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 > General Discussion > Should we get rid of the Marriage Act?

Should we get rid of the Marriage Act?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
I think you misunderstand my point.

My union is not recognized by the government as a marriage, rather a 'de-facto' relationship. My long term romantic intentions are irrelevant to the government, as is the government's categorization of my relationship irrelevant to me. I have no restriction on my freedom to enjoy the relationship I have chosen.

I think you're a very confused individual. You question then need to legislate marriage at all, and imply you want the government out of people's lives, yet in the same breath bemoan the fact it refuses to recognize/regulate certain types of relationships or assign them the 'correct' category.

'I think you've missed the point.'

Eminently understandable. Perhaps you could make some kind of effort towards a coherent argument Lexi.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 4 April 2013 1:33:52 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
any Government that does not recognise the benefits in a child having a father and mother is inviting social order and destruction. We have already witnessed the decay flowing from the Emily's listers.

Lexi asks

'Why legislate marriage at all? ' Probably would not be necessary if a loud vocal minority who are over represented were not so bent on the destruction of the family unit. The 'all wives are prostitutes ' (a former belief of the PM) is now being replaced by we want a part of this covenant.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 4 April 2013 2:14:21 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 supposed to be a life long mutual contract between a man and a woman. However the advantages of that contract have been lost with casual short term partners which costs society emotionally and financially. Registering the partnership makes the couple responsible. The self centered immature reasons many have for forming a relationship and the lack of love and respect each have for other has downgraded the contract. Society once held the couple responsible for each of the other's well being, and for the children of that relationship. This was the reason for registering couples because they create new legal citizens for the State. Even children of defacto couples are registered as citizens of the State; so the Government is involved.

The relavence of marriage is as relavent as taxes in the State it is a responsibility of citizenship.
Posted by Josephus, Thursday, 4 April 2013 4:08:12 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
Dear Houellie,

Your choice was not to marry - that's fine.
But this thread is about those that want
to marry and can't.

I'm not arguing, I am merely questioning - why is there a law on
marriage?

Why not give all people the
right to marry whoever they choose. Why should the
government impose laws to define our relationships?

In 2004 John Howard amended the Marriage Act to define
marriage as a "voluntarily entered into union of a
man and a woman to the exclusion of all others."
He justified this by stating that, "marriage is
something that ought to be expressed through the
elected representatives of the country."

I can understand religions and their pre-occupation with
the institution of marriage - but our elected reps?

Not everyone wants a de-facto relationship.
What I am questioning is - do we need to have marriage
legislated and to we want to allow lawmakers to define
who we can marry?
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 4 April 2013 6:16:15 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
Dear Josephus,

I'll repeat what I've posted in the past:

Each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right and
proper, and usually as God given as well. Much of
the current concern about the fate of the modern
family stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.
If we assume that there is only one "right" family
form, then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole insittution.
It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is
an immense range of marriage, family, and kinship
patterns and that these like any other social
institutions, must inevitably change through time
in our own society as in all others.
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 4 April 2013 6:24:53 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
Lexi

'If we assume that there is only one "right" family
form, then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole insitution. '

We can assume one 'best' scenario where a child is not denied a mother or father.

we could assume all are equal and that

polygamist marriages are fine
paedophille is ok
one can marry an animal (bestiality)

I think history clearly shows that society is better under the current definition of marriage
Posted by runner, Thursday, 4 April 2013 6:42:09 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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