'I am gay and I don't want to be married.' I am not really sure that it is something to be proud of. You show little understanding of marriage not seeming to have any idea that marriage is a covenant and not a contract. At the rate most change partners these days (and especially those practicing homosexuality) I doubt whether many relationships are any more than using each other. You say you don't want to get a pat on the back from Government and yet the gay lobby are among the most vocal and influential (especially among the Greens and Labour). Your language I suggest is more vulgar or equivalent to the Government of which you accuse.

My first response to this gobbledygook was the author was sedated and wrote this " tongue-in-cheek ". On reflection, this abhorrent piece of juvenile mendacity led me to believe, he needed psychiatric help urgently. An avowed poofter; he wanted the World to know. In your face. Like it or not.

His gripe is more to do with empathy, than marital bliss. His sarcastic criticism of marriage per see, is an acknowledgement his Parents and forebarers were woefully naive in their belief in the inviolability of marriage. He confuses marriage with commitment, lust and homosexuality. Perhaps, in his lawyers masquerade, he equates Marriage Laws with the laws of the jungle. Among the Anarchist, only the fittest survive. Whatever next ?

His outburst is against Society in general. Institutions that withered time immemorial. It has pragmatically brought us this far in time, Shane Ogden notwithstanding. A confused young man, he should seek counseling and a career change. Rafferty rules, where there is NO norm. With no one taking responsibility for their indiscretions. Above all, his tirade is a lamentable hotchpotch of half truths and jaundiced paradigm. Moreover, hoping the hoi polloi will sympathetically agree with his premise, even though it is far from original. At worst, plagiarized from the Marquis De Sade ( circa 1779)

Why should Parliament convene to change the Law at the urging of a narcisstic individual ? The Marriage Act. 1961. is a Federal Statue Law that prescribes who may marry, perform the marriage service, where, when it is conducted. No bells, squeeks or trauma.Bigamous, polygamous, incestuous, homophobic marriages is invalid. In certain circumstances i.e Decree of Nullity, is non valid. The Family Law Act.1974. covers separations, divorces, parenting orders, maintenance, property etc, should children be involved.

To believe one is above the Law, by preaching a form of anarchism, and urging others to subscribe is a form of double jeopardy, is simply theoretical baloney. There is abundant proof S O's prognosis is a recipe for disaster. On the balance of probabilities, it is unlikely anyone would subscribe to this churlish heterodoxy..
cnt...

let alone his plaintive cry for fairness when he gives none.

For the sake of petty argument, all is not lost. Fr Kennedy, the maverick priest from Oxley (QLD) who brought condemnation from his Bishop, and the Vatican, conducts same sex marriages routinely in his new parish church. His blessings can still be bought at a fair price.

Apart from the event of children appearing on the scene, who provides the parental guidance, educational, inspirational needs when partners are conveniently changed overnight ?

Whatever the slant, the proposition is fraught with delusional self promotion, and cavet emptor to those who aspire to this alternate avant guarde lifestyle ?

Best of British luck !!

Chris H

Regards quotes, I thought this very apt.

“With all these matters to be considered, there is even the possibility of your thinking you are in a de facto relationship while your partner thinks you are not.

If you have any concerns in this area or would like to know more, contact your solicitor.”

http://www.lawlink.co.nz

At least in a proper marriage, both the husband and wife would know that they were actually married.

Marrige is a public, religious and legal contract, that two people will stay together.

The combination of public, religious and legal commitments are required to make it as strong as posible.

Every sucessful society has a 'marrige' system. Muslims, Christians, Indians, Red Indians, Aboriginals etc etc. Why? Because children need BOTH parents. Of course, old people can also marry, infertile people too... but that doesn't undermine the idea that marriage was seperately invented in every culture, in each continent by humand because it is needed to protect children.

It is very hard to get the figures, but the fact is that children are virtually NEVER abused in families with BOTH NATURAL parents. Almost all child abuse is committed in 'single parent' or in "mum-and-mummies-new-boyfriend" households.

You can try to explaing this away by politically correct explainations that these are struggling, stressed, disadvantaged households...

Or you can just accept the truth.

The greatest love of all is a parents love for their child... when there are both NATURAL parents watching out for the kids, abuse almost never occours.

Luckilly most kids spend most of their childhoods with BOTH natural parents... even when the parents divorce eventually, they kids spend most of their childhood safe before the divorce.

So you can't just say 20% of abuse happens in two parent families... you have to adjust the figures into rates per 1000 children. When you do, you find that missing out on one natural parent increases the risk of abuse by 2600% A child without both natural parents is 26 times more likely to be abused.

Put that into perspective... We all know that Smoking 'causes' cancer... well, smoking increases the risk of lung cancer by 1.2times... but missing a natural parent increases the risk of abuse, not by 1.2 times, but by 26 times! If you believe smoking causes cancer, divorce and children losing a natural parent cause child abuse. Period.

Marrige was a strong commitment to keep people together, because children need that for their safety. Easy divorce and single-parenthood cause child abuse.

Citations available Parttimeparent@pobox.com

I don't really see the point to all this debate. If you want to get married, then do so. If you don't, then live alone or in a defacto relationship.
Legally, the married and defacto couples are almost equal under the eyes of the law now anyway.

I wanted to get married, and luckily so did my husband!

I just felt that formalizing the relationship took it that one little step closer, and also we got to have a great engagement party and wedding party. What's not to like?

Formersnag, you never give up do you? This thread is about marriage, not the dreaded single mother!