If your relationship is sound, then you don’t need to get married.

To show how commercialised marriage is visit: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/anz-here-are-a-billion-economic-reasons-to-bring-about-marriage-equality-in-australia-2015-10

"Based on a 2010 University of Queensland study, that found quarter of (34,000 same sex couples) would marry within 12 months of being allowed, and with an average wedding spend of $51,000, that’s up to a $550 million boost to the economy in the first year."

“If half of the population of same sex couples chose to marry within one year, the benefits to the economy in the first year of legislation would be over $1 billion”, adding that the figures do not include honeymoon expenditure and wedding tourism from foreign couples coming to Australia."

Another argument that gets thrown into the (wedding cake) mix is people having to pay the costs of a marriage celebrant.

I take the view there are enough, who would easily support paying for someone, as a gift to receive a certificate which would be seen as some as binding their relationship along with the rest of a wedding element to occur.

Then there is also the reality, where a "final commitment" doesn't always stack up (say the cake tips over). In 2015 ABS statistics show Australia had 113,595 marriages registered and 48,517 divorces granted.

I can't honestly see why marriage needs to be legislated. Any reasons to link marriage to material items based on divorce questions marriage and child related matters should be dealt with through relevant agencies.

Those who don't like same sex marriage will never change, those who question the value of marriage, may not either. Those left "picking up the pieces" from the expensive cracked vase that once had a bouquet of flowers in it, see their wedding ceremony and ask "why?"

According to this logic, marriage should not be allowed to last more than 6 months, then each couple would be required to divorce and re-marry. Just imagine the billions coming in - Australia would soon be out of debt and in surplus!

Say everyone bought a skipping-rope for $10, that's a $230M to boost our economy.
What about a pack of condoms for a similar price?
What if everyone started smoking? We would all become billionaires and would no longer have to pay any other taxes...

Right?

Would you like to buy my goose for only $100,000? the golden eggs it will lay will return your investment in less than a year!

I am all for marriage equality, whereby everyone can marry anyone(s) and anything(s) they want, no questions asked and no records kept by the state about people's totally-private relationships.

Rubbish. University twats.
If this is what passes for intelligence then all university people should just be euthanised.
I thought spending millions on things like 'studies that state the bleeding obvious' and 'sjw gender studies' was a symptom of how bad things are getting, but just exeplifies that slide into idiocy.

They are only going to spend money on weddings that they would have spent elsewhere.
There is no gain to the economy.
The money gets spent here, the money gets spent there.
What's the difference?
Its all part of the same pie.
In order to help the economy you need to create something for export or somehow bring more money into the pie to make it bigger.
Where someone spends the funds available to them doesn't mean squat.
So what they spend less at gay bars and more on gay weddings, how in the hell does that help anyone?

Total crap.

And the estimate for divorces was?

The lawyers are laughing already and all thanks to that bottle redhead and her idealistic Roxon. - 'Nek nimit, whooska' and what gays used to decide themselves is now foreve to be ruled upon by Big Sister's bureaucrats, and those entrepreneurial lawyers are buying the most expensive wines to go with their restaurant lunches. 'Happy days are here again..'.

Gays want the church too, to prove they have shafted 'society'? But they have already lost through allowing the feminists to lead them by the nose into legalised de facto marriages. Make that 'de facto relationships', the feminists can't abide marriage.

Nathan, I chose to marry for the sake of my children having a mum and dad with the same name. To me, it's all about the kids.

You need to have a licence to drive a car.

You need to have a licence to practice medicine,
architecture, dentistry, and other professions.

You need to even register your dog.

Births, deaths, and marriages need registering.
Those are the laws of the society in which we live.

Get over it.

Hi FOXY...

You've been absent from the Forum for a little while? I sincerely hope you're well and in good health, with no more repeat and nasty episodes that necessitated you having several hospital procedures done, that proved necessary last year. I trust your dear Mum is still OK, in her nursing home. Though with you keeping a close eye on her and her care, I'm sure she is, and still quite happy with that arrangement.

Concerning this topic - A successful marriage is not predicated by a marriage certificate or licence or anything else for that matter. All this mandated document achieves, is an approved piece of documentary evidence, that (i) a marriage has taken place, and (ii) conducted in such a manner it complies with our laws, and, (iii)it was officiated by a properly accredited witness, pursuant to the relevant Act.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank You for your concern. I'm coming along fine
thanks to the new medication. I have more
tests to be done next month. My mum's well looked
after. She's got very good people who care for her
for which we are all grateful. The staff there are
outstanding.

I agree with your take on marriage. It takes two to
make it work. I've been very lucky with mine.

Given that so many of our homosexuals are people who will end up with one of our overgenerous government super schemes, & the exceedingly generous way wives are treated by those schemes, I believe it is nothing but greed to get more of the tax payers money that is driving this wish for same sex marriage.

This I'm sure applies in spades to employers like their ABC, education & the bureaucracy.

Yes, Hasbeen, and I'm sure you have plenty of evidence for such a claim, too. I mean beyond your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must necessarily have sinister intentions.

