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 > Article Comments > Marriage as a 'social institution' > Comments

Marriage as a 'social institution' : Comments

By Eric Porter, published 5/9/2017

Indeed, if marriage were simply about love, it would render all the legal infrastructure redundant.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. ...
  12. 17
  13. 18
  14. 19
  15. All
Philips:

“Or we could just simplify and standardise the process (and nationwide, too) by letting them marry.”

Why should the government be involved in simplifying and standardising the process since wills and contracts are sufficient? There is no need to change marriage law unless you have some other agenda in changing the marriage law.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 7 September 2017 8:19:10 AM
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
phanto,

We’ve been through this many times before. I suggest you go back and re-read some of our previous discussions before wasting too much of our time.

<<Why should the government be involved in simplifying and standardising the process since wills and contracts are sufficient?>>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338753
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#241024
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7798#241154

Why stop at ‘sufficient’ when there is no reason not to change the laws to offer simplicity and standardisation, too?

The government is the only body which can provide standardisation and ease of access to these otherwise costly, and sometimes complex, legal arrangements, by the way.

<<There is no need to change marriage law unless you have some other agenda in changing the marriage law.>>

Yes, there is. We just went through one of them. There’s another one, too: equality. You've never countered this.

Come up with something new or go away.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 7 September 2017 9:01:53 AM
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:

Whether you or anyone else wastes their time is entirely their choice and I cannot be held responsible for how you or others spend their time.

The laws in regard to wills and contracts apply to everyone and if there is something wrong with them then they should be changed so that everyone benefits who is entitled to benefit. What you are proposing is a change in marriage law so that same-sex couples can also benefit but this only compounds the discrimination in favour of married couples. You are wanting to make a bad situation worse.

Any individual should be able to nominate whoever they choose as a benefactor of their will and any individual should be able to appoint who they like as having power of attorney over their affairs. Such rights should not be given only to married people because that is discrimination and flies in the face of your supposed sense of ‘equality.’
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 7 September 2017 9:25:59 AM
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
I know, phanto.

<<The laws in regard to wills and contracts apply to everyone …>>

But there is no one predictable, uniform will or pre-nuptial agreement (apart from marriage) which couples can access, so your rebuttal is irrelevant (and if there were, same-sex couples still probably wouldn’t have access to it).

<<… What you are proposing is a change in marriage law so that same-sex couples can also benefit …>>

Correct.

<<… but this only compounds the discrimination in favour of married couples.>>

No, it doesn’t. We’ve been through this many times before, too:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19002#338772

I suggest you actually read the discussions I link you to before rushing in and making an ass of yourself again.

<<You are wanting to make a bad situation worse.>>

You are yet to demonstrate this.

<<Any individual should be able to nominate whoever they choose as a benefactor of their will and any individual should be able to appoint who they like as having power of attorney over their affairs.>>

Unless, of course, those privileges are provided in a cost-effective, standardised package providing predictability, and is called “marriage”. Isn’t that right, phanto?

<<Such rights should not be given only to married people because that is discrimination and flies in the face of your supposed sense of ‘equality.’>>

No, it doesn’t. Again, see the above linked-to discussion.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 7 September 2017 10:05:24 AM
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:

“But there is no one predictable, uniform will or pre-nuptial agreement (apart from marriage) which couples can access,”

A will is not an agreement between two people – it is a statement of the wishes of an individual in regard to who should get their property on the occasion of their death. This can be any person nominated by the one who writes the will. This means that the beneficiary is the person nominated regardless of relationship. If you want it to be your partner then all you have to do is nominate your partner by name. What is unpredictable about this? This is how it should be for every individual regardless of their marital status and it should be every individual’s responsibility to nominate who they want to be the beneficiary. It should not be the government’s responsibility to do this by overseeing marriages for such an outcome.

It is not necessary for governments to arrange the affairs of individuals via marriage when they have already put in place laws in regard to the carrying out of the wishes of individuals as legally documented in a will.

There is absolutely no good reason why same-sex couples cannot ensure that their property is passed on to their partner if that is what they want. It is not necessary to change the marriage law in order for them to have the outcome they desire.

“I suggest you actually read the discussions I link you to before rushing in and making an ass of yourself again.”

I suggest you be less patronising and insulting.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 7 September 2017 10:45:45 AM
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
AJ Philips writes:
[…] “pre-nuptial agreement” […]

I reckon pre-nuptial agreements could/should be made enforceable and perhaps not be subject to challenge just like any other contract.
Maybe even make them mandatory?

That would neutralise a lot of Family Law angst, not to mention the vast legal bills these matters can generate.

Of course, in the case of SSM, this conjures up images of two lesbians fighting over access to the children neither of them conceived. That’d be entertaining.

But at least the money would be sorted.
Posted by Dustin, Thursday, 7 September 2017 10:58:43 AM
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. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. ...
  12. 17
  13. 18
  14. 19
  15. All

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