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 > Time for compromise on same-sex marriage > Comments

Time for compromise on same-sex marriage : Comments

By John de Meyrick, published 22/6/2017

The lull in the debate over recognition of same-sex marriage provides a valuable opportunity to consider the ‘end game’ to this long-running controversy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Runner. Your observation is the very reason I would vote against a 'homosexual marriage' act (hat-tip Peter Lang) were it put to a referendum. Personally, I don't really give a damn but, the behaviour I have witnessed by the anti homophobe, cake decorator condemning anti free speech and thought crowd leads me to vote against ANYTHING this mob is in favour of.
Posted by Prompete, Friday, 23 June 2017 7:33:27 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
You warn against "a begrudged victory ... a sore defeat". When marriage equality arrives in Australia - as it must - its opponents will be sore losers; within a few short years, however, no one will likely admit that they ever opposed it. Society evolves, and the trend is generally towards enlightenment.

You comflate marriage and procreation as " intended by nature" whereas nature has no conscious intent. Bruce Baghemi, ("Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity", 1999) provides evidence for biosphere Earth as a "polysexual, polygendered world". Monogamous heterosexual union is simply one variant within the human experience. Marriage has never been solely about procreation: couples are not vetted for fertility.

Marriage is a secular, civil institution, enacted and regulated by the state. Marriage equality opponents within Abrahamic religions claim Biblical authority, but ignore their marriage traditions which subjugated women. John Boswell ("The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Pre Modern Europe", 1995) provides historic evidence of same sex marriage within early Christian societies. Marriage has evolved to reflect its parent societies, and will continue to do so.

It is problematic to estimate percentages of gay people within society, as these vary wildly and often overlook gender and sexual fluidity. Actual percentages are irrelevant because equality should always apply to 100% of the population.

Australian Parliament needed no plebiscite in 2004 to change the Marriage Act to exclude same sex couples, nor does it need a plebiscite today to change the Act once again. Australia is the only English-speaking western nation to remain opposed to marriage equality.

You assume a false equivalence regarding people on both sides of the debate. The continued denial of marriage to same-sex couples, like historic opposition to interracial and interfaith marriages, is based upon oppression and inequality. What opponents of marriage equality see as a call for polite debate is, for same sex couples, a degrading reinforcement of human rights violation.

This leads to your final compromise, which perpetuates heterosexual privilege - a form of marriage apartheid, where different marriages are separate but equal. Such a compromise is unacceptable in any reasoned nation.
Posted by AussieGeoff, Friday, 23 June 2017 9:51:13 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
Very well said, AussieGeoff.

Opponents of marriage equality need to understand that they need to come to the debate armed with a little more than just a conservative worldview and a fist full of logically fallacious arguments.

While John de Meyrick makes a spirited attempt at presenting a neutral viewpoint, his opposition to marriage equality is revealed in two ways: firstly, in his claim that the arguments from those opposed to marriage equality are reasonable, and; secondly, the weak arguments (most of which I have never heard) that he presents on the behalf of those who support marriage equality.

The only argument that those in favour of marriage equality need to present (thus far, at least) is equality. Given the immense and demonstrable benefits that greater equality brings to societies, and the detrimental effects which discrimination has, that sets the bar pretty damn high for the opponents of marriage equality.

A bar height whcih none have yet risen above, too, I might add.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 24 June 2017 12:50:04 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
There is nothing to compromise.
Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and a same sex relationship has nothing to do with marriage. Because such relationships are between perverts and were , until recently, criminal in nature, they do not even have a name. They are certainly not marriage. A name should be assigned to them, one that recognises their nature, and makes clear their distinction from marriage. “Perviage” is an appropriate suggestion.
The perverts political wing shoud then seek legal recognition of relationships of perverts, and cease lying about non-existent marriage inequality, and the nonsense of same sex marriage, which is a contradiction in terms.
There is then nothing to compromise, because the perverts would cease their attempts , if necessary by legislative restraint,to interfere with the institution of marriage which is nothing to do with them.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 24 June 2017 4:46:55 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
Not long to go now bigots. You are going to lose this one very soon.
Your heroes in the liars party are lining up for oblivion and after the next election same sex marriage will be law.
Nothing you grubs can do about it.
Suck it up losers.

Maybe you can emigrate.
The US is a virtual xian theocracy these days maybe they would suit you better. But oh wait they legalised gay marriage a while back didnt they.
Maybe Europe or the UK? Nope they are queer lovers too.
Maybe Iran would suit you better.
I think the saudis still kill poofs dont they. Just your type.
Im sure Nth Korea hates fags just as much as you lot do.
You might get to actually physically persecute a few if you move to Africa. Like that wouldnt you.

You have no argument, no compromise, no logic, just bigotry and hate.
Keep you insane beliefs to yourself and keep out of other peoples private lives.
Posted by mikk, Saturday, 24 June 2017 12:08:13 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
Would someone please advise just what compromise there can be between not permitted & permitted. Obviously none does or can exist, so the lefty homosexual argument is disingenuous as usual.

It is interesting that our homos want to get married, when so few in society still do, or take the commitment at all seriously when they do. There has to be a quid in it somewhere for them. If they just had the same legal & financial laws as hetros with de facto relationships they probably wouldn't bother.

The last 2 weddings I have attended lasted less than 3 years. It appears weddings today are just an excuse to dress up, drink a lot, & eat some food.

It really doesn't matter much. After the Muslim take over, all homosexuals will be eliminated, married or not.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 24 June 2017 2:10:29 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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