Get real.

AJ, have you ever listened to the ABC, or a bunch of academics at morning tea?

Dear Foxy,

«You need to have a licence to drive a car.»

This is understandable if you are going to use your car on a public road. Since the road is public property (assuming this is rightly the case), the public may set conditions on your behaviour there.

«You need to have a licence to practice medicine,
architecture, dentistry, and other professions.»

Which is totally wrong and tyrannical. So long as you are honest about your qualifications and do not use public resources, you owe nobody a license.

«You need to even register your dog.»

This should only be required if you ever take your dog out to public property.

«Births, deaths, and marriages need registering.»

Births and deaths currently require legislation - which again is absolutely wrong and tyrannical. Marriages on the other hand are not required to be registered and do occur all the time without the government's knowledge and without breaking any law.

«Those are the laws of the society in which we live.»

These laws are forcibly and violently imposed on everyone who happens to live in this continent whether or not they consented to belong to your society.

Nathan I suggest you read the marriage act. It reads 'Marriage, according to Australian law, is the union of a man and a woman ...

Maybe would could charge $10 tax everytime somoene has sex to raise money. Your rant about raising money from marriage is a mute point. What don't you understand about the Marriage Act?

Marriage was originally intended to form a binding arrangement to protect children when life spans seldom passed 40. That the laws in Aus now protect children and spouses whether married or not, legal marriage has become little more than a symbol of devotion.

I personally have no objection to same sex marriages or even polygamous marriages as long as all the participants are willing.
Given the cost of divorces, I see the main beneficiaries being the lawyers.

Saying that, I have been happily married for nearly 30yrs and am having to deal with the kids leaving and making their own lives. It is like a second honeymoon where the participants are decrepit.

Marriage records are of inestimable value to those doing family research and no less so in tracking and avoiding hereditable disease, for the latter reason alone there needs to be official records.

I don't know where the University of Qld got their figures from but based on what happened in Ireland, there won't be many same sex marriages at all.
In the 12 months following the referendum in Ireland only 412 same sex couples married. Given their population is quarter the size of Australia that equates to 1,200 marriages.
That's a huge difference in numbers. And it's supported by figures from other countries where same sex marriage numbers are low, making me wonder what all the hysteria is about when it appears few gay couples actually want to marry anyway.

Big Nana,

Because the number of same-sex couples wanting to marry is irrelevant.

<<That's a huge difference in numbers … making me wonder what all the hysteria is about when it appears few gay couples actually want to marry anyway.>>

What matters is that they should be allowed to if they want. There is no reason to deny them the same benefits.

It’s called equality.

An Adelaide man is fighting to keep his pregnant Russian girlfriend in Australia but immigration officials have rejected her pregnancy as a reason for a visa extension.

Single father-of-two Robert Pitt, 38, from Paradise, and Russian national Natasha Zaydenberg, 36, plan to marry (2013) after a whirlwind romance that started in March but have been told that "pregnancy is no grounds for a waiver" on her three-month tourist visa.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaide-man-fights-to-keep-pregnant-russian-girlfriend-here/news-story/c672b57a92ab9d30034f3b9e72392eb4?sv=29ca5443d3cbe594ee37dd1f2fe7e73

You will need to type in: Adelaide man fights to keep his Russian girlfriend here to read the story.

This story does not take into consideration any element of equality, economic activity, parental status or any other element of society.

Elements like "What matters is that they should be allowed to if they want. There is no reason to deny them the same benefits." are also not considered in the case I have just highlighted.

If there is going to be any acceptance of what has occurred in the case I have mentioned, legislation will not help this couple. The community at large may help or the couple in question will have to look at a range of options to determine their own future in terms of maintaining a sound relationship.

Marriage or legislation will not make a difference.

Is Mise, you said,"Marriage records are of inestimable value to those doing family research and no less so in tracking and avoiding hereditable disease, for the latter reason alone there needs to be official records".

Correct: but importantly there are no heredity genes passed on by same sex couples should they marry, as they cannot have offspring.

AJ, you don't mean equality. Not unless you support polygamy, group marriage and adult incestuous marriage. In fact any form of union between any consenting adults.
The consenting adults in these groups won't be allowed to marry under your " equality" rules.
No, what you want is to destroy a thousands year old tradition for the benefit of a handful of people who have decided that adopting a heterosexual custom will somehow normalise their relationship

Yes, I do mean ‘equality’, Big Nana.

<<AJ, you don't mean equality. Not unless you support polygamy, group marriage and adult incestuous marriage. In fact any form of union between any consenting adults.>>

We already covered this. Remember?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336500

Your comparing same-sex marriage to other harmful forms of married turned out to be false analogies.

<<The consenting adults in these groups won't be allowed to marry under your " equality" rules.>>

Already explained. See the discussion at the link provided. You are simply committing the slippery slope fallacy again.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

<<No, what you want is to destroy a thousands year old tradition… >>

You have yet to demonstrated this rather offensive assumption, and, going by your failure to support your claims on this topic in our previous discussion, face an uphill battle in doing so.

