Philips:

“As I had stated earlier, if de facto couples want the same rights as married couples, then they need only marry. I do not think this is too much to ask for, given the need to differentiate between the untoward pair of hypothetical teenagers I mentioned and the couple committed for life. Not to mention the ramifications of not correctly differentiating between the two in certain situations.”

This is deeply offensive to de facto couples to reduce them to comparisons with two ‘horny teenagers’. De facto couples can be as deeply committed as married couples and even more so in millions of cases and yet you would deny them the same rights because they do not want to be considered as a married couple.

It shows how cruel you are and how desperate you are to elevate marriage above all other relationships just to score points against Christians.

Yeah, it would be a real surprise for the bride to find out some time after the bridezilla event, that her husband's gay love interest prior or continuing :( had surfaced and is making a claim on the marriage assets.

The point is however that SSM already exists through Common Law Marriage, even if Gillard's feminist idealism granted married status but baulked at the marriage word, as in Common Law Marriage.

What about a new title of Clayton's Marriage? Beaut for the opportunist middle class and inner city Hip. Which is where you want the married benefits, especially of public employment eg being a pollie and you want any assets going from your 'partner' too, but those tedious, old-fashioned, definitely NOT 'Progressive', requirements of the Marriage Act are getting in your road somehow?

Hey, already 99% there already, thanks to Gillard et al. Bigamy is s too at least where making a claim under the Family Law Act is concerned and that is what it is all about isn't it, the money?

Dear phanto,

I apologise for any offense I may have caused you.

<<This is deeply offensive to de facto couples to reduce them to comparisons with two ‘horny teenagers’.>>

However, I was not referring to all de facto couples there. The untoward teenagers I described were merely one extreme end of a very broad spectrum of relationships captured by the ‘de facto’ category. I believe this should have been rather obvious, as I had contrasted them with the committed de facto couple.

<<De facto couples can be as deeply committed as married couples …>>

Indubitably. Which is why I described life-long committed couples as examples of the other end of the spectrum. I trust this reminder eases any offence caused.

<<.. and yet you would deny them the same rights because they do not want to be considered as a married couple.>>

No, I would deny them the same rights because a line needs to be drawn somewhere, for the reasons already mentioned. Alternatively, perhaps the couple could duck down to the registry office quietly to sign the papers and not tell anyone about the marriage? I am not aware of any couples who are quite so averse to getting married, though. There are a lot of people who do not want to do a lot of things, but it is not practical to allow for every possible quirk individuals may have. Exceptions are generally made in the case of religious convictions, however.

<<It shows how cruel you are and how desperate you are to elevate marriage above all other relationships just to score points against Christians.>>

It is indeed most disheartening to hear that I have come across to you as cruel. You sound very upset at the moment.

Regarding point scoring and Christians, if you could enlighten me as to what it is that I have done to cause you to have such concerns, I would be more than happy to explain my behaviour.

Philips:

“I apologise for any offense I may have caused you.”

What makes you think you caused me any offence? It is very dishonest to apologise for things you have not done and you do not know you have caused offence. Apologies are only meaningful when you know you have done something wrong and not when you may have done something wrong.

So if de facto couples range from two horny teenagers to deeply committed couples how does the government decide which couples on that spectrum it will distribute advantages to? It does distribute rights and advantages to de facto couples – almost as many as to married couples. As you say there needs to be a line so where is the line for de facto couples? It would not be at the two horny teenager end of the scale so why do you need to mention that end of the scale. Why not compare the point on the scale where governments give rights to de facto couples to the rights given to married couples? Wouldn’t that be more reasonable?

“Alternatively, perhaps the couple could duck down to the registry office quietly to sign the papers and not tell anyone about the marriage?”

But that would be a lie and make a sham of the whole marriage ceremony. Surely there is more to being married for the couple than partaking in a sham. Why would you have people perform a sham ceremony to get their rights when you can give them to them without compromise to their integrity?

“It is indeed most disheartening to hear that I have come across to you as cruel.”

That is a very dishonest thing to say. Why would it be disheartening to you how you come across? It only matters what you are and either you are cruel or you are not.

“You sound very upset at the moment”

Where is the evidence that I am upset? Even if I were upset what makes you think it has anything to do with your behaviour? Not everything is about you.

Dear phanto,

<<What makes you think you caused me any offence?>>

Your stating that my words were deeply offensive, in a tone that deteriorated suddenly.

<<Apologies are only meaningful when you know you have done ...>>

They may also be meaningful if one suspects one has caused offence.

<<… how does the government decide which couples on that spectrum it will distribute advantages to?>>

The government does not discriminate.

<<… where is the line for de facto couples?>>

There is only one type of de facto couple.

<<… why do you need to mention [the untoward teenagers’] end of the scale.>>

To explain how broad the category is.

<<Why not compare the point on the scale where governments give rights to de facto couples to the rights given to married couples?>>

There is no such point. The untoward teenage couple may be treated the same as the de facto couple committed for life. Any difference is left to the discretion of judges, for each individual case.

<<Why would you have people perform a sham ceremony to get their rights when you can give them to them without compromise to their integrity?>>

Because, as you seem to agree, a line must be drawn somewhere. If you disagree with where the line is currently drawn, then I would suggest that you contact your local MP.

<<Why would it be disheartening to you how you come across?>>

Because some do not want to be seen as cruel.

<<It only matters what you are and either you are cruel or you are not.>>

Ultimately, yes, but we still need to exist with those who have negative perceptions of us. No-one lives in a bubble.

<<Where is the evidence that I am upset?>>

The evidence is the sudden deterioration of your tone, and the words chosen to describe my actions.

<<Even if I were upset what makes you think it has anything to do with your behaviour?>>

Because I give you enough credit to assume that you are not letting outside matters colour the tone you use with me.

<<Not everything is about you.>>

Indubitably.

Wow! Heading for 200 posts on this one, most of which have nothing to do with the topic introduced by the bloke who can't spell his own 'name'.