One thing I agree with marriage, is it has become a look at me spectacle, followed by a quickie divorce.
Just bring in a 50% of net worth divorce tax. That will clarify the meaning of "For better or for worse".
I do feel the marriage sanctity that society once strived for, in the face of people like me, men who miss treated their wives, couples who treated marriage as a contract rather than a union, children who were deprived of love and means, etc. is pretty much over. The eagerness that people have to hand over a custom merely shows how invaluable it is to the community, regardless of the significance it has for past generations and a vast number of extant couples.
Bringing in same sex marriage does not better society, it makes it worse,
.
and moves children down to second class citizens.
What does same sex marriage encourage?
How does it better society?
I also pointed out the gays that openly said they did not agree with changing marriage, and were hijacked by the gay mafia, and their businesses boycott.
That is not a free society, when they tell you how you have to be thinking.
I think I might have contributed to the moral decay way back in time, by living in sin for about five years,
.
using contraception
really liking sex (still do)
.drinking, partying and swearing
It's a wonder there wasn't a catholic priest sent around to exorcise the demons.
The eagerness that people have to hand over a custom merely shows how invaluable it is to the community, regardless of the significance it has for past generations and a vast number of extant couples
I also pointed out the gays that openly said they did not agree with changing marriage, and were hijacked by the gay mafia, and their businesses boycott.
That is not a free society, when they tell you how you have to be thinking.
Syd, I mentioned incestuous backdrop because there is no social order or morality, it just becomes a mess when you dismantle the most important institution for a civilised society.
Fathers and mothers are deemed not important, and there has been an attack on the fathers of late.
Keeping marriage as it is, makes it equal for society.
Rather than talking about rights, we need to talk about responsibilities and accountabilities.
Many psychologist organizations have concluded that children stand to benefit from the well-being that results when their parents' relationship is recognized and supported by society's institutions, e.g. civil marriage. For example, the Canadian Psychological Association stated in 2006 that "parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union."[19] The CPA stated in 2003 the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent.[19]
The American Academy of Pediatrics concluded in 2006, in an analysis published in the journal Pediatrics:[27]
There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.
If a lesbian wants a child she should sleep with the father and include the father,in he childs life sperm donations should be illegal. Same for gay males they must father their child. They should have blood parents living in the same street or suburb so child has mom and dad on daily basis.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-or-just-a-bigot/story-fni0cwl5-1227427644953
..Just like climate change, and the push towards a republic in the late ‘90s, gay marriage has become the latest and greatest moral challenge of our times..
Why not just abolish marriage completely, then everyone would be equal.
Really, if two people want to stay as a couple they will do do whether married or not, and plenty of people have been together a long time without getting married.
Marriage is more an initiative by business to get more revenue, like Mother's Day, Father's Day, Valentine's day etc. It's a con which says that you can only appreciate another person on this particular day, the rest of the time you treat them like a piece of furniture.
What would be the legal ramifications of abolishing marriage ? Not many I can see if more people are finding that they can do without it.
This is why I say marriage predates both governments and religions, so if a government wants to be in the business of recognising them, they need to stop descriminating on which ones they recognise
So why should governments be in the business of recognising marriage ? That's why I asked about the legal implications of abolishing (or not recognising ) it.
So why should governments be in the business of recognising marriage ? That's why I asked about the legal implications of abolishing (or not recognising ) it.
Imagine if property ownership wasn't something that the government recognised, it would be alot harder to claim the things that are yours.
Property ownership is a matter of commercial necessity to recognise, but people don't "own" their relationship partner so I don't really see the correlation.
By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage.
Millicent Fawcett had her purse snatched by a youth in London. When the boy’s crime was read out in court Fawcett was shocked to hear him charged with stealing a purse which was ‘the property of Henry Fawcett’ (her husband).
Property ownership is a matter of commercial necessity to recognise, but people don't "own" their relationship partner so I don't really see the correlation.
I didn't say they own their partner, I used property ownership as one example of where we benefit from the government recognizing the existence of certain social constructs.
Marriage is a social construct, and it's one that probably existed before property ownership, having the government recognize it has many benefits, but I agree if it can't recognize it fairly it should probably stop recognizing them at all.
Gay marriage doesn’t just redefine marriage, but also parenting. It promotes and normalizes a family structure that necessarily denies us something precious and foundational. It denies us something we need and long for, while at the same time tells us that we don’t need what we naturally crave. That we will be okay. But we’re not. We’re hurting.
Bertrand Russell understood that society has no interest in passing laws about people's private affairs and that the primary reason for the public contract of marriage is to bind the man to the woman for the long task of rearing their children.
As he wrote in Marriage and Morals: "It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognisance of by a legal institution."
When the ACT legalised same sex marriage in 2013, it went to the High Court, who ruled against it as invalid under the constitution.
This was because of the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act. Hence, a change to the Marriage Act is a change to the constitution.
I agree with sydboy007 ... give same sex people the legal rights as "married" couples and be done with the lexical semantics of the word. I can just see the lawyers rubbing their hands with glee that they now have an extra 10 - 20 % of the population to feed upon when it goes belly up.
Finally, once again, if you dont like gay marriage, dont marry someone from the same gender!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?