US, I'll defend ALL partners in separation proceedings.....male, female and children. As I have previously stated, which you have "conveniently" ignored, fairness FOR ALL SIDES is paramount.

You seem not to realise, or don't care, that "some" partners sacrifice earning potential, education and employment training, as a conscious "mutual" decision based on current relationship needs. If that relationship breaks down **OF COURSE** the future needs of the disadvantaged partner need to be considered in the final property settlement. It's a little thing called **FAIRNESS**. All these things need to be considered regardless of which protagonist is male, and which protagonist is female......and that is the case, that's what happens now in law. When a protagonist does not get their "desired" result, they sometimes whine and whine and whine, and "some" "men" are fantastic whiners and some of them attempt to turn the decision around to **IMPLY** that the system is anti-male. This sentiment seems to have something to do with "some" peoples' opposition to the amendment, at least it appears that way to me from the writing manner of certain contributers.

In fact, I've just done a quick check on a link provided by divorce doctor, and **YES** you guessed it folks....... he has an ENTIRE WEBSITE devoted specifically to the defense of "blokes" in divorce commentary......blokes ONLY: Not interested in FAIRNESS to "ALL", only interested in getting results that advantage men. I'm glad I checked that link. I rest my case on that damning evidence alone.

Come on you guys.......stop "PRETENDING" that you are all interested in "fairness for ALL people". Why are you so ashamed to admit your sexual and political bias? Come out and admit it, and be done with it........then the debate will be in a position to actually progress.

To poor old antiseptic, I see you still think you can gain some type of "advantage" by propagating your conspiracy theories about who is who is who is who. No, I'm not samsung, but you already know that. Stick to the topic, if you can't then move on.

phillips,

'You seem not to realise, or don't care, '
I do realise this, and care. That's why we have..... Marriage. People who want this protection, should get married. That's what it's for. People who would like more independent lives choose not to get married. Now the government is going to retrospectively move the goal posts, and marry them off.

'sacrifice earning potential, education and employment training, as a conscious "mutual" decision based on current relationship needs'

Why would this be necessary if there are no children to care for? Where is the 'need'? If one party chooses to neglect their career, it's not the other party's concern in a de facto relationship. Now, if they were married, you could possibly make a case for a more mutual decision, as they've committed to a shared goal. There is an explicit contract in that case, but a de facto couple have committed to nothing.

'Come on you guys.......stop "PRETENDING" that you are all interested in "fairness for ALL people". '

Here you go again with your delusions. Why cant you just argue against people's stated position, rather than inventing one to argue against based on your own prejudices against men. You have addressed DD's web site, and fair enough if you think it's biassed or 'unfair', but there is no evidence that any other male poster agrees with the content in that website.

My comment regarding "sacrifice" was specifically in relation to situations where children are involved, or any other situation where one parter needs, by mutual consent, to reduce their training or earning capacity.

By the way, "marriage" is not there for the financial protection of the people involved, as you erroneously believe. There are many societies where "marriage" offers no such protection whatsoever, especially for women. In our secular society ( thank goodness it IS secular) that protection comes NOT from "marriage", it comes from "secular laws" that marriage is subject to. "Some" of those laws will apply to de facto relationships if the amendment is successful. If it is passed, you will be obliged to OBEY THE LAW, whether or not you philosophically agree with it. If you don't approve of any law, you are quite entitled to try to change the law.

You mentioned your "opinion", that I "have a "prejudice against men". You say this DESPITE the **FACT**.......that I have repeatedly stated that all relationship settlements need to show equity and fairness towards **ALL** participants..... FYO this means "MEN" and women and children: That's plain English, the words are simple and short...... I can't make it clearer than that for you, or anyone else here. If you can't understand that, then "so be it"! Have a nice day.

'My comment regarding "sacrifice" was specifically in relation to situations where children are involved'

Which I have already said is outside the scope of my grievence with the proposed law. We agree on this.

'If you don't approve of any law, you are quite entitled to try to change the law.'

Which is what the post is all about. duh.

'You mentioned your "opinion", that I "have a "prejudice against men". You say this DESPITE the **FACT...'

My opinion is based on your baseless asumptions of the 'real motives' of all male posters, with no evidence to back this up (except for DD's web site). It's pretty clear you pre-judge all the male posters, based not on the content of what they have contributed to the topic, but based on your imagination of their motives. This obviously must come from an issue with men in general.

'have repeatedly stated that all relationship settlements need to show equity and fairness towards **ALL** participants'

Yes you have. And I agree. But that doesn't change my opinion of where you're coming from. Basically you want equity and fairness to all, but believe all the male posters are 'pretending' one thing while writing the opposite. With no evidence for this, I can only assume you think badly of the male posters, because they are men. That's prejudice.

"If you don't approve of any law, you are quite entitled to try to change the law."

"US, you don't like the amendment? Tough luck. All the whinging in the world won't save you."

"The whingers won't like it, but they'll be BOUND by it. Too bad for them. "

"RObert, if you don't like the rule of law.......move to a country of your dreams; one that enables a partner to do what they like, and to treat their ex and their children as they choose; and good luck living in the year 1808, instead of 2008!"

" I rest my case on that damning evidence alone." (the advocacy of one person apparently dams us all).

Pretty much summed up in yet another (slightly amended) quote
"stop "PRETENDING" that you are interested in "fairness for ALL people". "

R0bert

Sorry for appearing very ignorant, but I'm getting confused.

With these new de facto laws, what is the difference between a married couple and a de facto couple?

Ain't it strange that people who object to same-sex marriage always claim that this would devalue marriage?
I think that these laws devalue marriage more than anything. What would be the use of getting married if a de facto relationship forces people to accept the same rights and obligations as marriage?

In my opinion, it should be people's choice whether they want these same rights and obligations.

I really don't see this as a 'battle between the sexes' thing- rather as an 'imposing on people's freedom' thing.

I agree for a great deal with US at this point since I value freedom and choices are being limited with these new laws.