Marriage equality? - a new one - Marries herself

[Roverlord off road spares]

ABC News - #BestOfTheWeek: This Italian woman has married... (https://www.facebook.com/abcnews.au/videos/10157360397569988/)

[cripesamighty]

Its called Sologamy and has been around for a while now.....and has been made fun of for just as long. There must be some really deluded idiots out there. Just saying.

[Roverlord off road spares]

Next there will be those that want to marry their cars or pets I suppose.

[cripesamighty]

So what happens after the woman marries herself and then finds the man of her dreams? Is she cheating on herself if she goes out with the guy....and does she have to divorce herself if she wants to marry him?

[V8Ian]

I'm concerned about the inevitable matrimonial disagreements.

[scarry]

I'm concerned about the inevitable matrimonial disagreements.

And how the settlement will go when(if) they split up🙄

[Saitch]

Who's turn to cook, shop, be on top?

[bee utey]

Next there will be those that want to marry their cars or pets I suppose.

That's of course bunkum because neither cars nor pets can give informed consent, a crucial part of modern marriage. Whereas a person seen in a full length mirror has no problems agreeing with every word you say! [biggrin]




Who's turn to cook, shop, be on top?




The person on the real side of the mirror.

[justinc]

Aaaargh and i thought id seen enough of this carp on bloody FB!!!.

No place for more of it here imo....

Jc

[Roverlord off road spares]

Would she be deemed to be in a lesbian relationship?

[Lotz-A-Landies]

At least its always going to be a monogamous relationship for both of herself!

[67hardtop]

If someone tells her to go **** herself she can say "i do"...

[V8Ian]

If someone tells her to go **** herself she can say "i do"...
She's already said "I do.".

[cuppabillytea]

I don't need a man to make me happy either.

[DiscoMick]

So that would definitely be a case of same-sex marriage.

'Sologamy': Would you marry yourself? | SBS Life (http://www.sbs.com.au/topics/life/relationships/article/2017/07/28/sologamy-would-you-marry-yourself)

[cripesamighty]

I saw the 'Sologamy': Would you marry yourself?' article critiqued on a couple of websites, including Terrence Popp's. Pretty much LMAO at their thoughts. So, interestingly, just how narcissistic can some modern women get?

[DiscoMick]

No way I'd marry myself. I know my faults only too well.

Watching the "Do you take this man/woman...?" questions would be funny.

[Wraithe]

All the c&^p comes out when these sort of debates/problems come out...

Marriage should be between 2 people unless Polygamy becomes legal...

As for marrying animals, the author of the book that the greens follow as there bible, would be happy to see that... The animal liberation movement was based on freedom of animals to engage in Bestiality...

As for cars/4wds/trucks, I am sure some wives think that there husbands did that anyway...

All the carry on about what others can or cannot do is like a "neighbour telling you that you cannot have that car in your drive way because it makes the street look bad"... How many here dont like that attitude??

[DiscoMick]

I see it's even possible to buy a self-marriage kit to "celebrate your awesomeness!".

Marry yourself kit: 'With this ring, I me wed' - CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/15/living/matrimony-marry-yourself/index.html)

I suppose the problem would be if you married yourself and then decided you didn't like yourself and wanted a divorce. That could be a downer.

[trout1105]

I wonder if this would work for old aged pensioners?
If you married yourself then you could claim a married couples pension instead of the single person pension [bigwhistle]

[carjunkieanon]

At the risk of getting too political (and no, I'm not going to tell you which way to vote), marriage has always had boundaries around it. There have always been people who can't get married. You can't marry a close relative, you can't marry someone underage, you can't marry someone without consent, you can't marry someone already married, you can't marry more than one person (in Australia), etc. The current marriage question is about whether to widen those boundaries a little further to say you can marry someone of the same sex. What intrigues me, and I think this is a reasonably sensible question to ask, is 'what's your basis for widening the boundaries, and, does that same argument also widen the boundaries for other 'marriages' that aren't now allowed?'. If the new basis for marriage is two people who love each other, then...can't brother and sister claim they should be allowed to marry? I'd like to know where Australians think the boundaries lie.

*ducks for cover*

[rick130]

At the risk of getting too political (and no, I'm not going to tell you which way to vote), marriage has always had boundaries around it. There have always been people who can't get married. You can't marry a close relative, you can't marry someone underage, you can't marry someone without consent, you can't marry someone already married, you can't marry more than one person (in Australia), etc. The current marriage question is about whether to widen those boundaries a little further to say you can marry someone of the same sex. What intrigues me, and I think this is a reasonably sensible question to ask, is 'what's your basis for widening the boundaries, and, does that same argument also widen the boundaries for other 'marriages' that aren't now allowed?'. If the new basis for marriage is two people who love each other, then...can't brother and sister claim they should be allowed to marry? I'd like to know where Australians think the boundaries lie.

*ducks for cover*The difference being all those things you mention are illegal, whereas it's legal to live in a consenting relationship with someone of the same sex, and its legal for them to have children.

Big difference.

At the moment couples in a same sex relationship don't have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples, let alone the social and public acknowledgment of that union.

[carjunkieanon]

The difference being all those things you mention are illegal, whereas it's legal to live in a consenting relationship with someone of the same sex, and its legal for them to have children.

Big difference.

At the moment couples in a same sex relationship don't have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples, let alone the social and public acknowledgment of that union.

Yep. I realise that some are legal while other illegal. I'm curious as to the reasons why we say some are legal and some are illegal. What are the grounds/the logic for the boundaries we place around relationships?

