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 > Let’s not meddle with the Marriage Act > Comments

Let’s not meddle with the Marriage Act : Comments

By John de Meyrick, published 11/8/2015

If same-sex unions are to be legally recognised in Australia then the least sensible means of doing it is to amend the Marriage Act 1961 in any of the ways currently being proposed, or at all.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Foxy:

What exactly is a sexual orientation? If a bunch of people behave in a certain way and analyse their behaviour by claiming it is a reasonable way to behave and therefore should be supported by the government then why should we be so naive as to accept their analysis without holding it up to scrutiny?

Many people, including governments around the world, have been bullied and intimidated into not questioning the reasonableness of their behaviour. Why are homosexuals so afraid of this questioning to the point where they are prepared to try and bully governments into denying citizens the right to such questioning? You would think if they really cared about themselves they would want to understand their behaviour whever the truth may lead them.

If their behaviour is reasonable then it should be a simple thing to prove as it is with heterosexuality. Without this proof then a government should not act. The government should not be debating the reasonableness of same-sex marriage but the reasonableness of homosexual behaviour. Unless such behaviour can be shown to be reasonable then it is futile to begin talking about same-sex marriage. Any argument must be logical and that means proving your initial premise. You have to prove homosexual behaviour is reasonable long before you begin talking of sexuality, orientation, relationships or marriage.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 12 August 2015 3:00:49 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 debate about gay “marriage” has been characterised as being about “marriage equality”.

There are some facts that have not been given due consideration in this debate. What’s been left out is due consideration of children’s rights.

Children cannot be conceived without a mother and a father. And so
• Children have a have a right and a deep need to know who that mother and father are.
• Children have a right be raised by their mother and father.
• Children have a right to be able to observe how mothers and fathers relate to each other
• Children have a right to receive and feel a mother’s care and love
• Children have a right to receive and feel a father’s love and care

Gay “marriage” by its nature cannot support these rights.
Marriage has for centuries been entered into as the best way to protect these rights.

The State therefore, should not change the nature of marriage. To do so, will undermine children’s essential rights.

See Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 7
"The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents"
Posted by beb, Wednesday, 12 August 2015 3:29:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fox,

That cherry-picked SMH unsigned article does nothing to dispel what I said. Here again,

Your inference that gay marriage was intended before or was occurring is deceitful and misleading. That is a deliberate, manipulative and shameless lie that has been corrected many before on this and other forums.

Bald-faced lies are an essential part of the toolkit and integral to the modus operandi of cultural Marxists. The narrative aims at wearing down the stupid and weak-willed to surrender their capacity and right to independent thought.

You later assertion that gays have been somehow denied equality is absolute rot, just rhetoric, without any basis in fact. Unless you would like to trash all laws that is.

The Human Rights Commission is desperate to find something, anything, to justify its existence. So how come it has never ruled that the Marriage Act discriminates against homosexuals?

Tell us now, would you say that the Marriage Act denies 'equality' to Muslims and others who would like more than one spouse?

You have no fact, just a Gay Pride narrative that has been challenged successfully so many times before.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 12 August 2015 3:49:49 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
Gentlemen,

I realise that this is a controversial issue and an
emotional one for many people for a variety of reasons.
I am not interested in debating these reasons. Such as what
is "normal" and heterosexuality versus homosexuality.
People tend to see issues from a viewpoint of subjectivity
based on their personal values and experiences.

The subject of this discussion is "Let's not
meddle with the Marriage Act."
Well it has already been "meddled" with, over the years.
Any intelligent person knows that every society must meet
certain basic social needs if it is to survive
and to offer a satisfying life to its members. In each society,
therefore, people create social institutions to meet these
needs.

I stated this before on the forum - but I shall repeat it -
Each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right and proper, and
usually as God given as well.

Much of the current concern about the fate of the modern
family and marriage stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.
If we assume that there is only one "right" family and
marriage form, then naturally any change will be interpreted
as heralding the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is an
immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns,
ranging from single-parent families, cohabitation, social
monogamy, reconstituted families, childless couples, communes,
"open" marriages, remaining single, gay couples and gay-parent
families. Each of these patterns may be, at least in its
own context, perfectly viable, and above all that marriage
and the family, like any other social institution inevitably
does change through time.

However, as far as this discussion is concerned
regarding the Marriage Act - what I am suggesting
is that why not allow either a
free vote in Parliament - where politicians could
vote on the issue according to their conscience or
have a plebiscite or a referendum and allow voters
to decide what kind of society they want to live in.
Then this matter could be settled quickly instead of
dragging on and on.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 12 August 2015 5:55:26 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
Foxy:

"I am not interested in debating these reasons. Such as whatis "normal" and heterosexuality versus homosexuality."

Well then you have little respect for logic and reason. How can you entertain discussing changes to the Marriage Act to include homosexuals without first proving that homosexual behaviour is reasonable? You can't just carry on as if it is a given. Where would we be if we treated all issues which such disregard for the fundamentals of argument by which we hope to arrive at the truth?

If you have such little regard for the rules of logic then why should we take seriously any argument you make. You are deliberately ignoring the most fundamental question of the whole debate. If homosexuality is reasonable then you should be able to easily demonstrate why in a few short sentences. Then we can proceed to discuss what flows on from that. If it is not reasonable then what is the point of the debate about same-sex marriage at all?
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 12 August 2015 6:35:52 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
Dear Phanto,

But is it reasonable to have a secular state bless personal relationships and religious sacraments?
(whatever they bless, I consider a curse!)

Come to think of it, no sexual behaviour is reasonable.

---

Dear Foxy,

Legislation cannot determine "what kind of society they want to live in". In this case, the proposed legislation is only about expanding a particular government service, an unneeded one. One can anyway be in any type of relationship (of your long list) without requiring that government-service, which thankfully (unlike Iran) is not compulsory anyway in Australia.

If you want to have a plebiscite or a referendum, then you should provide a third option: to do away with the Marriage Act altogether!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 12 August 2015 8:48:59 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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