This is a fallacious appeal to tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

<<… for the benefit of a handful of people who have decided that adopting a heterosexual custom will somehow normalise their relationship>>

“Somehow normalise”? So, now you’re fallaciously appealing to nature?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

That’s the anti-marriage-equality trifecta of fallacies in a mere 75 words. It takes some fantastically poor reasoning to achieve that.

Josephus.

"Correct: but importantly there are no heredity genes passed on by same sex couples should they marry, as they cannot have offspring"

That's true but irrelevant to the topic, "Legislating people to accept marriage".

Dear Josephus,

Technological has changed. Same sex couples are now
able to have offspring by various methods and their
genes can be passed on.

Foxy

But you are only going over old ground when all that you have to do is to admit the obvious, as publicly conceded by Peter Hitchens, that the International Socialists, the 'Progressives' have already had their convincing wins and long ago.

Now all that remains is for the 'Progressives' to accept and admit responsibility where there are negative consequences of their social experiments.

from, http://davidvangend.com/?p=1984
Peter Hitchens, "People like me – though still allowed to speak – are allowed on to mainstream national broadcasting only under strict conditions: that we are ‘balanced’ by at least three other people who disagree with us so that our views, actually held by millions, are made to look like an eccentric minority opinion.”

Peter Hitchens: "You’ll have the whole world to yourself soon. You can’t imagine anybody else is entitled to hold a view different from yours without having some kind of personal defect. That’s what’s wrong with you…"

Dan Savage: …"It’s a less intolerant world than it used to be because people like me are now empowered to look at people like you and say you are full of [*profanity*]."

leoj,

I don't know what you're ranting on about.

I was merely responding to Josephus and his
comment that same-sex couples could not have
offspring or their genes passed on. I pointed
out that with the new technology currently
available this is not the case any longer in
today's world. I did not make any judgements
on the matter either one way or the other.
Simply stated the facts.

What is your problem?

NathanJ:

“If your relationship is sound, then you don’t need to get married.”

This is the crux of this issue. People get married for several reasons and most of them are aimed at staving off some insecurity they have about their relationship with each other or their relationship with society.

People marry in the hope that they can get someone to promise to stay in a relationship with them until ‘death do us part’. They forlornly hope that a mere promise is enough to protect them from being alone and anything less than death will save them. They conveniently ignore that such a promise is worthless since there are no penalties for breaking it and nearly half those who make that promise break it. You can make it as legal as you want but there is no ultimate protection from loneliness.

Of course they rationalise this insecurity by saying that they ‘love’ the person they want to marry and it logically follows that if you love someone a great deal then you marry them. There are millions of couples who love each other a great deal but do not marry.

Then there is the insecurity of their relationship with society, family and friends. They want their relationship recognised by them because it is a way of showing them that someone loves them enough to make that promise. It is a way of showing that they are loveable by at least one person. The question is why does it matter what all these others think of them? Why do they need the recognition and public affirmation of their lovableness? An emotionally secure person would not need this.

Homosexual people have their own particular insecurity. They want social recognition of their ‘homosexuality ‘. They think that being married will somehow help them to achieve this but no social recognition can ever compensate for a lack of personal insecurity. They may not have either of the other two insecurities but their own is enough to drive them towards a change in legislation and the pursuit of marriage.

AJ you seem to be unable to address the issue honestly. Dismissing something by referring to the slippery slope argument simply means you can't provide an argument against my point.
Firstly, it's not a slippery slope, there are movements around the world to legalise adult incest and polygamy, however, even if there wasn't, there are still adults from these groups who wish to marry. Many of them currently live together anyway.
As I stated earlier, if you actually support equality of marriage you have to support marriage for all consenting adults, regardless of the composition of the union.
Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

Sorry phanto, not true.

Marriage for me, & a large percentage of those I know is a commitment to a relationship. Sensible people don't make such commitments with out giving the idea some serious thought. I know many who have run away from this commitment once serious thought was applied to the thought of committing to it for life.

Personally I have no problem with being alone. I sailed for a number of years single handed, & you can't get much more alone than single handed in the far reaches of the Pacific. However I made the commitment to a relationship, & believe that commitment strengthened the relationship.

However unless it is a relationship that can naturally produce children, the commitment can not be the same, & marriage should never come into it.

AJ, I sometimes wonder if your misinterpretation of my comments is accidental or on purpose.
Nowhere did I refer to nature in regard SSM. My words were " normalise" which has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with common or majority custom or guidelines, as per the definition.
I suggest you look up the definition of " normal"

Not so, Big Nana,

<<Dismissing something by referring to the slippery slope argument simply means you can't provide an argument against my point.>>

I explained why your Slippery Slope argument was fallacious in our other discussion.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336452

But I’m happy to say, for the sake of argument, that you are not committing the Slippery Slope fallacy, because it ultimately doesn’t matter to the issue of equality whether or not you are.

