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 > Anyone for tennis? > Comments

Anyone for tennis? : Comments

By Babette Francis, published 20/8/2013

Marriage was often depicted by the political left and feminists as an oppressive patriarchal institution. How has it become so desirable for homosexual couples?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Babette now sit down and have your smelling salts handy. I am a liberal. I despise conservatives as much as I hate the socialists.

Now I too think marriage an institution that debases both women and MEN. I have written a manuscript on the subject and looked at it's historical origins and at the religious dogma applying to it's moral constructs.
Marriage is an artificial construct that does not fit with todays society's mores, just like it was when questioned by Chaucer, Shakespeare, Lawerance, Freud, Russell and to some extent Greer.
Sadly Bab the church dogma if challenged, for over 1000 years, resulted in the questioner being excommunicated, charged with heresy and often burned at the stake.

Marriage and it's attendent morality as it has evolved needs questioning.
Posted by imajulianutter, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 10:04:08 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
"Bricks do not propagate."

Neither do heterosexual people over sixty. Have you EVER suggested that they should be prevented from getting married?

Neither do heterosexual people who are congenitally sterile. Have you EVER suggested that they should be prevented from getting married?

Neither do heterosexual people who have had vasectomies or tubal ligation or hysterectomies. Have you EVER suggested that they should be prevented from getting married?

Neither do heterosexual people who have some heritable disease they don't wish to pass to their offspring. Have you EVER suggested that they should be prevented from getting married?

Once you can show us that you have protested equally stridently about the outrageous laws that allow these wicked people to contract childless marriages, then you can go on to protest against homosexual marriages too. Till then, your case is simply special pleading driven by bigotry.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 10:20:35 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
'Barrie Drewitt-Barlow and his civil partner Tony, will go to court to force churches to host homosexual weddings. '

so true Babette and just like dishonest baby killers who said it was all about the poor girl raped (which is less than 1% killings)we now have the left saying that perverted 'marriage' is all about equality. The good of children and society placed last just so a small number of people can think that their lifestyles can be condoned.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 10:49:49 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
Picked it in one Babette, why do homosexuals want marriage, just like real people?

It is simply to maintain a common enemy. Without the great fear of AIDS, now much diminished, & the gay marriage thing to rant about there is nothing to unite them. They have to continue to find a common grievance, or go back to feuding among themselves.

Without something to rail against there is no reason for leaders, & a good source of ego boost, & a nice little cottage industry is lost
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 2:15:53 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
"I am still not getting what I want"

The bear and the rabbit found a lantern, rubbed it together and there came a genie, so they both had 3 wishes.

The bear's first wish was that all other bears in that forest become females - and so it was.

The rabbit asked for a helmet, which he got and wore.

The bear giggled at the rabbit's waste of a wish, why he didn't, like himself, ask for all the rabbits in that forest to become females, then said:

"I am still not getting what I want: let all other bears in all the surrounding forests be females" - and so it was.

The rabbit asked for a motorbike, which he got and climbed on.

The bear, in contempt of the rabbit said:

"I am still not getting what I want: let all other bears in the whole world become females" - and so it was.

The rabbit then made his third wish: "Let the bear become gay" - and buzzed off in a lightning speed on his new motorbike.

---

So the lesson is, my friends, be careful what you wish for!

And the other lesson from this article - never encumber individuals (as opposed to public bodies) with anti-discrimination laws: a person must have the full freedom to work for and offer their venue to whomever they want and none else, for whatever reason or for no reason at all. Forcing someone to work for another they don't want to work for is slavery. Forcing someone to provide their venue to someone they don't want to have is confiscation of private property... so much for tolerance!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 2:17:08 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 gay marriage issue has really been about attacking institutions not "rights" and that is why the claim in the article about "getting what he wants" won't be satisfied until he can force a Church to marry him and boyfriend.

What is wanted is the humbling of Institutions which the Left have always seen (wrongly, of course) as cause of societies problems.

Gay marriage and the ongoing pedophilia in the catholic church saga are about attacking Religion not getting justice for victims.
Posted by Atman, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 3:27:34 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
Wow

Of all the arguments against marriage equality – and there are some shockers – Babette’s tennis analogy and mixed metaphor is surely the most fatuous. People are neither oranges nor bricks.

Jon J exposes the hypocrisy here well – if the purpose of marriage is to procreate, where are the objections to childless straight couples?

In this day and age, being married is neither necessary nor sufficient to being good parents, and being good parents is neither necessary nor sufficient to being married.

A gay couple in Britain plans to sue for the right to marry in church. The chance of that lawsuit succeeding is zero, but it’s enough to start Babette on a slippery slope moral panic with some vicious generalisations thrown in (“ their naked ambition is to bully everyone”).

