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 > Love and marriage > Comments

Love and marriage : Comments

By Michael Thompson, published 14/12/2015

Is it logical that governments should facilitate marriage and help people to move on from a loving relationship to a married one?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Marriage, if done correctly, consciously and in the right spirit, is an extremely useful and powerful religious technique - an austere measure to limit and curb down the endless lingering desire for sensual pleasure. Long-term happiness comes from union with God, not from fleeting sexual success.

That said, government should not attempt to involve itself in religious matters, marriage included!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 14 December 2015 9:55:15 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
' People who promise to give away what they should never give away are people who need help to improve their sense of self worth.'

I would say that people who just want to use each others bodies with no sense of commitment need to lose their sense of self worth and learn a little bit about self sacrifice. It does not need to be all about me Michael. You are obviously blind to the selfish generation your empty 'self worth' psychology produces. Maybe taking ones eyes off (loving oneself) and focussing on anothers needs is what might lift a few from depression. Now thats a thought!
Posted by runner, Monday, 14 December 2015 10:43:29 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
From my Oh Too Experienced research on the matter:

1. It is the woman who wants marriage, preferably a bloody expensive White Wedding, because:

1(a) All their (female) friends are getting married,

1(b) They don't want to lose the guy (to straying), and

1(c) she wants kids in a safe environment, knowing (hoping) that the guy is now legally obligated.

2. The bloke tolerates and puts up with her request and regrets it after about 2 years.

On this strange political movement "Gay Marriage". Presumably it is more than the act of, Expressing One's Sexuality, by jamming one's tongue down another's throat for benefit of the camera and to shock the rels.

Blokes aren't stupid enough to get married. Are they?

In this Christmas Season. BAH HUMBUG!!
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 14 December 2015 11:10:47 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
plantagenet, "On this strange political movement "Gay Marriage". Presumably it is more than the act of, Expressing One's Sexuality, by jamming one's tongue down another's throat for benefit of the camera and to shock the rels"

Too close to the truth. Tres 'progressive' among the easily led. LOL

If the writing and direction of Kath & Kim had been up to the ABC, Kim really would have "thrown her handbag into the river" S1,E1 and it would have been an entirely different (and unfunny) series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D1Lar41O8s
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 14 December 2015 12:10:36 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
//Kim really would have "thrown her handbag into the river" S1,E1 and it would have been an entirely different (and unfunny) series//

Because everybody knows that shows depicting homosexuality just aren't funny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrlzaBNgz-M
Posted by Toni Lavis, Monday, 14 December 2015 1:01:28 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
Yes Toni Lavis

Depictions of Gays are reprehensible, repugnant, repudiatable and may offend same viewers.

So here's another, with song-over * by Peter Allen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcTel8JcM7g

Wedding Bells? One can only guess.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Still_Call_Australia_Home
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 14 December 2015 1:23:29 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
I have seen some interesting and thought-provoking articles arguing that the institution of marriage should be discontinued, or that the State should have no role in marriage. But Michael’s argument is essentially an argument from narcissism. What the author so decries - that committing completely to another person in marriage undermines our freedom to pursue other relationships or other forms of self-interest – is actually central to authentic marriage. Mutual self-giving, to the point where the other’s interests are regarded at least as highly than one’s own, is part of the ideal of marriage, though not always realised in practice.

I wonder if Michael applies the same logic to the choice to become a parent?
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 14 December 2015 2:49:14 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
Marriage does not require any particular vows, such as promising to love one person forever. People write their own marriage vows these days. Marriage makes a relationship legal and public. It has a legal definition but it does not have an emotional one. If a couple chooses to, they can write a vow which says, "I promise to take steps to dissolve this marriage if I feel at any time that I can no longer maintain a sense of commitment to it."
Posted by Louisa, Monday, 14 December 2015 4:28:40 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
Hi Louisa

Yes certainly when the designated marriager person or mutation says:

"Should anyone here present know of any reason that this couple should not be joined in holy matrimony, speak now or forever hold your peace."

The Groom should take the opportunity to Declare the Get Out of Gaol Free clause:

"I promise to take steps to dissolve this marriage if I feel at any time that I can no longer maintain a sense of commitment to it."

Where-upon the Bride or Other Groom or Lesbian Partner, Transexual, Transgender, or Hermophrodite could add:

Bloody Oath Mate!

The doting aunties will love it :p
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 14 December 2015 4:39:40 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
Your post leads me to believe that you haven't attended a marriage ceremony recently.
Posted by Louisa, Monday, 14 December 2015 4:51:01 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
Lousia

At common law, the definition of marriage was and is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into, for life.