<<… there are movements around the world to legalise adult incest and polygamy, however, even if there wasn't, there are still adults from these groups who wish to marry.>>

So what? Just because there are movements pushing for State-recognition of harmful relationships, that doesn’t mean we should withhold State-recognition of non-harmful relationships.

Your logic is flawed.

<<As I stated earlier, if you actually support equality of marriage you have to support marriage for all consenting adults, regardless of the composition of the union.>>

And as I pointed out earlier: not if the relationships are harmful.

You continuously overlook this crucial factor to push your bogus and bigotry-driven argument.

Sorry, Big Nana. It seems our posts crossed over.

<<I sometimes wonder if your misinterpretation of my comments is accidental or on purpose.>>

Yes, because it happens so-o-o-o often, doesn’t it?

<<Nowhere did I refer to nature in regard SSM. My words were " normalise" which has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with common or majority custom or guidelines, as per the definition.>>

I figured you'd go here. Which is why I read what you said very carefully before posting my presumptuous-sounding criticism. Let’s take a look at what you said again:

“No, what you want is to destroy a thousands year old tradition for the benefit of a handful of people who have decided that adopting a heterosexual custom will somehow normalise their relationship” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7778#239586)

So, as you can see, you had to have been referring to ‘normal’ in the sense of ‘natural’, since no one in their right mind could possibly conclude that marriage equality would make homosexuality more common.

Or do you think there are people out there who are actually that stupid?

<<I suggest you look up the definition of " normal">>

Oh, don't worry. I did. I'm very thorough like that. I suggest you do too.

For your benefit, Big Nana:

Normal:
(of a person) free from physical or mental disorders. (http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/normal)

While the definintion doesn't mention nature specifically, I've debated enough homophobic people to know that mental disorder is the go-to explanation for homosexuality for those who fallaciously appeal to nature.

Or perhaps I'm presuming too much and you haven't even thought about it that far?

Either way, at the end of the day, your argument involving polygamy, incest, or any other bizarre and unhealthy relationship you can think for to fallaciously appeal to emotion, is irrelevant to the issue of equality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

AJ you still haven't addressed the issue..
Firstly, where is your proof that any of these other relationships are harmful? Polygamy is practised all over the world by millions of people and seems to promote a healthy birth rate and fewer divorces than our western style marriage.
Adult incest has never been suggested anywhere to be harmful unless you are referring to to chance of genetic problems in children. However, seeing as our laws don't prevent people with known genetic disorders like Harmophilia or Cystic Fibrosis from marrying, you can't use that as an excuse.
And who are you to decide what is harmful. Many people think homosexual relationships are harmful but that doesn't stop the push for marriage.
In relation to the normal comment, yes I was referring to it as being the common, accepted version, not " natural" as you try and twist it to be. . You can put whatever interpretation on it you wish but you cannot change what I meant.
So in the end, you do not support marriage equality. At least have the honesty to admit that.

I've already provided reasoning for my claims there, Big Nana.

<<... where is your proof that any of these other relationships are harmful?>>

That link again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336500

But let’s say those other forms of marriage are not harmful. So what? All that means is that my call for equality extends to them as well.

<<Polygamy is practised all over the world by millions of people and seems to promote a healthy birth rate and fewer divorces than our western style marriage.>>

Great! Then bring it on. Equality for polygamists! If there is no harm, then there is no problem.

<<Adult incest has never been suggested anywhere to be harmful unless you are referring to to chance of genetic problems in children.>>

Great! Then bring it on. Equality for incestuous couples! If there is no harm, then there is no problem.

<<And who are you to decide what is harmful.>>

“At no point have I assumed the position of arbiter in this debate. All I have done is provide rational arguments as to why your unhealthy forms of marriage are not analogous to same-sex marriage.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18869#336500)

<<Many people think homosexual relationships are harmful but that doesn't stop the push for marriage.>>

That’s because they haven’t yet provided sound reasoning for that claim. Feel free to give it a go, if you think otherwise.

<<So in the end, you do not support marriage equality.>>

Yes, I do. And simply ignoring what I have said in the past does not change that.

You can't resist can you. Still calling those relationships unhealthy.
But you keep missing the point. Of course they they have to be included in marriage equality for gays, because equality means for all, it just the people you deem to be suitable.
Giving equality means giving it to people you don't approve of, as well as those you support.
Your constant use of the word unhealthy shows you do not believe all consenting adults should be allowed to marry. No one has to prove any relationship is healthy in order to marry. Plenty of heterosexual marriages are emotionally and physically unhealthy, as are many gay unions. It's not up to you to say people have to prove their relationship healthy or harmless.
If you preach equality then it's for all, regardless of whether or not you approve.
BTW, not supporting gay marriage does not mean people are homophobic . You need a more open mind.

stop playing god AJ, you are pathetically poor at it. I suspect one day you will read your own rants and be very embarassed.

Big Nana,

That’s probably because I’ve already provided OBJECTIVE arguments as to why they are.

<<Still calling those relationships unhealthy.>>

But I'm happy to grant, for the sake of argument at least, that they're not unhealthy.

