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.