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 > Senate harmony on marriage glosses over the deep divisions in rainbow politics > Comments

Senate harmony on marriage glosses over the deep divisions in rainbow politics : Comments

By Lyle Shelton, published 24/2/2017

That there are far reaching consequences of redefining marriage is further reason why a people's vote is the fairest way to settle this debate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All
That’s simple, phanto. I’ve listed some several times before.

<<Name one benefit of having a government marriage licence.>>

Here’s four:

“Married partners have immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities.

“This contrasts to de facto couples who must live together for a certain period before they are deemed to have legal rights.

“A marriage certificate also allows married partners to easily prove their legal rights if challenged, for example in emergency situations. The capacity to quickly and easily prove one’s relationship status is particularly important for same-sex partners because prejudice against same-sex relationships can mean legal rights are denied.

“Another practical benefit of marriage is that it is a widely recognised legal relationship. The criteria for establishing de facto status, and the rights ascribed to de facto partners, are different between the Australian states and between Australia and other nations.” (http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/12-reasons-why-marriage-equality-matters)

<<See above.>>

Obviously you had forgotten.

<<Inclusion without good reason is unreasonable.>>

No, exclusion without good reason is unreasonable, because it’s discriminatory. Inclusion without good reason is harmless, unless there is a reason for exclusion.

You again forget who here is obliged to present a case.

<<Citizens have a right that their government acts with reason.>>

Agreed.

<<The Civil Rights movement was a fight in favour of something worth having.>>

As is equality in all circumstances.

<<A government issued marriage certificate is not worth having.>>

That’s your opinion.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 1 March 2017 7:53:03 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
Toni Lavis:

Why wouldn’t you include heterosexuals? It stands to reason then that the Marriage Act has no use and should be repealed.

Phillips:

“Married partners have immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities.

“ de facto couples who must live together for a certain period before they are deemed to have legal rights.

That is discrimination against de facto couples. Why should you get a free pass to immediate access because you are married? A marriage certificate is no guarantee of anything about the relationship. Married people should also have to wait for a certain period. Do you agree with this discrimination?

“A marriage certificate also allows married partners to easily prove their legal rights if challenged, for example in emergency situations.”

So we will just let this person die because you don’t have your marriage certificate in your pocket right now?

“The capacity to quickly and easily prove one’s relationship status is particularly important for same-sex partners because prejudice against same-sex relationships can mean legal rights are denied.”

See above.

“The criteria for establishing de facto status, and the rights ascribed to de facto partners, are different between the Australian states and between Australia and other nations.”

This is an argument to make sure there is no difference between those jurisdictions – not an argument for getting a marriage certificate. Why should de facto partners be disadvantaged while married partners are not? This is discrimination against de facto relationships. Do you agree with this kind of discrimination?

“Inclusion without good reason is harmless,”

Just because it causes no harm does not make it reasonable. It is not reasonable to want to be included because it is not reasonable to want a marriage certificate from the government.

“You again forget who here is obliged to present a case.”

There is no case for government issued marriage licences.

“As is equality in all circumstances.”

Some people have cancer. We should all strive to have cancer because equality is a good thing in all circumstances.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 1 March 2017 12:12:40 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
phanto,

If you have a problem with marriage or discrimination towards de facto couples, then start a discussion thread on it. But for so long as marriage exists, it is discriminatory to deny the privilege to same-sex couples. But you asked for a benefit of government-granted marriage licences, and I provided you with some. You are simply changing the topic now. Something you accused me of doing.

<<Do you agree with this discrimination?>>

No, I disagree that it is discrimination in the first place, because de facto couples (provided they are heterosexual, of course - and THAT is where the discrimination comes in) have access to the benefits of marriage. If they choose not to take them, then that is their prerogative.

<<So we will just let this person die because you don’t have your marriage certificate in your pocket right now?>>

What you quoted had nothing to do with saving lives, but access to family members in the event of an emergency. Your response is irrelevant.

<<This is an argument to make sure there is no difference between those jurisdictions – not an argument for getting a marriage certificate.>>

My quotes were in regards to the benefits of State-recognised marriage after you requested them. They weren’t arguments for same-sex marriage.

You’re getting yourself tangled up into a right mess here now, aren’t you?

<<Just because it causes no harm does not make it reasonable.>>

It doesn’t make it unreasonable either, and that’s what counts.

<<There is no case for government issued marriage licences.>>

I presented some earlier. You even responded to them.

<<Some people have cancer. We should all strive to have cancer because equality is a good thing in all circumstances.>>

That’s not what equality is. Your argument here is a fallacy of Equivocation.