<<Of course they they have to be included in marriage equality for gays, because equality means for all ...>>

Again, not if they would have deleterious societal effects. Your suggestion that equality must necessarily extend to absolutely everyone, regardless of the consequences, is absurd. By that reasoning, equality would mean releasing all prisoners, regardless of the consequences.

<<Giving equality means giving it to people you don't approve of, as well as those you support.>>

Correct. Unless that equality would have demonstrably deleterious effects, of course. Subjective preferences should not come into it.

<<No one has to prove any relationship is healthy in order to marry.>>

Of course they don’t. This is a straw man.

<<Plenty of heterosexual marriages are emotionally and physically unhealthy ...>>

Sure, but having heterosexual marriage isn’t the cause of those unhealthy relationships, nor does it represent a State endorsement or condoning of them.

This, and your confusion with regards to equality, is where I think you're going wrong.

<<It's not up to you to say people have to prove their relationship healthy or harmless.>>

Absolutely! Again, subjective preferences should not come into it.

<<If you preach equality then it's for all, regardless of whether or not you approve.>>

Correct. What I personally approve of is irrelevant, which is why I appeal to objective reasoning.

This has nothing to do with my personal preference, and I provide objective reasoning for this very reason. At no point have I appealed to my personal preference.

<<BTW, not supporting gay marriage does not mean people are homophobic .>>

It does if one continues to cling to one’s opposition to marriage equality despite having it shown to them that it cannot be rationally justified. But, by all means, please, open my mind. Why should same-sex couples not be allowed to marry?

Hasbeen:

“Marriage for me, & a large percentage of those I know is a commitment to a relationship”

It is a commitment to a particular person. Why would you commit yourself to someone for life? Everyone is entitled to the best possible relationship available to them. It shows a complete lack of self-respect to throw such a value out the window. If you find a better relationship then you should pursue it and you should also want your current partner to do the same. Nothing else makes sense.

That does not mean that you cannot be with the same person for your whole life but it is ludicrous to promise that and who would want to be with someone who lacks the self-respect to make such a promise?

You can have just as fruitful and endearing a relationship without this promise and many millions of people do exactly that. Wanting that ‘commitment’ is a sign of insecurity. A secure person is one who is secure irrespective of any relationships they have or do not have.

Both Hasbeen's and phanto's comments are particularly interesting. Because the advocates for trashing the Marriage Act and those elements (largely the same) who introduced changes to the de facto, or common law arrangements (Gillard Labor government), never even attempted to spell out what their new version of marriage was. They continually referred to 'relationship' as the alternative. But that was not spelled out either.

There has to be more than a long list of sometimes conflicting 'criteria' to say when a public bureaucrat might decide a 'relationship' exists or not for guvvy benefits, travel, superannuation and so on.

However Gillard herself and ors expressed no affection for marriage in any form and strived to bury it. To be fair, there were some on the other side, such as the senior politician and deputy leader, Julie Bishop who were nodding in agreement with Gillard's scorn for what was being sledged as 'traditional' marriage.

Others here have it that marriage is whatever you want it to be. But not when Centrelink payments might be lower as a consequence, one senses.

Where changes are proposed to marriage the onus is upon the s/he who is demanding change to spell out exactly what they are replacing it with. It is plain though that many young adults and probably more men, are not prepared to enter what is a murky swamp, infested by bureaucrats, lawyers and judges who are going to deliver unexpected and nasty surprises, if only in the cost of finalising what most adults used to be able to decide for free and then go about their daily lives.

Dear Phanto,

Commitment itself can make a relationship great.

Commitment can make a relationship the best possible relationship available to you. Not necessarily the most comfortable, not necessarily the most pleasurable, but the one which can improve your character and uplift you the most. With commitment, pleasure-seeking no longer takes the driver's seat.

Indeed, wanting a commitment is not a virtue - giving a commitment is!

---

Dear Joel,

«It is plain though that many young adults and probably more men, are not prepared to enter what is a murky swamp, infested by bureaucrats, lawyers and judges»

Not only plain but also fully justified.
No politician can change what Marriage is.
Marriage can only occur in heaven, before God, not before those clowns. Even when you are married, committed to the core and enjoy all blessings, you should not involve the sinful company of the state in your rejoicing, you should never invite them to your wedding.

Leoj:

There has to be more than a long list of sometimes conflicting 'criteria' to say when a public bureaucrat might decide a 'relationship' exists or not for guvvy benefits, travel, superannuation and so on.

Such a definition exists already and that is reasonable for the government to create such a definition. It does not follow that such a definition needs to exist in any other situation. It doesn't have to be defined. It is not another form of 'marriage' - it is the absence of marriage.

That is the whole point. Relationships do not need to be defined except in relation to the government. If you are a couple and you have business with the government then there needs to be a definition of your status and the government is very particular as to what that definition is.

There is no good reason why anyone else should demand a definition of your relationship.

phanto,

I understand where you are coming from I think and your questions are on the lips of many young men and women and anyhow, institutions should be questioned.