Yuyutsu
I agree, people should be free to refuse to photograph gay marriages if they want. I also think churches should be free to choose whether to conduct gay marriages. But given the fine Liberal principles you espouse, do you also agree that the right to marry should extend to gay couples if that is their choice; and the right to marry them should be extended to those churches that accept gay marriage?
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 3:53:17 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
Dear Rhian,

I am not a believer in rights - I believe in freedom: Freedom is God-given, whereas rights are man-given.

How would you view someone who goes into a bank, hands the teller a $100 note and asks for $2.50 in coins in return?

Now gay people say, "no, I want $2.60 for my $100, not $2.50".

What I say instead is: "I don't want or need your change so long as you don't rob my $100 note in the first place!"

Gay couples can ALREADY marry as they please, in Australia. It is not illegal and if a church is willing to marry them, then it is not illegal for that church to do so either. So what are they asking for? to sacrifice their abundant wealth for a small change? Why don't they just go and marry?!

The whole idea of someone telling others whether or not they are allowed to marry is absolutely ridiculous.

So in answer to your question, I don't want my $2.50 increased to $2.60 - I want to keep my original $100 note. I want the state to stay out altogether from the business of conducting or registering marriages of any kind, to stop this form of "service" - or rather disservice. Keep marriage a private affair between a couple (or even more) and whoever else they invite - be it God and/or a church and/or their family and friends.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 4:37:35 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 John J, with the developments in reproductive technology, heterosexual people over 60 can propagate by using sperm in the case of the male and stored ova in the case of the female. We are only on the starting edge of such technology - in years to come it could become possible for heterosexual couples of any age or fertility to propagate by manipulating other body cells to act like sperm and ova. While not necessarily approving of such technology, the real point is that mixed doubles is NOT the same as men's doubles or women's doubles - not in tennis or in life, so the cry of "equality" is spurious. Many so-called lesbian couples already have children by former male partners, so the fathers of their children are eliminated or marginalised in the lives of the children with "two Mummies". As for the 'made-to-order' children of male homosexual couples, they will never know their biological or gestational mothers. How is this "progress" for humankind?
Greg Byrne
Posted by Gadfly42, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 5:16:32 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
Greg, your beliefs are respected and there is no need to put the "Elephant" in the room on the issue of same sex couples marrying.
Posted by Kipp, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 6:50:29 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
Atman, you say "Gay marriage and the ongoing are about attacking religion, and not getting justice for victims"
Would you not say that gay people are also victims, by stigmatisation of the religions.
Posted by Kipp, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 7:01:59 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 gay lobby gets away with illogicality and intolerance by screaming out that anyone who raises such criticism is being homophobic (which is simply not the case). Consequently, most of the media and many MPs lack the courage to engage in such debate.

If the majority of voters favour changing the Marriage Act as alleged by the gay lobby, it is difficult to understand why the gay lobby is against holding a national referendum on the question. It suggests the gay lobbyists know they would lose. Instead of risking the loss, going on what has transpired in other countries they continue to focus on getting the conscience vote of MPs who choose to succumb to their demands rather than remain loyal to the majority of voters they represent.
Posted by Raycom, Wednesday, 21 August 2013 12:39:21 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
Atman is right. It's all about attacking institutions and social norms.

The Left contradict themselves all the time.
They don't want to make sense, they want to cripple the "system".

Marriage is a prison for heterosexual women, liberating for lesbians.
Support gay rights, also support homophobic Muslims.
Condemn killing mass murderers, support killing innocent babies.
Deny race exists, then support positively discriminating on the basis of the non-existent "race" of "minorities".

Nonsense. Lunacy. Attack, attack, attack.
I gave up trying to "understand" these people long ago.

Yuyutsu, agreed.
Marriage should be a private affair for both the couple and any businesses who perform related services.
However, there'd still be a problem due to anti-discrimination laws.
These must be abolished.

People should be free to support or reject gays or any other "minority".
Dissent should not be a crime.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 21 August 2013 2:25:44 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
Given that gay couples currently have all the financial benefits of de facto or married couples at law, I question why they also want to re-define marriage. Marriage is a Judeo-Christian idea which finds its institution in the heartland of those two religions, namely, the Bible (Genesis). Why would a gay couple want an institutional name which is sourced in a document that opposes gay practise (again, the Bible).
My gay friends live in de facto relationships and have no intention of marrying; it's "my" thing, they tell me, not "their" thing.
Posted by TAC, Monday, 26 August 2013 5:11:08 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
TAC "Marriage is a Judeo-Christian idea"

Fraid not.

Marriage has existed in all cultures all over the world, including the pre-Christian European world.

What is universal is its heterosexuality.

There may have been acceptance of certain same-sex "unions" or "bonds", but they did not have the same legal recognition as "marriage".

Even men who shared such "bonds" were still expected to "marry" a woman.

We should tolerate informal "unions" and sexual liberty, but there's no justification for redefining *legal* "marriage", especially as you say, due to de facto recognition becoming the norm anyway.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 27 August 2013 5:24:02 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. All

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