The Marriage Act adopts this definition.

So if people make vows inconsistent with the legal definition, the law does not recognise that union as a marriage. However the property relationships laws, formerly the de facto relationships laws, in effect impose the status of marriage on couples who live together as husband and wife although not legally married. Critically, they even impose this status on people who have deliberately chosen not to marry, and who reject that definition for their own relationship.

There is another sense in which people are not free to enter into marriage as defined by their own self-made vows. This is that bigamy is a crime.

So it's not true to say that marriage does not require any particular vows, for two reasons:
1. if it's not monogamous and heterosexual, the law will not recognise it as marriage
2. certain vows are a criminal offence. It's a speech crime, a thought crime: the actual uttering of the words is the "offence" of bigamy.

If you're saying that people should be free to enter into whatever consensual marriage relations they want, as expressed by their vows, I agree. No doubt many people just ignore the law and fashion their own, which is as it should be.

Notice how the so-called marriage equality movement was completely silent about this injustice. Polyamorists actually face imprisonment for their sexuality; whereas it was simply untrue that homosexuals didn't have the "right" to marry. They had the same right as everyone else. They just can't get the gumment to register it. And the supporters of same-sex "marriage", when confronted about this hypocrisy, usually make it quite clear that they are in favour of the imprisonment of people for consensual marriage vows of which they happen to disapprove.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 14 December 2015 6:11:49 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
Louisa:
"Marriage makes a relationship legal and public"

Why does it need to be either? People who live together as a couple do not miss anything in relation to the government by not having a marriage certificate. Nor do they lose out in relation to the government by not having their relationship declared public. Unless marriage gives them some advantage in relation to the government then there is no need to have any government involvement.

"they can write a vow which says, "I promise to take steps to dissolve this marriage if I feel at any time that I can no longer maintain a sense of commitment to it."

Why would you need to promise this? Wouldn't you just do it when the time came. You are allowed to make choices that you have not given a fore-warning about.

Marriage vows have to have some commonality about them or else how do you define a marriage?
Posted by phanto, Monday, 14 December 2015 6:12:23 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
phanto

I think the point is, you don't need to define a marriage.

Historically the church and the state did it for their own reasons. The church did it because of its visceral horror of sexual relations in general, which they tried to restrict and restrain as much as possible: the conventional definition of marriage being the result.

And the state did it because people often make their property and equitable arrangements on the basis of marriage.

Seeing what a dog's breakfast the whole area has become - with the government doing its utmost to destroy and undermine it - I think we need to be doing the thought experiment of asking, what would happen if we ended governmental involvement.

Conceptually, there is no reason why the law of contract should not apply instead of any marriage law.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 14 December 2015 6:48:26 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
JKJ:

I agree you don't need to define marriage unless you are trying to get out of it something which you hope it will give you such as equality. This is the wrong way to go about getting equality but the same-sex marriage lobby keep hoping that the government will remain involved so they have a measure of equality which they can point to. If the government says we are equal then we must be equal.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 14 December 2015 6:56:07 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
Michael,
You fail to recognise the importance of the nuclear family ( or institutionalised monogamy) as the basic building block of the Judo - Christian culture.
As an atheist I consider the nuclear family stands out from all the nonsense as the fundamental reason that that culture AND NO OTHER has produced the innovation and invention that has multiplied the productivity of human race by many thousand percent-- without which nine tenths of the world population would not exist today for lack of the means of producing , transporting and distributing the necessaries for feeding and sheltering them.

It is the nuclear family which provides the means of nurturing and educating children to the maximum of their potential. It is the maximum of potential which gives rise to the genius of invention and innovation.
TO fail to understand this is quite sad.

A procreation able couple should be able to register with the tax office a a single unit to be allowed to deduct from their combined income the reasonable cost of raising each child then split the combined income in half and be taxed at the rate applicable to the level of that half income.
Posted by Old Man, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 8:20:09 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
Old Man:

Is the Judeo-Christian culture the only one with institutionalised monogamy? Surely there are others and why have those cultures not developed to the same extent if such an institution is the cornerstone of such development?

Institutionalising personal relationships is not a sign of a mature culture. Freedom of association is the sign and one of our greatest values. Being free to choose where you live and with whom you live is a basic human freedom. To relinquish this freedom to any institution is a sign of personal weakness. Even if it could be shown that institutionalised relationships benefit the development of culture it does not follow that such benefits are of more value than freedom of association.

The building blocks of a good society are its values and if it does not value freedom of association then it is not really a society worth saving.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 11:00:02 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