Philips:

“Morally speaking? No. But if the two are married, then it certainly simplifies the situation.”

So you would prefer simplification to morality? It says a lot about your values.

“Those dealing with the emergency wouldn't have to rely on their better judgement of how close a de facto couple are with a game of 20 questions,”

How does marriage guarantee closeness of relationship? There are millions of people who are married who cannot stand each other and there are millions of people who love each other dearly but are not married.

“But if you can think of a fairer system which is just as simple, cost-effective, and has all the same legal rights and protections, then, by all means, let the world know about it.”

Why not just register relationships that guarantee all those things without the need to be married? It does not have to be marriage.

“They at least had the choice.”

Well they don’t have a choice if they want all those rights as you would have it. They have to get married in order to get those rights which is not a choice at all.

“feigned outrage”

Everyone who is exposed as cruel and unjust always blames it on the other person. Like bullies who blame their victims for being too sensitive

Not at all, phanto.

<<So you would prefer simplification to morality?>>

It is the simplification that makes the current arrangement the more moral (albeit imperfect) one. Unless you want to argue that the inevitable complex legal mess, that would result in the absence of marriage, would actually be the more ideal scenario?

Are you not familiar with the concept of utilitarianism? Or are you just being obtuse again?

<<How does marriage guarantee closeness of relationship?>>

It doesn’t. But if there is no closeness then divorce, or not getting married in the first place, are always options.

<<There are millions of people who are married who cannot stand each other and there are millions of people who love each other dearly but are not married.>>

I’m sure there are.

<<Why not just register relationships that guarantee all those things without the need to be married?>>

What? You mean, like getting married? We already have that.

<<It does not have to be marriage.>>

So, how would this not-married marriage (let's call it "schmarriage" for simplicity's sake, I've got a feeling you'll be going around in circles on this one for a while yet) be different to actual marriage?

<<Well they don’t have a choice if they want all those rights as you would have it.>>

Yes, they do. By getting married.

<<They have to get married in order to get those rights which is not a choice at all.>>

And how would this supposed non-choice to marry or not marry be any different from the arrangement that would exist with your proposed relationship registration (or "schmarriage")?

<<Everyone who is exposed as cruel and unjust always blames it on the other person.>>

Now, that's the pot calling the silverware 'black'. You are yet to demonstrate any cruelty or injustice on my behalf. All we’ve gotten from you so far is hyperbole and feigned outrage based on simplistic assumptions of what I have been saying.

Again, get a grip.

Philips:

If marriage is just a glorified registration system to ensure rights then why bother getting married at all? Let’s just have a registration system for all couples regardless of whether or not they choose to marry. If they want to marry they can but there is no need for government involvement in marriage if we have a universal registration system.

Marriage does not have to be sanctioned by government. Only the registration of couples who want to avail themselves of rights as a couple in relation to the government needs to be sanctioned by the government.

Those who want to can marry and those who do not want whatever marriage has to offer can have their rights as a couple sanctioned by government.

You are making people do something which they do not want to do and should not have to do in order to get the official recognition they need to obtain rights.

You say we already have such a system so if there is no difference between marriage and government registration then why are people so desperate to get married. What does marriage offer that a registration system without marriage does not offer?

There are important symbolic factors too, phanto.

<<If marriage is just a glorified registration system to ensure rights then why bother getting married at all?>>

We’ve been discussing why for the last few posts.

<<Let’s just have a registration system for all couples regardless of whether or not they choose to marry.>>

Sounds like a useless double-up to me.

<<If they want to marry they can but there is no need for government involvement in marriage if we have a universal registration system.>>

Okay, but why would we bother to set up such a system when the one we have already works fine, and would work even better if it were opened to same-sex couples?

And why would you - someone who is not religious, and doesn’t care for marriage - be so desperate to protect marriage from same-sex couples? Remember, phanto, that one of your many failed angles in this debate over the years was to argue that implementing marriage equality would waste time and money:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7363#227160

Now suddenly you want to spend a heap of money and time implementing a redundant system to protect an institution that you have spent years criticising?

Something’s not adding up here.

<<Those who want to can marry and those who do not want whatever marriage has to offer can have their rights as a couple sanctioned by government.>>

Okay, but why block same-sex couples from one of the options? It’s discriminatory. This tangent you’ve taken us on still doesn’t explain that.

<<You are making people do something which they do not want to do and should not have to do in order to get the official recognition they need to obtain rights.>>

No, it is you who is preventing some from being able to do something they should be allowed to do. That aside, I'm fine with your improvised solution.

<<... if there is no difference between marriage and government registration then why are people so desperate to get married.>>

Because marriage is an internationally-recognised relationship status, and because equality is symbolic as much as it is practical.

Philips:

“Sounds like a useless double-up to me.”

How is it a double up? All couples whether they want to marry or not and who want the rights to accessibility register for them. No couples then need government sanctioned marriage since there is nothing to be gained from government sanctioned marriage.

Everyone has to register one way or the other in order to get the rights. Your way insists that they also have to marry which is not what they want. They only want the rights to accessibility etc. and are prepared to register for them. In order to get their rights you are saying that they also have to marry. No marriage no rights.

There is no doubling up since they already have to register one way or the other. You are insisting on marriage as being a condition of anyone having these rights. You are imposing your conditions on what are fundamentally human rights and human rights should have no conditions upon them at all.

“Okay, but why would we bother to set up such a system when the one we have already works fine, and would work even better if it were opened to same-sex couples?”

It doesn’t work fine since it denies human rights unless a certain condition is met.

“Okay, but why block same-sex couples from one of the options? It’s discriminatory.”

You are not blocking them from one of the options since there would be no option to have government sanctioned marriage. It would be unnecessary under a system of registration of couples who have accessibility rights.

“Because marriage is an internationally-recognised relationship status, and because equality is symbolic as much as it is practical.”

This is not dependent on government involvement in marriage at all. Either marriage has those things and has had them forever or it does not. Government involvement in marriage does not alter those things.

Apparently they do, phanto, and apparently there is.

<<No couples then need government sanctioned marriage since there is nothing to be gained from government sanctioned marriage.>>

In fact, the case I put forward was apparently so convincing that you devised a plan to take care of the legal needs of couples with a means of registering relationships with the government.

<<Your way insists that they also have to marry which is not what they want. They only want the rights to accessibility etc. and are prepared to register for them. In order to get their rights you are saying that they also have to marry.>>

They're entitled to such rights if they assign their partner as their next-of-kin. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that marriage simplifies the situation and is a complete, convenient, and standardised package of rights, and you want to deny that to same-sex couples.

<<There is no doubling up since they already have to register one way or the other.>>

But same-sex couples can only access one method with your improvised system, right?

<<You are imposing your conditions on what are fundamentally human rights and human rights should have no conditions upon them at all.>>

We've been discussing why restrictions are necessary. You even devised a new system to account for the necessity. Remember?

You don't get to sit there and make me or to be the monster with your feigned outrage when you are the only one here imposing unreasonable restrictions by saying that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to get married.

<<... it denies human rights unless a certain condition is met.>>

Yes, "human rights". So does your schmarriage.

<<You are not blocking them from one of the options since there would be no option to have government sanctioned marriage.>>

But you just said that there would be no double-up because both methods would be registered with the government.

You're all over the shop here, aren't you?

<<[International recognition] is not dependent on government involvement in marriage at all.>>

Actually, it is with some ultra-conservative countries that expect couples be married (e.g. UAE).