The Forum > Article Comments > Marriage as a 'social institution' > Comments
Marriage as a 'social institution' : Comments
By Eric Porter, published 5/9/2017Indeed, if marriage were simply about love, it would render all the legal infrastructure redundant.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Page 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- ...
- 17
- 18
- 19
-
- All
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 7 September 2017 11:13:55 AM
| |
Philips:
“Too bad. Don’t like it? Then bugger off, or present a sensible argument. I’ll be as patronising and insulting as your ridiculous arguments warrant.” It is fairly obvious that it is not arguments which bring out your aggression but any threat to your deep-seated and hate-filled bitterness and resentment towards those people who forced you into Christianity when you were powerless. You are becoming increasingly desperate in these forums and the way you speak to people is indicative of the venom which courses through your veins. You are not interested in same-sex marriage you are only interested in trying to punish those who symbolise the people and attitudes which you have never been able to distance yourself from emotionally. This is not the place for you to act out your bitterness and resentment. People here are genuinely trying to find the truth but you are not. Your agenda is deeply personal and abusive and every time you post you expose the vindictiveness that has possessed you. Posted by phanto, Thursday, 7 September 2017 12:08:51 PM
| |
Ah, the fallacious ad hominem. It’s always your last resort, isn’t it phanto?
<<It is fairly obvious that it is not arguments which bring out your aggression but any threat to your deep-seated and hate-filled bitterness and resentment towards those people who forced you into Christianity when you were powerless.>> No-one forced me to become a Christian. You’re making that up. I love the people who indoctrinated me. They didn’t know any better. Being so young, too, no force was required. Furthermore, I have already demonstrated that there was no bitterness. Remember? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7844#242441 <<You are becoming increasingly desperate in these forums and the way you speak to people is indicative of the venom which courses through your veins.>> And yet you are the only one here who has had to resort to a fallacious ad hominem. Amusing. No, all my arguments are still standing strong, as you have helped to demonstrate. And now you are throwing a tantrum because the same arguments, that have failed you time and time again, are once against laying in tatters. There’s a word to describe a person who does the same thing over and over again expecting a different result each time… <<People here are genuinely trying to find the truth ...>> Not many, apparently. How about you do something change that, though? I mean, presenting failed argument after failed argument against same-sex marriage, without ever allowing yourself to conclude that there may just be nothing wrong with it, hardly demonstrates a genuine desire to find the truth now, does it? But thank you for this morning’s discussion. You have now blown our entire posting allowance on this thread for the day, and achieving nothing more in the process than being an idiot. Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 7 September 2017 12:40:50 PM
| |
"Cost-effective"?
NSW Registry wedding: $422-$533 http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/Pages/apply-for-certificates/apply-for-certificates.aspx#fees Non-registry Wedding: Avg $36,500 http://www.moneysmart.gov.au/managing-your-money/budgeting/simple-ways-to-save-money/how-much-can-a-wedding-cost Will/Power of Attorney: $0-25 http://www.legalzebra.com.au/australian-legal-will-kit-free-draft-will/ http://legalwill.com.au/much-will-power-attorney-cost/ Even without a will, your de facto partner (either sex) can inherit your property: http://www.craddock.com.au/Document/Changes+to+the+Intestacy+Laws+in+NSW.aspx "A “spouse” includes a married person or domestic partner. A domestic partner may be someone of the same or opposite sex." Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 7 September 2017 5:03:31 PM
| |
AJ Phillips - your response to my post being -
I am, SAINTS. <<Is anyone watching this?>> You state - So, if a bunch of ratbags behave in a distasteful way, your response to deny an entire demographic equal treatment just because their interests are shared? Ri-i-i-i-ight. My response - REALLY- is that your response? Posted by SAINTS, Thursday, 7 September 2017 5:30:06 PM
| |
Alan B - you wrote on 5th -
The marriage act was revised in 2004, by John Howard to change the wording from two people to a man and a woman. He didn't need a plebiscite nor were they gay community consulted. Moreover, recent studies have reportedly confirmed a gay gene, not just one, but several down near the bottom of the DNA double helix spiral. Something the brainwashed recalcitrant bigots seemed to have missed? My apologies for late response - maybe - just maybe John Howard was aware in those days - as to - what is now evident - to wanted change in our society and demographics. What are we voting for? and what are the protections for any others in society who wish to vote for a "no" ...... we as a society have no protections and no advice from Government - until vote finalised. Really? With no protections to businesses who wish to vote "no" - they are screwed. The Attorney General says this is about one issue only - yea right. With the legal eagles already "dancing with glee". So my question being - why are we voting for this without any knowledge as to the rights of any person within the business industry who just happens to object to same sex marriage - no document has been proposed to either Senate or House of Representatives for discussion and vote prior to vote - really is this where we are at? Posted by SAINTS, Thursday, 7 September 2017 5:55:58 PM
|
<<A will is not an agreement between two people … This means that the beneficiary is the person nominated regardless of relationship.>>
Another reason why it is not a substitute (not even in part) for marriage.
<<What is unpredictable about this?>>
You haven’t read much case law in this area, have you? That being said, I should add 'uncertain'. (See Karger v Paul [1984] VR 161, for starters.)
<<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.>>
And it already is. Marriage, however, provides a predictable, cost-effective, certain, equitable, and uniform means of addressing multiple questions at law.
<<It should not be the government’s responsibility to do this by overseeing marriages for such an outcome.>>
Who else is going to do it, unless we adopt your inequitable, chaotic, marriage-free proposal?
<<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.>>
Apparently it is.
<<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.>>
Correct, so long as they go about it in the more expensive, hazardous, and uncertain way which you propose, of course.
<<It is not necessary to change the marriage law in order for them to have the outcome they desire.>>
It is if we want to make the law as easy and predictable for same-sex couples as it is for opposite-sex couples. You are yet to present a reason why we shouldn't.
<<I suggest you be less patronising and insulting.>>
Too bad. Don’t like it? Then bugger off, or present a sensible argument. I’ll be as patronising and insulting as your ridiculous arguments warrant.
Nothing more, nothing less.