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: ending discrimination? > Comments

Same-sex marriage: ending discrimination? : Comments

By Bernard Toutounji, published 20/9/2012

In the 21st century it would be better to be accused of anything rather than be found to be discriminatory.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
There is no 'natural' definition of marriage: it is whatever our society chooses to regard it as. In the past many societies have applied the word 'marriage' or its equivalent to polyandrous or polygynous relationships and no disasters, divinely-ordained or otherwise, overtook them as a result. One of the ways in which society makes progress towards a better, fairer world is by recognising that some of our legal and political definitions are contributing to unfairness and injustice, and need to be changed for that reason.

It wasn't all that long ago that the definition of 'property' included one's slaves. More recently the definition of 'minors' included men and women of nineteen and twenty, and the definition of 'Australian citizens' excluded Aboriginal residents. We managed to change those, because we as a society decided it was right to do to. Changing the definition of 'marriage' need be no more difficult than that.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 20 September 2012 7:40:22 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
......agree
Posted by aita, Thursday, 20 September 2012 12:45:24 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
More! More!.

I don't think OLO has adequately covered the same sex marriage debate.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 20 September 2012 12:48:44 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
we’re used to anti-gay arguments based on the logical fallacy of circular argument (“gays can’t marry because marriage is between a man and a woman”), but this one introduces a new refinement - the logical fallacy of equivocation:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html

"discimination" can indeed mean choosing between options in perceptive and discerning manner; it can also mean unfairness, prejudice and bigotry. Just because the first form is ok, doesn’t make the second form ok
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 20 September 2012 2:54:11 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
Isn't it always the same.

To be kind, you give these fringe dwellers an inch or to, & let them into civil society, & what do you get? The buggers wanting the whole bloody world, & to totally change your way of life to get it.

Should have kept it illegal.

Of course it will be again, under sharia law, in say 15 years time.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 20 September 2012 2:56:37 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
thanks Bernard. Well written.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 20 September 2012 4:23:52 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
Where would we be without the fundamentalist and rednecks! We would be without whingers and the selfcentred, who forget that Australia gave them a home; yet they continue to disrespect other Australians by their ignorance.
Posted by Kipp, Thursday, 20 September 2012 7:04:17 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
A very interesting article thanks Bernard. 'discrimination' is the word being shouted out loudly these days but perhaps --disadvantage - is more to the point. I am fortunate to have friends who are in a variety of relationships, not marraiges, and they do not feel disadvantaged at all.I understand that legally for all purposes there is no disadvantage,

So the real question is just WHY do some feel they need the term marriage applied to their lives?

Any dictionary can give a definition of marriage and clear up the confusion which is apparent in some comments.
Posted by Noelreg, Thursday, 20 September 2012 8:40:27 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
Kipp:

...If you want to live in an environment of “abandoned culture”, follow Richard Neville to GB. This is Australia… Homosexuality will never be acceptable in this culture; and it never was! Remember Australia is the global back-block...Just the way we like it, (Queen and all, not Queens and all)!
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 20 September 2012 9:10:36 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
Noelreg

no, the question is not why "some feel they need the term marriage applied to their lives?".

It is why some (like you) feel they should not be permitted to apply the term marriage to their lives.

Forbidding people access to rights enjoyed by others for no good reason is discrimination - in the worst sense of the word.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 20 September 2012 9:13:16 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
Even homosexuals advocating for redefining the Marriage Act would agree that the marriage definition they desire is between no more than two individuals. Suppose some among their ranks advocated for polyamorous marriages (that is, marriages involving more than two individuals). Would they agree? Are they prepared to discriminate against polyamorous groups in redefining marriage? What limits is the homosexual community prepared to place on its new definition of marriage?
Posted by free2speak, Friday, 21 September 2012 1:17:12 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
>>So the real question is just WHY do some feel they need the term marriage applied to their lives?<<

I don't know: de facto couples have the same rights under the law as married couples. But some couples aren't happy just to have the same legal rights: they want to get married. Does it really matter that much why some people want to get married and others don't? Some people just do. Some don't. I see no reason to deny them the choice just because they want to marry somebody of the same sex.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 21 September 2012 2:05:59 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
I have no desire to learn to fly a plane; but I would be very annoyed if I was told that I couldn't obtain a pilot's licence anyway, because I was bald. I would want to know what possible logical connection there could be between the amount of hair on my head and my ability to satisfy the requirements of safe flying.

And this is exactly what gay people want to know about the legal definition of 'marriage'. What possible connection logical can there be between the gender of the person you love and your entitlement to make a legal commitment to them?

The answer so far? <CRICKETS CHIRPING>
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 21 September 2012 7:02:49 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
'gays can’t marry because marriage is between a man and a woman'

Hmmm...

'Men can't be mothers because mothers are women.'
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 21 September 2012 1:00:18 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
A transgender reassignment operation could be the answer Houellbecq!
Posted by Kipp, Friday, 21 September 2012 1:34:48 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
.

Dear Bernard, if I may,

.

