http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/mistress-laws-take-hold/story-e6freooo-1225795339438

No different for gays, the Labor changes to the de facto definition and inclusion of gays already permit bigamy.

That reflects the stated intent of the socialists and feminists to disrupt and overturn marriage and family, which they hate for different reasons, one because marriage and family are seen as the bulwarks of capitalism and the other because they are the mainstays of 'patriarchy'.

The free-rolling homosexuals of the 'old' Left would be horrified and turning in their graves at the stupidity of 'gays' inviting the State to regulate their once private affairs. What they were once adult enough to sort out themselves is now decided by the State - public servants, courts and lawyers.

Statists rule.

If marriage is such an economic dissadvantage why are Homosexuals seeking it with passion; obviously there is an hidden agenda in their claim for equal rights as married. Currently they have equal civil rights as marrieds, but what they seek is access to I.V.F. surragacy and adoption, when they are themselves fertile unlike current users of I.V/F services who have difficulty.

The other thing is they want legal rights to sue anyone who does not recognise their relationship equal to a man and woman. They want to breed a fatherless or motherless community, and want to brainwash everyone to believe this is normal.

Hi Josephus,

Perhaps not just economic disadvantage but legal disadvantage as well: am I right in suggesting that, for current heterosexual and proposed homosexual relationships, a series of de facto relationships, say a new de facto partner each year, does not in law constitute a series of actual marriages, so an abandoned de facto relationship is not regarded in the same light as separation in marriage. But homosexuals can voluntarily inherit from each other. In other words, de facto couples have pretty much all of the advantages of a marriage, but fewer of the disadvantages. So, as you ask, why should homosexuals bother ?

I don't know if de facto couples, hetero OR homo, stay together longer than married couples - somebody may have the stats on that. But my suspicion is that de facto couples are far more transient. So, if some bloke, over his lifetime, shags around but breaks up with, say half a dozen women, and leaves a large fortune but no will, which ex if any has a claim on it ?

Also, I don't know if homosexuals are likely to enter into as many, or more, de facto liaisons than heteros over their lifetimes. Taking a wild punt and suggesting that homosexuals, as professionals, are likely to be on more lucrative salaries, that neither partner in such a relationship has to take a break to look after children and bugger up their careers, and that they are likely to leave at least as much in inheritances as heteros, then we may be talking about substantially larger inheritances. So if a homosexual has been playing around over a lifetime (perhaps with both men and women, and perhaps producing children as well) and leaves a large inheritance but no will, who can claim it ?

Another problem is that a de facto relationship may have no paper trail, as a marriage does. Of course, this applies to both hetero and homo relationships. But raising the issue of homosexual marriage does focus a spotlight on some of the loose ends of de facto relationships.

Cheers,

Joe

Some time ago *Josephus* made a comment on what constitutes marriage, in his point of view, by referring to its historical context as it was in Ancient Rome.

Of course, a more clinical examination (as perhaps most of you would not be surprised to learn) shows that what people though to be marriage was every bit as diverse in the ancient world as it is today.

..

Another thing that we ought consider in this debate is that there are truckloads of kids who die, suffer and or go without every day for want of loving parents, even one loving parent or gaurdian.

So, every time we confound the adoption of a kid in need, regardless of whether the prospective parent/s are gay or otherwise, is another kid consigned to the scrapheap.

DreamOn,

You seem to be saying that 'married' can be anything. Tres 'Progressive'!

The Family Law Act recognises that a party could be in multiple de facto relationships, or that a person who is married could be a party to de facto property proceedings (refer to s4AA(5)(b)).

Add to that the Dept of Human Services direction that 'There is no minimum time period for a relationship to be seen as defacto'. Remembering too that the department will advise YOU if you are in a relationship, but you MUST fully disclose your living arrangements (and not to do so could constitute fraud).

The consequence is that all shared living arrangements should be declared and investigated. After all, as you say yourself it is likely that a 'relationship', married' you say, could involve two OR MORE persons of either or whatever sex, including non-aligned).

The Department of Human Services needs to correct its instructions to applicants to make that crystal clear.

It is time that the socialists spelled out how they intend to regulate the trial/temporary/'love' relationships they favour and where to in the future?

As a taxpayer I certainly do NOT believe that money should be taken from me to support (with additional conditions) the 'love' choices of politicians and public servants for example. Nor should the single employee be denied conditions enjoyed by the booming number who get to call themselves 'marrieds'/de factos/relationships or whatever.

" ... DreamOn, You seem to be saying that 'married' can be anything. Tres 'Progressive'! ... "

What I have pointed out is that from ancient times on, what constitutes "marriage" has meant, does mean, and will mean different things to different people and societies. Obviously personal and group values, culture etc etc all come into it. It is like any other contract to the extent that it can change and I note that it is those who are willing to change and adapt that survive.

As for your comments that their is no minimum time in relation the definition of de-facto I note the following from Human Services:

" ... Definition of a partner For the Australian Government Department of Human Services purposes a person is considered to be your partner if you and the person are living together, or usually live together, and are:

• married, or
• in a registered relationship (opposite-sex or same-sex), or
• in a de facto relationship (opposite-sex or same-sex).

We consider a person to be in a de facto relationship from the time they commence living with another person as a MEMBER OF A COUPLE. We recognise all couples, opposite-sex and same-sex.

The Australian Government Department of Human Services will assess your relationship based on the following 5 factors:

• financial arrangements
• nature of the household
• social aspects of the relationship
• presence or absence of sexual relationship
• nature of commitment.

The following assessment criteria are such that assuming 2 parties were not already a member of a couple, that to accumulate evidence based on the criteria to make a determination of "coupled" status would require some passage of time.

Thereafter, I note that you haven't advised as to what exactly are these benefits of marriage etc that you refer to. Thus, I am unable to follow your logic that leads you to the conclusion that you would have to pay for the "Love Choices" of others as you put it. You'll have to fill in some of the blanks.