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 > SSM Flavours Icecream

SSM Flavours Icecream

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 27
  7. 28
  8. 29
  9. Page 30
  10. 31
  11. 32
  12. All
What does 'equal' mean, since the term is bandied about ? An equal right to get married, i.e. to someone of the opposite/other gender.

Would it be 'equal' for a man and his dog to get 'married' ? Perhaps as long as they of different genders, I suppose. Oops, that's a bit homocynophobic.

Can a man 'equally' marry more than one 'wife' ? If a man can marry one wife, why not extend the 'equal right' to two, or four, or sixteen 'wives' ? Surely, if it's proper for a man to marry one wife, it's even more proper to marry several ? Why this unreasonable polyphobia ?

Why not a group of men having 'equal rights' to marry a group of women ? Like in the good old days of very ancient tribalism, according to Engels ?

Why just animate objects ? Why not 'equal marriage' between people and trees ? [Bloody dendrohobia !] Bridges ? A football crowd and the MCG ?

An astronomer and his favourite stars ? Why should an esteemed scientist be denied his expression of love ?

So what's the limit ? What, there is none ? To the point where 'marriage' comes to mean nothing at all? Is that the ultimate aim ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 12 June 2017 1:39:40 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
Just for you, Joe, since this topic bores you so much:

Equality:
The state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/equality

I don’t see the word being “bandied about” at all. The people I see using the word seem to understand it very well.

Equality stops where harm begins, since you don’t seem to be sure. Big Nana and I have discussed this in quite some depth.

And just in case you’re tempted commit the Slippery Slope fallacy, or be as obtuse as phanto can be: the harm of registering pointless marriages to inanimate objects and pets is that it is a waste of tax-payer resources. Other than that, they’re free to go for it if they can obtain consent from their objects or pets. They can have one of Yuyutsu's pointless marriages.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 12 June 2017 2:00:16 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 Foxy,

«I personally wanted my marriage to be legal.»

From your correspondence with Phanto, it seems that you are using the term 'illegal' incorrectly:

When you are caught doing something that is illegal, you go to jail for it.

Obviously I do not want to go to jail for being married, who does?

As I consider the government unwelcome, I do not invite them to my wedding.
In some other countries they force their way in anyway without invitation, but fortunately not in Australia.

«That was my choice. We all have choices in life»

You have the choice over your own life, but not over others'.
For example, you could choose to invite me to your wedding, but I might refuse or simply not come - what can you do about it?

«except it seems for same-sex couples. They don't have that choice in this country»

Same-sex couples will never go to jail for marrying each other, well not in Australia.

To take it to the extreme, one could legally even marry a sheep or several people at once (so long as they don't have a sexual relationship with the sheep, but that comes under different laws). One could even have a formal and sumptuous wedding to encourage society to recognise this union.

The state would not recognise such marriage, they would shrug it off but they won't take you to jail either for it.

«and whether you agree with that or not, it's a choice that they should have just like the rest of us.»

It's not that they do not have this choice now, it's only that there are others (in this particular case it's the government) who do not approve of their choice. No matter what you do, there will always be some others who would not approve of it.

Same-sex couples should indeed be just like the rest of us and that will happen once government stops approving of marriages altogether.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 12 June 2017 4:44:49 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 Yuyutsu,

I do not care to continue this discussion with
you.

Have a nice evening.

Cheers.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 12 June 2017 6:18:23 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
Philips:

“Sure. Access and decision-making in emergency situations.”

So if a couple have lovingly lived together for forty years but have never legally married should they be denied access and decision making in emergency situations? That seems rather cruel.

“A nationally- and international-recognised relationship status for brevity, convenience, and simplicity when legal rights are challenged.”

This supposes that those legal rights should be determined only by marriage status which as I said could be rather cruel.

You don’t seem concerned about the harm done to those human beings who choose not to marry. You are more interested in maintaining a situation where people have to go against their own will in order to achieve rights which should be granted them on the basis of the closeness of their relationship and not on whether that relationship is called a marriage.

You talk of bigotry a lot but this kind of distinction is itself a form of bigotry in which you would deny people rights simply because they refuse to marry. You are saying that if they want rights then you should have to be married to get them.

It is more damaging than the bigotry you claim is at the heart of those who do not agree with SSM. Such ‘bigotry’ only denies homosexuals the right to marriage but does not deny the right to things like access and decision making in emergency situations. No one needs to be married by the state they only need the rights that the state can grant. No one is denying homosexuals these rights but you would deny them from people simply because they refuse to call their relationship a marriage.

People like you are a far more danger to the egalitarian nature of our society because you want to control who has rights to their partner and who does not.

Get married or get out of the emergency room! What a bitter and cruel attitude you have.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 12 June 2017 6:22:25 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
Good point, phanto, and one which further strengthens my argument.

<<So if a couple have lovingly lived together for forty years but have never legally married should they be denied access and decision making in emergency situations?>>

Morally speaking? No. But if the two are married, then it certainly simplifies the situation.

Those dealing with the emergency wouldn't have to rely on their better judgement of how close a de facto couple are with a game of 20 questions, and there would be no risk of legal action because of an error in judgement should a deceased person’s family not like the fact that a de facto partner was included in an important decision-making process, or allowed to be there in the first place.

<<This supposes that those legal rights should be determined only by marriage status which as I said could be rather cruel.>>

No, it doesn’t suppose anything. But if you can think of a fairer system which is just as simple, cost-effective, and has all the same legal rights and protections, then, by all means, let the world know about it.

<<You don’t seem concerned about the harm done to those human beings who choose not to marry.>>

They at least had the choice. But, like I said, if you can think of a better way…

<<You are more interested in maintaining a situation where people have to go against their own will in order to achieve rights which should be granted them on the basis of the closeness of their relationship and not on whether that relationship is called a marriage.>>

And how will we effectively and efficiently determine that closeness, particularly in emergency situations? With a qualitative questionnaire over tea and scones, perhaps?

<<You talk of bigotry a lot but this kind of distinction is itself a form of bigotry in which you would deny people rights simply because they refuse to marry.>>

The feigned outrage is adorable, phanto, but we’ve been through this all before. Get a grip.

I didn’t provide that link earlier to practice my copying-and-pasting skills.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 12 June 2017 7:31:14 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. 3
  5. ...
  6. 27
  7. 28
  8. 29
  9. Page 30
  10. 31
  11. 32
  12. All

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