a swing to one parent/mixed family/welfare dependency situations and much harm is another story)

However there's not the same mantra from 'experts' on this one. I would have thought the concept of same sex couple parenting would bring about a frenzy of checking and cross-checking suitability of not only the adopting parent/s but of likely psychological effects on the offspring of being reared in an unnatural environment. By 'unnatural' - 2 men claiming to be 'Father' or 2 women 'Mother'. Not like a situation where a child might be reared by it's mother and Grandmother for example.

I believe dedicated same sex couples deserve community respect and support but some things remain the domain of the heterosexual couple - marriage and procreation. I support civil contracts that give same sex couples recognition and property rights but not marriage as it stands. I am non-supportive of assisted fertility of any kind for singles or same sex couples. Nobody has a "right" to reproduction in any case. Nor to do and have everything we want in life.
Posted by divine_msn, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 3:05:39 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
divine_msn,
I totally agree. I am on the Board of a Foster care agency and my wife is an assistant family acessor. Acessment for foster care happens over a six month period of several home visits to ensure the suitability and stability of the family to take in chldren.
Posted by Philo, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 3:15:31 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 indications are that proud 'parent' Elton John and expectant 'parent' Senator Penny Wong regard children as prizes. Whether they can be regarded as appropriate role models for gay 'parents', is debateable, as both have been in heterosexual relationships. Elton married and divorced, while Penny's former partner (according to The Australian of 20 October 2011) is the new South Australian Premier, with whom she had a five-year relationship during their Young Labor years.

Gay activists are known to dislike the publicising of gays with bisexual history, as it debunks the claim that homosexuality is innate. They oppose any suggestion that sexual preference comes down to choice.

Consequently, It is not widely reported that certain professional therapists and counsellors offer 'sexual reorientation therapy' to help people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. The study of sexual-orientation change efforts to date, shows that some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 26 October 2011 10:59:07 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All

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