AJ Phillips,

If you reckon that marriage promotes stability you need to demonstrate the what and how of that.

Are you saying it introduces inconveniences to splitting up, such as forms, procedure, court and higher costs, which produce the stability of remaining trapped in a relationship that is unsatisfactory?

I've already outlined the personal contributions to making a relationship work effectively. That is, where both are mature and motivated enough to self-control and pitch in.

I am wondering what State recognition does to 'stabilise' as you say.

I’ve already noted some reasons why marriage promotes stability, leoj.

<<If you reckon that marriage promotes stability you need to demonstrate the what and how of that.>>

Again, there are psychological, social, legal, and financial factors which may influence a couple’s decision in how much they work towards the relationship before calling it quits.

You seem to have somewhat grasped the legal and financial factors I mentioned. Then there are also the social factors (such as the stigma of divorce), and the psychological factors (such as the belief that one needs to make a genuine attempt to save the relationship because a vow has been made).

<<Are you saying it introduces inconveniences to splitting up, such as forms, procedure, court and higher costs, which produce the stability of remaining trapped in a relationship that is unsatisfactory?>>

That was a small part of what I said, yes. However, you have inserted the “in a relationship that is unsatisfactory” bit yourself. What I have said is not confined to relationships that are inevitably doomed.

If a relationship really is so unsatisfactory that it is destined to fail, then marriage can still help to promote stability, it's just that it will ultimately fail in the end. This still does not negate my point, however.

<<I've already outlined the personal contributions to making a relationship work effectively.>>

Yes, and I have already explained how that does not negate my point. You’re still not quite getting the difference between promotion and remedy, are you?

<<I am wondering what State recognition does to 'stabilise' as you say.>>

You just mentioned a couple of ways. I expanded on another two.

Again, though, this is all irrelevant, because gay couples are already having children. Therefore, I have to ask what you’re point is here? Even if you were right, that would say nothing for whether or not same-sex marriage should be allowed, and you would still have the fact that allowing for same-sex marriage would help reduce stigmatisation for those children of such relationships working against your opposition to same-sex marriage.

AJ Philips,

What you have done is list some of the objections feminists and 'Progressives' generally have to heterosexual marriage and why they want to see it dispensed with ASAP.

As well, sadly the claimed simplicity and economy of parting under what was the new family law were false promises, with no dependents, one shared home divorces escalating past $40k. Complicated and expensive, ensuring that one, likely both, lose any assets and investments.

Foxy too, while vigorously representing the case for SSM through finding flaws in 'traditional'(sic) or heterosexual(sic) marriage as she is prone to do (Foxy is also one who claims that SSM was allowed all of the time and intended by the Marriage Act had Howard not amended it), actually proves the case against marriage per se and especially where children are concerned. At the end if one is assured of anything, it is that marriage is no guarantor of better raising of children, or even having children, than its avoidance which seems better.

Of course it could be argued that since Gillard (who better for a listing of the flaws of marriage?) and her government boasted of amending over eighty Acts to remove forever all discrimination against homosexuals, that they should have stopped there. Although Gillard, first female PM, Roxon, first female Attorney-General and ors despised marriage, they were still emulated Lady Godiva, by having half each way of the grey, to hoover up the entitlements of married status, where available.

They also herded homosexuals into the corral of State control, the confines of the despised 'traditional' marriage, through changes to de facto 'relationships' (their newspeak for common law marriage).

To cut to the chase, if feminists and more broadly, 'Progressives' are to be believed, they have already sentenced homosexuals to the very same flawed institution of marriage that they want gone and are just finishing off the job.

Obviously, there are distinct advantages for the well-off, the elite, in having 'married' status and especially where employment gives substantial benefits, thinking superannuation, travel and housing. No silver lining and golden handshake, for the common herd.

leoj,

Could you please give an example of where I found
flaws in heterosexual relationships? You state that
I am prone to do this. Which frankly is news to me.

As for our former Prime Minister John Howard
Amending the Marriage Act in 2004. That he did.
Prior to 2004, marriage was not defined. It was
"between two people." Mr Howard made it specifically
to read "between a man and a woman to the
exclusion of all others."

The point that was being made was that if the government
could amend the Marriage Act. It can also change it back.
Especially since -
Marriage in this country is a legal contract controlled
by the government. The government does have the power to
make changes. That was the point being made.

cont'd ...

leoj,

You make the sweeping generalisation that feminists
and progressives have objections to heterosexual
relationships. What evidence do you have for this
assumption?

Just because some people support same-sex
marriages does not mean that they are anti-heterosexual
relationships. They may possibly be merely trying to
dispel some of the myths and fallacies that currently
exist about both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
The pros and cons so to speak.

Also, just because a person raises certain arguments in
a debate does not necessarily reflect that person's own
private opinion. Surely you must have taken part in formal
debating at some stage of your life.
Perhaps not.

Dear Foxy,

By claiming that: "Marriage in this country is a legal contract controlled by the government" you are making a cruel mockery of marriage.

Marriage is marriage whether you are in Australia or on the moon - either it's there or it isn't. To deny the reality of marriage by saying that other people can decide and change what is in your heart of hearts, is not even a funny joke.

To demonstrate, let us suppose that government legislates that you are now married to some elephant in the zoo - would that, in your view, actually render you married to that elephant?