Through interests, especially boating, I meet many women who cannot understand why men are so reluctant, 'gun shy' one said only yesterday, to enter into anything that isn't obviously temporary and that conversation is first up (and regularly returned to). But to be certain of their status, many of the men are determined not to risk anything could could be vaguely construed as a continuing relationship.

The women for their part are often genuinely looking for a man to share life. They more often than not are professionals and have independent means (yes, some did have spouses who found someone in their twenties, or they took different paths). They can also demonstrate that they are not 'one of those types' who set out to take advantage. However they all admit that they do not understand what has gone so wrong, or how the social contract between ordinary men and women has become so fractured.

They often ask of the 'still married' men where all of the 'good men with commitment' have gone. However, when I think about though it, if the wife and I ever separated, wild horses couldn't drag me into marriage. Or as the modern version really is, practically speaking, defined by Gillard's brave new world of 'relationships'. Gillard and others show how that should work and they say they are satisfied with that.

I firmly agree with Hasbeen about commitment and the meaningful life of the previous institution of marriage and how it is so necessary and worthwhile to family, and which is not the hedonistic probably limited-term lust/convenience/happiness that Gillard and the socialists would have for us.

Marriage/relationship/family/or State is all a work in progress apparently. But should government embark on change without first agreeing the port of arrival with the public it is supposed to be serving?

Yuyutsu,
Sorry I did not come back to you directly.

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-17/marriage-in-australia-how-love-and-law-have-changed-in-130-years/8430254

leoj:

It’s very easy to romanticise about the good old days when everyone got married and stayed together for life but that does not necessarily mean they loved each other and love is the only logical reason to stay together.

They stayed together because of the social stigma attached to separation. They stayed together because women did not work and were unable to be independent financially. They stayed together because sexual freedom was not as prevalent as it was after artificial contraception became available. They stayed together for their kids. None of these are good reasons to be together.

Now if someone stays with you it is much more likely to be because they want to be with you – because they love you. In that sense relationships are much more honest and have more integrity than in the past. Just because they do not go through the rather pointless exercise of getting their certificate stamped by the government does not mean their relationships are worthless. It doesn’t matter what you call it. The only thing that matters is the genuine substance and emotional value of the relationship.

When men hear that women want commitment they are apt to be very cautious not because they are afraid of it but rather because they are afraid of a person who wants it. It is much more of a sign of insecurity in a woman than it has ever been. No one wants to settle down with someone who is that insecure.

Perhaps if love was the priority for women men might be more willing to partner such a person. As it stands it appears that women want security more than genuine love and no matter how you rationalise it it is not a very good foundation for any kind of relationship.

phanto,

You are right to say that memory can paint a more rosy picture of the past. Also, some things have improved and needed to.

Where I may disagree, because research indicates otherwise, is that living together produces longer lasting coupling than marriage. Not for the cynical reasons one might put forward that are the basis of many jokes but simply because we are more inclined to pause and try harder where there is a greater investment. The suggestion is that couples see marriage as involving a greater investment. So they are inclined to put some more effort in and they are inclined to accept greater difference between what they want their partner to be and the reality of the human condition.

100% of people must wake one day to find that the person next to them in bed has faults. Homosexuals fare no better. Lesbians suffering 7yr 'bed death' and other problems that necessitate another night out in a bar and that U-Haul trailer again.

Joking to one side, my concern is the casual, anti-democratic, contemptuous and arrogant way that recent Labor governments have treated citizens by making very significant changes to the longstanding institution (of marriage) without a mandate, and with no, or inadequate, direct consultation.

The government of Australia's first woman PM, Julia Gillard, would have to be the most deceitful, uncaring, ideologically-driven and undemocratic in Australia's history to date. The only possible defence for them could be that they were incompetent and their hubris at being in control didn't assist.

Although, based on his record and that of some of his colleagues, some from the Gillard government, Bill Shorten's government if he ever got in would likely be worse.

It is outrageous that one can meet so many able, skilled, competent and very nice people, men and women, who now distrust one another so thoroughly as a direct consequence of the Progressives' dabbling in personal, private relationships that men and women are more inhibited and untrusting towards the opposite sex.

It is Governments who should be undertaking to first do no harm.

“Where I may disagree, because research indicates otherwise, is that living together produces longer lasting coupling than marriage.”

There is no good reason why this should be the case and I would be wary of research that flies in the face of reason. If a couple is making more ‘effort’ in their relationship simply because they are married then they are doing so for the wrong reasons. Your level of effort and you willingness to compromise should be determined by your love for the particular person you are with and not out of respect for any man-made institution. People who are not married are just as able to make effort as those who are not simply because they are human beings and human beings can love each other without society’s affirmation.

Marriage is not proof of love and it is wrong to denigrate the love between two people simply because they have not gone through a wedding ceremony.

The government recognises this and that is why they are prepared to treat couples who live together in the same way as they treat married couples. They have changed a lot of legislation to correct the imbalance between the two to such an extent that no couple is actually being disadvantaged by not marrying. This is how governments should treat their citizens.