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

We've been through all these arguments many times before, phanto. Why not devote some of your time and energy to something positive instead for a change?

Oh, and you'll be sure to point out my alleged side-stepping, subject changing, and language manipulation when I do it, won't you?
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 1 March 2017 1:05:14 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
“But for so long as marriage exists, it is discriminatory to deny the privilege to same-sex couples.”

That does not mean that homosexuals should pursue marriage. Do you think they should behave irrationally just to prove a point? Why would you pursue a government certificate just to prove a point? Perhaps it is not their point that you want them to pursue but your point. You are urging them on just so you can ‘win’. If you really cared about them you would not encourage them to behave irrationally.

“You are simply changing the topic now.”

The topic is about pursuing the supposed advantages of having a marriage certificate. Why would you want to pursue something that gave you an unfair advantage over your fellow humans? Any self-respecting person would not want to take advantage of the ridiculous disparity between certified marriage and de facto relationships that you have supposedly proved the existence of. Why are you encouraging people to show such disrespect to their fellows?

“de facto couples (provided they are heterosexual, of course - and THAT is where the discrimination comes in) have access to the benefits of marriage.”

Only if they get married but why should they have to get married to have those benefits? That is discrimination in favour of married people. They should have those rights because they are a couple and not because they are a married couple. Homosexuals should refuse to marry for the same reasons. It discriminates against de facto couples.

“What you quoted had nothing to do with saving lives, but access to family members in the event of an emergency.”

What kind of emergency are you talking about? If it is an emergency then it will be dealt with as an emergency regardless of the marital status of the person at risk.

“I presented some earlier. You even responded to them.”

But you haven’t presented a viable argument for any of them.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 1 March 2017 5:41:12 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
You’re taking us in circles now, phanto.

<<That does not mean that homosexuals should pursue marriage.>>

No, but so long as they want marriage, it is reasonable for them to do so.

<<Do you think they should behave irrationally just to prove a point?>>

You have not shown that it’s irrational, nor that anyone's intention is to prove a point.

<<Why would you pursue a government certificate just to prove a point?>>

I don't know. Ask someone who's doing that.

<<Perhaps it is not their point that you want them to pursue but your point. You are urging them on just so you can ‘win’.>>

Really, now? You must think I’m quite influential!

<<Why are you encouraging people to show such disrespect to their fellows?>>

Why are you still beating your wife?

You haven't shown that I am. Your inability to understand why de facto couples can't always have the same recognition as married couples is not proof of discrimination.

<<Only if they get married but why should they have to get married to have those benefits?>>

Because the nature of the benefits require legal recognition.

<<That is discrimination in favour of married people.>>

“[D]e facto couples … have access to the benefits of marriage. If they choose not to take them, then that is their prerogative.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336731)

<<They should have those rights because they are a couple and not because they are a married couple.>>

Sometimes procedure requires formalities to protect the vulnerable. In some situations, it could prove dangerous or not in a vulnerable party’s best interests for just any old Tom, Dick, or Harry to claim that they are in a relationship with a vulnerable party.

<<What kind of emergency are you talking about?>>

Medical.

<<But you haven’t presented a viable argument for any of them.>>

They were arguments in and of themselves, and your attempts to rebut them completely missed the mark. You want me to provide an argument for an argument? Don’t be so obtuse.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 1 March 2017 7:13:49 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
//Why wouldn’t you include heterosexuals?//

An excellent question. You're happy to demand that gays present a 'good reason' as to why they should be permitted to marry, but you don't place the same onus on heterosexuals. You arbitrarily exclude them from the set of the sets of people who need establish a case for being allowed to marry; they just get an automatic free pass.

Why wouldn't you include heterosexuals?

//It stands to reason then that the Marriage Act has no use and should be repealed.//

So why don't you argue in favour of repealing the marriage act, instead of preserving in it's current form? Which is what you have been doing.

If you don't believe the marriage act is worth preserving, you've been presenting the wrong arguments.

Because the arguments you have been presenting imply that you think the status quo is fine - which means retaining the Marriage Act.

But you've just asserted you believe it should be repealed. So which is it to be? Retain or repeal? Because you can't do both.

I've not really given much consideration to the repeal case because nobody argues strongly for it - they argue in favour of retaining with amendments, or preserving in the current form. I haven't seen any good arguments in favour of preserving in the current form, which is why I favour retaining with amendments.

But maybe just repealing the whole damn thing is the best idea. Sadly it seems we'll never know, because apparently nobody on Team Repeal has sufficient courage in their convictions to argue strongly for their case. What a shame.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 1 March 2017 7:53:22 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. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. 16
  12. All

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