Dear phanto,

A good reason as to why the same benefits should not be available to de facto couples, is because the parties to such a living arrangement may not yet be in agreement as to what rights and responsibilities they want in the relationship.

If a de facto couple do decide that they want the privileges that come with marriage, and the responsibilities that they entail, then they need only get married. But they may only do this if they are a male and a female, of course, which is where the discrimination comes in.

Philips:

It is irrelevant what they decide - it is about what the government decides. The government apparently gives more advantages to married couples than they do to de facto couples. Why give any advantages to de facto couples at all unless you have a clear cut definition of what constitutes a de facto couple and clearly the government has such a definition.

Why are there differences in rights between those under the government definition of a married couple and those under the government definition of a de facto couple?

Dear ttbn,

Kindly re-read my previous post.

I was not referring to you when I mentioned
the fact that nobody likes or supports an illogical
and abusive debater. It was a generalisation that
I added after stating that
hopefully violence would not continue with the debate
of this issue. I honestly did not have you in
mind. Why would you assume that I did when I was previously
telling you that I understood where you were coming
from and appreciated your explanations.

If you wish to have nothing further to do with me -
that is your choice. I have been on this forum
for over a decade and I've managed to live without you over
all those years. I dare say I will be able to struggle
along without you in the future

After getting a text message urging me to vote yes I will now collect another dozen discarded
ones and mail them in with a no vote.
Foxy
Why are you so opposed to violence?
The animal kingdom is ruled by violence.
We are animals.
Everything is ruled by violence.
If you don't send you kid to school the headmaster sends the truant officer to coerce you to do so.
If you don't he turns up with a policeman why tells you to do so.
If you refuse he arrests you. If you resist he uses violence to arrest you and if you are too
strong for him he shoots you dead with his gun.
Surely this is violence.
Every law in this country is backed up with a threat of violence for compliance right to the point of killing citizens.
Don't preach non violence to me Foxy. You would soon enough look to people like me to use
violence to protect you or your family, or is that somehow different.

Dear Chris,

You asked why I am opposed to violence?
What a peculiar question. But I shall
briefly try to explain:

My family members
were survivors of a very brutal regime.
They lived through difficult times and their
eyes saw what no people should witness, including having
their family members tortured and brutally
killed. As a result my parents stressed the importance
to their children of - behaving decently.

As far as violence and police-work goes.
I have a relative who was in the Los Angeles Police
Department (LAPD). He's now retired.
He's been awarded quite a few medals of valour - to
my knowledge it was for saving people - not killing
them.

cont'd ...

Dear Chris,

BTW: You should know that the scenario you spoke of
regarding school-children and truancy - is not
an experience that my family has ever gone through. Both my
boys finished tertiary education and are now happily
employed and family men. Also I don't encounter violence
in my everyday life - nor have I had any dealings with
the police. Hopefully that situation will continue.

Cheers.