The question that should be asked is why they recognise two types of relationship which for their purposes are exactly the same. It is a complete waste of taxpayer resources to have two systems and one of them should be deleted. Since you cannot force people to marry then it is the registration of marriages which should be stopped.

If you want marriage you can still have it but there is no good reason why governments need to be involved in your marriage and governments should do nothing that is not backed by good reasons.

AJ, I would have more respect for you if you could just have the balls to admit you don't approve of adult incest and polygamy, however you are the worst type of bigot, one who pretends to be accepting whilst continually bringing up arguments why it shouldn't be accepted.
And by dragging in the " harm to community" argument you are destroying the strongest argument used by supporters of ssm. The theory that what happens in someone else's home does not affect anyone else and that gay marriage will not affect anyone else's marriage.
And you apparently are oblivious to the commonwealth Sexual Conduct Act 1994 which was used to abolish the anti sodomy laws in Tasmania and also decriminalises adult incest in private. So the law that finally fully legalised homosexuality across Australia did the same for adult incest and polygamy.
Yet you only accept marriage rights for one of those groups.
It's called bigotry.

"In response to the Tasmanian Parliament's refusal to repeal the offending laws, the Federal government passed the Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act 1994 - Section 4,[9] legalising sexual activity between consenting adults throughout Australia and prohibiting the making of laws that arbitrarily interfere with the sexual conduct of adults in private. In 1997 in the case of Croome v Tasmania, Croome applied to the High Court of Australia for a ruling as to whether the Tasmanian laws were inconsistent with the Federal Human Rights (Sexual Conduct) Act."

phanto,

Gillard's feminist ideologies broadened the description of de facto because it suited them to weaken and hopefully finally discard their despised marriage (and so-called 'traditional' family and fatherhood) and because so many of them were in federal and other public employment where the employment conditions gave additional entitlements to married, such as accompanied spousal travel and superannuation entitlements.

No-one has ever reckoned and publicised the additional costs to the taxpayer of that, or the following addition of homosexuals to the de facto group, but it would be considerable. Not bad if you can get it. and never you mind!

On the other hand, those who were not working and were on social security were disadvantaged through claimed economies of living arrangement and resultant lower payments. Again, that did not affect the educated middle class bureaucrats and politicians who were laughing all of the way to the bank and could smile too through reverse envy as the poorer on fixed incomes and social security were kept in their place and worse.

The largest group disadvantaged are employed singles and especially so in public service employment where they do not qualify for those extra 'married' benefits, but they pay for them indirectly because their employment package overall is reduced relatively specking to subsidise their fellows. There is only so much in the salary budgets.

You say that government should not register marriage. However those politicians and bureaucrats claiming 'married' benefits would disagree with you. Gays on Centrelink would disagree as an example of the opposite. I wonder how their dob-ins are going. Still, being regarded as 'married' has its downsides if one is not up there with those on guvvy sinecures.

However, the criticism remains where the Gillard government is concerned and to repeat, governments and the federal parliament particularly should be adminishing themselves to 'first do no harm'.

Oh, I’ve stated that outright, Big Nana.

<<I would have more respect for you if you could just have the balls to admit you don't approve of adult incest and polygamy …>>

I had even provided objective reasoning as to why. What more do you want me to say?

<<… you are the worst type of bigot, one who pretends to be accepting whilst continually bringing up arguments why it shouldn't be accepted.>>

In what way have I “pretended” to be accepting? How does my disapproval of polygamy and incestuous relationships contradict my being accepting? As with equality, there is nothing about being accepting which necessitates that one accept things that one believes is harmful.

<<And by dragging in the " harm to community" argument you are destroying the strongest argument used by supporters of ssm. The theory that what happens in someone else's home does not affect anyone else and that gay marriage will not affect anyone else's marriage.>>

No, no one has argued that. By that logic, murder wouldn't affect anyone else if it occurred in the privacy of one’s own home, purely by virtue of it having occurred in the privacy of one's own home. What kind of stupid logic would that be?

You have over-simplified and misrepresented the argument.

<<… the law that finally fully legalised homosexuality across Australia did the same for adult incest and polygamy.>>

You are confusing or conflating living arrangements and sex acts with marriage.

But, again, I’m happy to grant that polygamy and incest are perfectly benign (healthy, even) relationships that are deserving of equality.

Now what?

leoj:

You seem to be saying that such payments and advantages should only be given to those who have a marriage licence issued by the government because anything else is open to abuse.

Married people can abuse the system just as readily as couples who are not married. If the system can be rorted then it should be fixed by the government. Marriage will not fix the rorting.

I agree that single employed people get nothing out of it and that is unfair. Either the government treats everyone as a single person or they do not but if they are going to acknowledge that those who live together as a couple are worth special treatment then they have to acknowledge ‘de facto’ couples and married couples as having equal rights.

