Dear onthebeach,

I find myself questioning the need for state
regulation of marriage in a democracy.

However there is one caveat - and that is -
if constitutions, human rights bills ,or
other laws, are unable to ensure fundamentals
of adulthood and choice, then appropriate
legilsation may be warranted.

Lexi, You said, " I only wanted to question the legalities of the Marriage Act in a secular society such as ours.
As for my personal circumstance. I was married by a priest in a church - which was my choice and I was legally allowed to do that".

You are misrepresenting the point of marriage; the fact is you married your husband in a church wher the Priest declared you husband and wife. The Priest only performed the public declaration of your marriage and filled in the papers for the State that defined you as husband and wife. The State gives authority to recognised persons to perform the public act of registering husbands and wives.

The real meaning of Marriage is for the procreation, nurture and protection of the human race and that by nature means the passing on of family assets to any offspring. All other relationships are merely acts of mutual convienience and could be covered by a civil contract if it involves property as do many second marriages if children have resulted in the first marriage. Family is also a biological term meaning sharing the same parent genes. Though the PC brigade want it to mean people who love each other.

Dear Josephus,

Thank you for sharing what marriage means to you.
However, the realities are a bit different.

A great number of both men and women begin sexual
activity before marriage. Many births are to an
unmarried mother, usually a teenager. Quite a few
pregnancies end in abortion. The number of unmarried
couples living together has tripled in less than two
decades. People are staying single longer than ever,
and more than one adult in five now lives alone.
Also more than half of marriages are expected to end
in divorce.

New alternatives to traditional marriage, such as the
single-parent household, are becoming steadily more
common. And to complicate matters further, children
can now be conceived through artificial means,
sometimes in a laboratory dish.

Therefore many of our ideas about the definition of
"What exactly is a Family?" tend to be ethnocentric, for
they are often based on the middle-class "ideal"
so relentlessly portrayed in TV commercials, one that
consists of a husband, a wife, and their dependent
children.

This particular family pattern, however, is far from
typical. A more accurate conception of the family
must take account of the many different family forms
that have existed or still exist both in our country
and in other cultures.

That is wild stuff. Who believes any of that Green Left bumpf? There is no evidence whatsoever that the Australian population is clamouring for:

- the Marriage Act to be trashed; and

- those other alternatives you suggest to become State supported couplings, triplings or whatever?

You think that support for marriage and family is only the invention of TV commercials? Or and ethnocentric middle class ideal? Take a poll of people in the street. Take a poll of women.

But again, why the hell do you continue to take part in an institution you disparage? Have you told your husband what you think of marriage? For goodness sakes, if you believe what you say you would free your husband immediately from the contract and obligations he doubtless believes in.

Dear onthebeach,

Why are you attacking me personally?
This is simply a discussion of a
given subject. It has nothing to do
with my personal life - or yours.
Stick to the topic under discussion.
And not bring personalities into it.
This is not about me. Neither am I
advocating anything.
I am simply trying to discuss -
"Should we get rid of the Marriage Act?"
It's a topic.

Have you never been a debater?
Have you never had the job of raising issues
and arguments simply to partake in a discussion
on a particular issue?

I get that you don't agree with getting rid of
the Marriage Act. But kindly stop trying to
divert this discussion by getting personal
and making assumptions about someone you don't
know. Back off - unless you have something
to contribute to the discussion. I'm not interested
in your attacks. And they're not worthy of you.

More double talk.