France is due to become the 12th country in the world to pass legislation permitting same-sex wedlock, sometime during the present legislature. This was on the list of social reforms which enabled François Holland to be elected president earlier this year despite strong opposition from Catholic and Muslim lobbys.

Perhaps you may like to check out the debate on same-sex wedlock on another thread on this forum:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14128#244175

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 21 September 2012 10:44:28 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
Same sex marriage may be the norm when people wake up to the ENVIRONMENTAL damage being done by cuddly cute child bearing women and their sexually immature fan-males.

Just saw a Sunday clip on the teev where mature mums were saying how clever they are in producing superior babies!

Its like watching an episode of 'V' where you strip away the masks and you see the real aliens swallowing &chomping away on endangered species while plotting the enslavement & downfall of their Planet Earth human-partners.

Every child born to every cuddly "V" alien mum requires 100 trees to be felled, thousands of tons of toxic wastes into dying oceans, new mines and oil wells eating up pristine locations and the extinction of at least 1/100th of an endangered species. And that is without even considering all the toxic beauty products necessary to get them a mate or invitroed.
If same sex marriage highlights this injustice support it.

If it can enact laws to force women to only have one child per lifetime then its a MUST!

Another story today was inciting a bogus Gen-Y Versus Baby-Boomer war for the profit of companies that would supply materiel to those 'wars'.

If that incitement stupidity is 'allowed' then women can't complain about being incited against for what amounts to be the No 1 crime (child birth) of this 21st century. Nor can they claim misogyny for they are environmental criminals and any criminal must be held accountable for their crimes and there must be no gender or other "V" mask to hide behind if humankind is to survive the next 30 years without utter internecine alienation & destruction.

Another solution is to remove the VOTE from women with more than one child and reward women of courage and intellect who understand the above TRUTH and who will fight for a sustainable future for all humankind no matter the color, creed or sexuality.

Oh how cuddly mums to be!

Oh look its ugly "V".

And God help male children awarded to their "V" cuddly mums by out-to-lunch family court judges. Mind-boggling!
Posted by KAEP, Sunday, 23 September 2012 10:15:10 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
Let's define our terms and see where we can get:

When gay-marriage advocates say "marriage" they mean "a lasting legal commitment to cohabiting love between two consenting adults".

When traditional marriage advocates say "marriage" they mean "a lasting legal commitment to exclusive cohabiting love between a consenting male and a female, with a commitment to nurture (any) children that result from the natural biological union of the couple".

Clearly there are two definitions there, and as Bernard argued, it is not discrimination or homophobia to adhere to the traditional definition. According to the traditional definition, homosexuals cannot be married because they are simply not a couple consisting of a male and female that is naturally capable of bearing and nurturing children.

But if we change the law of marriage and adopt the first definition above then marriage would no longer necessarily have anything to do with the natural sexual reproduction, and nothing to do with the subsequent building of a natural family.

Now we must ask ourselves, do we really want to radically change the definition of marriage? Do we really want to tamper with our current marriage laws that are designed to protect children and are based upon biological and sociological bedrock? Is it really necessary to cast away the traditional meaning of marriage so that homosexual couples can profess a commitment to lasting, cohabiting love?

If anyone wants to "marry" according to the "inclusive" definition there is nothing stopping them right now. All they need to do is invent a ceremony, have guests (or not), and sign a commitment to each other. After all, if marriage is only about a commitment to lasting cohabiting love between any two adults without regard to gender then the only two people who have to agree with homosexual marriage are the two people committing themselves to each other.
Posted by mykah, Monday, 24 September 2012 10:28:09 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
It gets better, as the quote goes... for society at large as well as for individuals.
Posted by LUDVIK, Wednesday, 26 September 2012 5:38:01 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
.

Dear mykah,

.

Don't look now but your list of definitions of marriage is incomplete. You forgot some very important ones such as for blacks. Obviously, the one you indicate for "traditional marriage advocates" only applies to normal white people.

You also forgot to provide a definition for people with a serious physical handicap. Even mentally retarded people deserve to have one. Then there are all those people who have contracted aids. It can't be the same for them as for normal white people.

What about sterile couples? And what about couples of which at least one member is serving out a sentence of life imprisonment? They sometimes want to get married too. Then you have all those illegal migrants who want to get married just to be able to stay in the country and obtain Australian nationality the same as you and me. Do you think that is fair? They definitely need a special definition.

I don't want to upset you or anything but I am sure that if you stop and think about it you will find that you have missed quite a few more.

The whole idea of Mr. Bernard Toutounji's article is about "ending discrimination" as indicated in the title. The sub-title goes even further: "In the 21st century it would be better to be accused of anything rather than be found to be discriminatory".

It's a pity to shoot your arguments in the foot by failing to provide a proper definition for all these special categories that rightly deserve one. In doing so you leave yourself open to the accusation of wrongful discrimination.

That would defeat your purpose and I am sure it was not your intention. I hope the above-mentioned forgotten categories will be of assistance.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 27 September 2012 2:03:59 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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