It seems you problem is with treating couples (either married or otherwise) differently than singles.

phanto, "You seem to be saying that such payments and advantages should only be given to those who have a marriage licence issued by the government because anything else is open to abuse"

No. I am saying that a select group, politicians and middle to senior bureaucrats, are doing very well for themselves out of the extended 'married' conditions and out of the taxpayer of course. Also that single workers are being forced to subsidise the relationship choices of others, that dramatically widened group of 'marrieds' and that is grossly unfair to them. Most singles are in lower paid jobs to make matters worse.

When it was just 'traditionally' married workers it was still unfair, but the load was nowhere near as burdensome as now. To reduce the load on the taxpayer they have made it crucial to abolish those 'married' conditions.

phanto, "It seems you problem is with treating couples (either married or otherwise) differently than singles"

My 'problem' you say? But isn't it everyone's problem where there is favouritism? Yes, there may be some rationalisation where welfare is concerned for doling out some lesser amount where shared reduces costs. But equally one might argue that singles should have a mind to be reducing welfare costs too by sharing digs - an initiative that is catching on.

Now, how do you justify (say) singles subsidising 'marrieds' in employment?

Phanto,

Sorry I was a little distracted, but you did say, "I agree that single employed people get nothing out of it and that is unfair.

I'd say that the public is fed up with the additional valuable benefits of politicians for example have accrued through voting in those extended definitions of 'married'.

Also there is the hypocrisy of 'Progressives' and feminists who despise the institution of marriage (and family and fathers!), but are the very first to put their hands out for benefits when they include themselves as 'marrieds' anyhow.

leoj:

I didn’t mean ‘problem’ in a personal sense but in a sense of disagreement which can be quite reasonable.

In the past people got married to get those benefits but benefits should be given to all couples because all couples married or not, are entitled to those benefits. All couples constitute two individuals each paying taxes and expecting government assistance. It is right that unmarried couples should be treated equally.

If it blows the budget then everyone should take a reduction in benefits and not only those who choose not to marry. Married couples are no more ‘worthy’ than unmarried couples.

If it is unfair to single people then something should be done to make it more equal. Either eradicate all payments to couples or give some other benefits to singles to even the playing field.

What you seem to be presenting is an argument to retain government recognition of traditional marriage alone based on the cost of extending benefits to other types of relationship. All couples have equal rights whether the government can afford to sustain them or not.

phanto,

I reckon that people are fooling themselves where they don't realise and act as though we are all in this 'space capsule' together, it is a cooperative effort
and
where they don't seem to accept that there is a limit on the taxes that can be collected before those who earn them choose to get up and leave for elsewhere.

I don't see why any junior worker starting out should be obliged to accept fewer dollars in his/her pay packet to subsidise the travel of those staff who are entitled to travel and to have their squeeze, married, de facto, gay, lesbian or alphabetical other with 'rights', along as well and paid for it.

However this is all away from my essential point, which is that I really don't mind what applies as long as the decisions have been made democratically. That presumes that voters, the public , are properly informed to start with and are properly engaged and consulted on the needs and options. Our universities have practical, well-tried examples of consultations that work and very economical too.

A reminder of the Gillard government example given earlier and by a party in government that doesn't even believe in internal democracy for itself.

phanto,

This will probably be enough posts from me for a while. I remembered a video you might find interesting on the marriage v de facto difference we were talking about. About 12:00 on but all of it is a jolly good watch and I hope not a waste of your free time.

Good to chat with you.

the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS8R2TKrYi0

Now AJ the discussion is over because you you admitted outright that all consenting adult relationships are equal. That's all I wanted.
So, equality of marriage means equality for all.
Personally, I don't be.ieve in marriage equality. I believe marriage as an i stitution was developed d to ensure genetic bloodlines, protect children and guarantee inheritance.
Any other legal unions should be given a name to suit their functuon. I think all types of relationships should be able to have equal legal standing just different names, like parents have different names. Ie mother and father. Equal but different

Big Nana,

I have admitted no such thing, and it is dishonest of you to pretend that I have.

<<Now AJ the discussion is over because you you admitted outright that all consenting adult relationships are equal. That's all I wanted.>>

I am, however, happy to agree with you that all consenting adult relationships should be treated equally for the sake of argument. There’s a difference.

<<So, equality of marriage means equality for all.>>

Correct. However, as I have always maintained, it is reasonable to deny equality to a relationship type if it can be shown to be socially harmful.

<<Personally, I don't be.ieve in marriage equality. I believe marriage as an i stitution was developed d to ensure genetic bloodlines, protect children and guarantee inheritance.>>

That is one reason, yes. However, that in itself is not an argument to keep it that way unless you want to fallaciously appeal to tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

<<Any other legal unions should be given a name to suit their functuon.>>

But you didn't list the only function of marriage, so how similar do other forms of marriage have to be before they can use the same word? Do you have a formula for this? Or are you just committing the etymological fallacy now, too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

<<I think all types of relationships should be able to have equal legal standing just different names, like parents have different names. Ie mother and father. Equal but different>>

Even if they can be shown to be harmful? I don't see how you've justified the need for a difference word yet, either.