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 > Couples are not couples unless they can marry > Comments

Couples are not couples unless they can marry : Comments

By Rodney Croome, published 15/4/2009

Far from being a remedy for discrimination in marriage, civil unions perpetuate discrimination.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. 19
  13. ...
  14. 23
  15. 24
  16. 25
  17. All
Fractlle,

Obviously the act of marriage doesn't, doh. But stirring people up in order to achieve the physical impossible, or attempting to change the definition of marriafge is disturbing to many. These are the people I was refering ... those whose definition of marriage includes the possibility of procreation.

And you haven't yet withdrawn your obviously incorrect claim people are trying to prevent Homosexuals living in peace.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 5:43:50 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
Keith

Every time someone beats up another for being gay homosexuals are prevented from living in peace.

Every time sometimes claims that allowing gays to marry is preventing them from living in peace.

Every time a homosexual has to hide their sexual orientation to gain employment or any other basic right that applies to all human beings irrespective of race, religion or gender, then they are being prevented from living in peace.

If married Christian couples are disturbed by the idea of gays marrying it is an anxiety of their own making.

What I choose do to in my own home has no bearing whatsoever on what you choose to do in yours.

I suggest you repeat to yourself:

Live and let live.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 6:11:06 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
Sparkyq,
I don't have an obsession with incest, I've just been rather relentless in pointing out that there is no justifiable basis for differentiating between incest and homosexuality on a legal or ethical basis.

This has paid dividends as I've scored a few admissions along the way.

To quote CJMorgan: “of course it's an arbitrary line (between legalising homosexuality and legalising incest)".

To quote stormbay: "Ethically speaking there's nothing wrong with homosexual or incestuous mating".

I don't believe anybody can say that one is moral and the other is immoral.
Either they are both moral or they are both immoral or, alternatively, amoral.
If one is legal then the other should be legal.
They should both enjoy the same rights.

Borrowing from stormboy again: This would make homosexuals who deny incestuous rights "just biased, discriminatory and prejudiced".

Or courtesy Shadow Minister: They are just "religious fundementalists (sic) or bigots"

(This naturally assumes adult consensual incest, otherwise you would have to compare rape with rape.)
Posted by KMB, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 9:57:52 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
Those arguing for the inclusion of "procreation" in their definition of "marriage" need to consider the following examples where procreation is absolutely ruled out:

* What if the would-be bride is a post-menopausal woman? No procreation possible.
* What about other medical conditions? (Hysterectomy, Irradiation of the testes for cancer, missing/extra chromosomes, etc).
* Should churches annul marriages that cease to be fecund?
* What about a heterosexual couple who tell their RC priest of their chastity-in-marriage intent?
* What about a man who intends to marry someone who always thought they were female but was XY with complete androgen insensity syndrome and the resulting "supermodel" (tall, big-breasted, etc) body?

Personally I'm waiting for the first lesbian couple to announce a virgin birth.
Posted by Balneus, Tuesday, 28 April 2009 11:52:22 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
woulfe,

Although you point out that marriage was not *officially defined* until 2004, you might agree that the male/female arrangement was the *working definition* to that point.

You bring up the idea of equal access. In fact, all *people* of age in our society have the legal *right* to enter the marriage contract. You, woulfe, are free to marry any single person of the opposite gender who will agree to the arrangement. In other words you are not denied the right to marry. You just don't like the definition of marriage. Therefore, this is not a discrimination or equal rights issue. It's simply a legislative issue about the definition of marriage. And there's really no confusion about the definition. It's been well understood for thousands of years. It's a religious practice that took on secular significance because of the legal rights and benefits that became associated with the union. This is why many argue that we should create civil unions to replicate the legal stuff and leave marriage to include its historical and religious context.

Roy.
Posted by Roy, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 1:34:43 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
"I don't know *why* the media is biased, but that doesn't change the fact that it *is*. There are many things in life one can observe without understanding the underlying explanation."

That's it, Roy? That's your argument? You believe the media is biased, can't explain why that would be, and when pressed for an explanation you simply categorise it with the great mysteries of life?

Now THERE's a challenge for the philosophers! What is the meaning of life, what constitutes dark matter, and why is the media biased in favour same-sex marriage? Big questions, all.

May I humbly suggest that there is no bias, but that Roy is a little paranoid about homosexuality and hence sees signs of pro-gay prejudice everywhere.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 11:39:57 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. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. 19
  13. ...
  14. 23
  15. 24
  16. 25
  17. All

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