[jonesfam]

Only have to look at the Royal Family to see why you really shouldn't marry your cousin.

Pi9tty, my cousin was/is quite attractive.[bighmmm]

[Wraithe]

One thing people forget in this argument, until little johnny pushed through the changes to the marriage act, same sex couples could marry overseas and there marriage would be valid in Australia... Then little Johnny with all his wisdom and religious backing, pushed the change so the gays/lesos/queers, had no rights...

The way I see it, we should just go back to the white australia policy, with all the bull going on in this country, its got too far out of hand with this restrict one and give the other a golden handshake...

[Roverlord off road spares]

Yep. I realise that some are legal while other illegal. I'm curious as to the reasons why we say some are legal and some are illegal. What are the grounds/the logic for the boundaries we place around relationships?
It's only in recent times is homosexuality is legal, remember they used to get locked up in prison for it.Tassie was the last state to remove it as an offense.

[carjunkieanon]

Yep. I realise that some are legal while other illegal. I'm curious as to the reasons why we say some are legal and some are illegal. What are the grounds/the logic for the boundaries we place around relationships?

So, just to give some examples (and mods, please let me know if I'm straying too far away from Land Rover related discussion),

- I think the consensus on the forum is (what a risky phrase to write) that we think it ridiculous to marry ones self. One boundary we place around marriage is that it has to involve more than one party.

- I think I've read that there's consensus that it's ridiculous to marry an animal (or a tree, or the earth). So another boundary we place around marriage is that it must be between humans.

- I suspect we agree that marriage has to involve consent. So consent is another boundary. Animals/trees/nature can't give consent. Can I assume people wouldn't be happy about someone marrying an unconscious person. Probably consent is why we say minors can't marry. A 9 year old girl can't give consent to be married to a 40 year old man. My 5 year old can't marry his 5 year old friend at Preschool.

- In Australia (and most parts of the world) we have a boundary that says "two people only". Why do we historically have this boundary? Is it to do with two people being required to make kids and it gets complicated if more than two people? Is it religious? Is it because we know a man would be crazy to have more than one wife?

But...some people would like polygamy. On what basis to we say "no, we don't permit that" or "sure, we can expand the boundary to include that"?

- The existing definition of marriage has a boundary that says, 'male-female'. Why do we have this boundary? Is it because it takes male-female to have children (though not every married couple will)? Is this a worthwhile boundary to keep?


People are now arguing that boundary should be expanded to include same-sex couples. On what basis? Their love is equal? Their faithfulness is equal? Their relationship is equal? They are equally valuable? Does changing this boundary also have consequences for other boundaries?

It's blinking complicated is what it is. Doing my head in...going to go to bed as its midnight. Best of luck everyone.

[bee utey]

There is no longer any real legal trauma to having children outside of a "traditional" hetero marriage, so the idea that marriage must be between one man and one woman no longer has any relevance. Kids can come from a one night stand, a previous relationship, IVF procedures, whatever, they don't become second class citizens because of their origin. Marriage is a legal contract with the State and confers a small number of benefits to the couple not available to unmarried couples. So I can't see that there is any good reason to deny any pair of suitably informed people tying the legal knot. As to a non binary number of people getting married, that's a distant future concern once the current battles have been won or lost.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

At the risk of getting too political (and no, I'm not going to tell you which way to vote), marriage has always had boundaries around it. There have always been people who can't get married. You can't marry a close relative, you can't marry someone underage, you can't marry someone without consent, you can't marry someone already married, you can't marry more than one person (in Australia), etc. The current marriage question is about whether to widen those boundaries a little further to say you can marry someone of the same sex. What intrigues me, and I think this is a reasonably sensible question to ask, is 'what's your basis for widening the boundaries, and, does that same argument also widen the boundaries for other 'marriages' that aren't now allowed?'. If the new basis for marriage is two people who love each other, then...can't brother and sister claim they should be allowed to marry? I'd like to know where Australians think the boundaries lie.

*ducks for cover*
Actually for many centuries in Europe's royal families kept marrying close relatives right up until Queen Vikky's mob spread haemophylia througout Eurone including the Romanoffs. In Egypt it was the practice for siblings to marry and 1st cousin marriage is still common in the middle east ant they continue the practice here with all the genetic consequences it entails. In the west it has only been since the understanding of genetic inheritance that marriage to close relatives has been banned.

[Eevo]

wasnt there someone who married a train station recently?

[Eevo]

Woman 'marries' train station after 36 years 'in love' (http://honey.nine.com.au/2017/05/29/10/59/woman-marries-train-station)

[cripesamighty]

Oh dear.....

[Saitch]

Woman 'marries' train station after 36 years 'in love' (http://honey.nine.com.au/2017/05/29/10/59/woman-marries-train-station)

What a stunner. I'm sure the other station users are more than happy that she keeps her clothes on.

[Eevo]

looks like she got hit by a train

[Saitch]

...

[V8Ian]

While everyone's distracted with this guff, nobody's focusing on the important issues.

[cripesamighty]

Correct, Ian.....

[DiscoMick]

Woman 'marries' train station after 36 years 'in love' (http://honey.nine.com.au/2017/05/29/10/59/woman-marries-train-station)
That's hilarious. She says they are very happy, but the train station hasn't commented.

[rick130]

While everyone's distracted with this guff, nobody's focusing on the important issues.


Correct, Ian.....

Yep, if parliament was allowed to just do their job.....[bigwhistle]