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 > Where is the dignity? > Comments

Where is the dignity? : Comments

By Michael Thompson, published 5/10/2016

It does not mean that they have a right to a certificate from the government which affirms their relationship as a marriage.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Old man, you confuse society with the State.

Marriage and its reproductive benefits arise all by themselves through people's consensual relations and without the need for the State to do anything. Marriage does not need protection from the State - although it would be good if they'd stop undermining and destroying it - and people do not deserve any forced redistribution in their favour just because they have children. People have their own incentives for entering into sexual, reproductive and economic relations, and don't need any from you.

Furthermore, childless married couple are nevertheless still married, so your conception of marriage is wrong; and it is absurd hyperbole to assert that the governmental registration of homosexual relationships would risk destroying the basis of "our" wealth production, whoever "we" are.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 5 October 2016 3:05:23 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
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
There is no such thing as” same sex marriage”
Same sex unions until recently were illegal, and did not have a word which identified such relationships.
A name should be assigned, not by hijacking a word which already has a meaning, but one such as “sodomiage, or “pervertiage”, and recognition of such a relationship, by that name, sought from the community, during the course of which process, the rights and obligations of such a relationship would be developed.
The relationship is very different to marriage, and the rights and obligations of such a relationship would be very different to those of marriage.
The lies of “marriage equality”, and “same sex marriage” should be discontinued forthwith.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 5 October 2016 6:42:31 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 understand what the article is about, I was merely stating that the marriage equality debate is not about whether the government should be involved in marriage.

While it is the latest angle by those opposed it is not a question that is ever going to by put to parliament or the people.

Marriage is a construct by government and can be defined however the government wishes it to be.

None of the posters who oppose marriage equity seem to be able to explain why we should exclude unions between same sex couples.

Some wave vaguely at religious convictions , which have nothing to do with sexual government. Others mumble something about children, which ignores that fact you don't have to be married to have children and happy married couple choose not to have children. The funniest are those that refer to the low numbers involved ie it's only 1.6% of the population there fore why are we doing this.if that the case what would the percentage need to be to make it worthwhile, and should we extend that idea to other areas of equality?
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 6 October 2016 8:49:14 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
"the marriage equality debate is not about whether the government should be involved in marriage."

Of course it is. That's exactly what it's about.

You yourself admit and declare so here:
"Marriage is a construct by government and can be defined however the government wishes it to be."

But Cobber, what you're saying is not factually correct. You need to read the legal history and anthropology of marriage. Marriage existed before government existed. Marriage existed before it was recognised by the common law in the 12th century. And marriage existed before the Marriage Act in the 19th century provided for the governmental registration of marriages.

Not even government claims that marriage is a "construct by government". Read the Marriage Act. The Act provides for the *registration* of marriage constituted by the act of the parties in exchanging vows.

The Act takes the vows from the common law, and the common law took them from the customs of the English-speaking peoples since before the 12th century.

"While it is the latest angle by those opposed it is not a question that is ever going to by put to parliament or the people."

This assumes that you know everything in the future, which you don't. You're not God.

"None of the posters who oppose marriage equity seem to be able to explain why we should exclude unions between same sex couples."

None of the posters who propose governmental registration of homosexual relationships have ever explained
1. why government should be registering sexual relationships in the first place
2. what should be the criterion of inclusion
3. why homosexuals should be included
4. if they are, why all other sexualities including currently illegal consensual sexual and marital relationships should not also be included.
5. if not, why not?

Go ahead. Try.

Let's see you do it.

Please.

Pretty please with sugar on top?

Anyone?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 6 October 2016 9:15:22 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
Marriage has existed in some form long before we had any organised religion? Why even the sons of an allegorical Adam and Eve (first humans?) took unto themselves wives? Their sisters?

Many races and cultures openly practiced homosexuality as part of the normal aberrations along with left handedness, in humans and other mammals?

The first olympics seemed to have exclusively involved naked or semi naked males, who seem to have revered the naked male body?

Is anal sex between a man and a woman less troublesome or unhealthy, than that between two males?

If the more effeminate male goes and has gender reorientation to appear completely female except in an ability to conceive? Is it then OK for the essentially same sex couple to kiss, have sex, marry?

Or where a female has had similar gender reorientation by surgical means and hormone therapy and turns up at the altar sporting a beard and muscular physiography, is same sex marriage, kiss and make love, then OK?

And if so? What has changed except outward appearance!? Which is what gay community claim is what has occurred to them and through no fault of their own, find themselves trapped in gender inappropriate body!

Love knows no physical barriers! Not between the disabled, (i.e. down syndrome) who some believe ought to be sterilized to prevent mutant genes being passed down the generations eternally?

If you can fall in love and can commit to another human being for the rest of your days? Then who shall say, this is wrong?

And if that is your belief? Just completely but out!

In which case nothing of any substance will have changed for you except the formerly unchallenged control you exercised over the life and well being of others, who have never done anything to negatively impact on you or your rights!

What gives you the right to do just that to them, out of your own (stone age/flat earth) abysmal ignorance? It's just not your call! Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 6 October 2016 11:26:59 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
Dear Cobber,

«I was merely stating that the marriage equality debate is not about whether the government should be involved in marriage»

For now, but just as water that is blocked from flowing one way finds other directions to flow, I expect that once the marriage-equality lobby is sufficiently frustrated, not getting what it wants in the way of increasing government-involvement in our life, it will instead start flowing in the direction of abolishing state's involvement with marriage altogether.

«Marriage is a construct by government»

No, marriage is made in heaven!

The government's grotesque imitation is an insult to heaven and should be stopped.

«None of the posters who oppose marriage equity seem to be able to explain why we should exclude unions between same sex couples»

I Just want to make sure that you do not count me among them: I have no objection to unions between same sex couples - and citing the biblical example of David and Jonathan, I don't believe that God objects to it either.

---

Dear Alan,

«Why even the sons of an allegorical Adam and Eve (first humans?) took unto themselves wives? Their sisters?»

According to Jewish interpretations, there were human-bodies around before Adam and Eve (those created in Genesis 1:27), but Adam was created later, then Eve was created from him, and they were the first to be called "human" because they were the first to have souls, thus their sons had no problems finding wives (sadly though, they couldn't be their soul-mates):

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." [Genesis 2:7]

Otherwise I agree with what you wrote - yet the state should have nothing to do with it.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 6 October 2016 12:17:11 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

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