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 > beyondblue and its heart-felt support for same-sex unions > Comments

beyondblue and its heart-felt support for same-sex unions : Comments

By John de Meyrick, published 4/9/2015

If love defines marriage then we should have to register polygamous unions; polyandrous unions; endogamous (hippy commune) unions; arranged unions; bigamous unions; even incestuous unions, and others.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. All
" It would also create a legal fiction that same-sex unions and opposite-sex unions are the same, which is erroneous and absurd."

I would agree, but only if you admit that marriages between oldies (like yourself) and young people (who would be classified as tradiational marriages) are also different.

I would propose calling your marriage "gross-sex unions" or perhaps unfortunately for you "no-sex unions". We could make the laws to establish these unions at the same time as new names for mixed race unions, fatty unions 2nd-5th unions, bound-to-fail unions, probably-knocked up unions etc. These are obviously different to each other too, right?

On the other hand, people like you (lawyers) and the government could stop trying to make laws to regulate our personal relationships.
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:00:44 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
John. I think we've ruled out bestialiy, poligmy, incest and underage sex.

So pack up the straw man arguments, all anyone is asking for is marriage equality before the law!

Surely even a knuckle dragging neotherandal would understand at least that much.

When it comes to bright lights yours must be barely a flicker; rather than a guide for others far more fair minded than you?

In any event it's just another rearguard action by I believe, a medieval fundamentalist,and of no consequence, given this issue will be decided by the people at the very next poll that counts!

Shorten's slogan will surely be, a vote for Labor will guarantee this matter, will be resolved by parliament within a hundred days of a Labor win. And necessarily, effectively in both houses, with green support!?

However a vote for the coalition sure to guarantee it won't!? But kicked down the road to a referendum that could easily ask do you support homosexual love?

Make no mistake the fundamentalists/bigots among us are already busy busy trying to find a form of words that will just like the republican referendum; kill it dead in the water, as so ably demonstrated by you?

Only control freaks who think they're above the law, will believe that the right of the people to decide this matter by popular vote should be resisted to the last breath!

All we can legitimately ask for is that those who engage in homosexual sex always use a condom, so they don't flout the rights of others!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:29:35 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
Stezza,

It’s the inventors of same-sex marriage that want the government “to make laws to regulate [their] personal relationships”. There are all sorts of relationships in society – mother-son, father-daughter, grandfather-grandson, aunt-niece, cousin-cousin, friend-friend. They don’t all have to be called marriage to mean something.

Rhrosty,

Who’s “we” and what else have they ruled out and under what authority?

“Marriage equality” is an emotive slogan that makes as much sense as circle equality to describe redefining squares as circles.

As I have explained before, same-sex marriage is just as likely to be created by a plebiscite as a Labor victory because a plebiscite, rather than a constitutional referendum, means that the Abbott government does not really want to stop the creation of same-sex marriage but does want to avoid responsibility for doing so. Even if plebiscite resulted in a defeat for the same-sex marriage advocates, they would simply claim it was rigged, as you are doing in advance.

The only course of action that makes sense is a constitutional referendum to reverse the High Court’s redefinition of “marriage” in Section 51,and the only chance such a referendum would have of success would be if it also granted the federal parliament the power to legislate on same-sex unions.

Whether we have a plebiscite or a constitutional referendum, we will have to endure well-funded emotional drivel and name-calling from the bandwagon, but at least with the latter will we get a decision one way or the other and 20 years of peace.
Posted by Chris C, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:51:50 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
Union between people of the same sex that flout the laws of nature by engaging in unnatural sexual acts will never be marriage, because marriage has always been understood to be between man and woman by the vast majority of peoples.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:52:33 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
Chris C,

Are you saying you don't want the government to regulate relationships, such as marriage? Do you accephe that the meaning of words change over time with society?
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 4 September 2015 9:20:40 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
>> "Union between people of the same sex that flout the laws of nature by engaging in unnatural sexual acts will never be marriage, because marriage has always been understood to be between man and woman by the vast majority of peoples." <<
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 4 September 2015 8:52:33 AM

Besides your appeal to tradition fallacy, do you want to do something about 'unnatural sexual acts' in heterosexual marriages eg. oral sex; anal sex ?
.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 4 September 2015 9:35:08 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. All

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