Hi Ttbn,

Did he mean copric embarrassment, or coprological emmbarasmment, or what ? And what might that mean in the context of homosexual relations ? Farts of passion ?

Is it possible to be unmarried and happy ? Of course.

Is it possible to be madly in love, and stay unmarried ? Yes, of course.

If marriage is supposed to be between equals, then who is the provider and who is the homemaker, or the 'spouse' ? If one partner in a homosexual relationship dies, should the survivor get a pension, as the widow ? What if the deceased is already married, but to a person of the opposite sex ?

Hmmmm ..... what happens in such cases where the deceased has had another long-term homosexual relationship before his current one ? Who gets the benefits of the distribution of assets after his/her death ? Who gets the pension benefits ?

Is it possible for a homosexual to have been legally married but not divorced, and also to have been in a long-term relationship with another homosexual, maybe more than one such relationship, before their current relationship ? Who gets the goodies in such circumstances ? Do all of the 'spouses' share ?

If a homosexual has been married but not divorced, and enters into a homosexual relationship, would they have to get divorced, or would heterosexual and homosexual marriages be treated as different in law ?

Or is much of all of this already covered by legislation relating to de facto arrangements ?

Philips:

“Your stating that my words were deeply offensive”

I said they were deeply offensive to de facto couples why would you assume that they would be offensive to me?

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

No that doesn’t make sense. You would have to be sure you have caused offence and that you intended to cause offence or else it is meaningless. Why would you apologise unless you were sure you had done something wrong? That would be very undignified. Why would you have such a poor sense of integrity?

“The government does not discriminate.”

Well it does and there is nothing wrong with that. It does not give rights and advantages to everyone on the continuum as described by you. It has definite criteria which must be met.

“There is only one type of de facto couple.”

Not according to the government. Check out the Centrelink definition of a couple it runs for several pages.
Why shouldn’t those who fit this definition be given the same rights and privileges as married couples?

“To explain how broad the category is.”

We agree that it is broad but not everyone on that broad continuum is eligible for government rights and privileges so it makes no sense to focus on how broad it is. It only makes sense to focus on the section of the continuum to which the government gives rights and privileges.

“There is no such point”

There is such a point. There is a definition of a de facto couple which the government has in order to determine Centrelink benefits. Why can’t this definition be used to define couples who are entitled to the benefits that married people are entitled to?

cont.

cont.

“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.”

But why do YOU think it should be drawn at married people? Why should people be forced to make promises to have and to hold until death they shall part and to say all those other things pertaining to marriage just in order to obtain basic human rights?

“Because some do not want to be seen as cruel.”

But why does it bother you in particular since you are the one objecting?

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

But that’s not living with much integrity if you behave according to what others want you to do.

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

I called you cruel. That is not a change in tone it is a statement of opinion. Where else is their evidence of a change in tone?

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

See above in regard to tone.

//Did he mean copric embarrassment, or coprological emmbarasmment, or what ?//

I think he might have actually meant cupric, an old-fashioned bit of chemical terminology referring to copper in the (II) oxidation state - but nobody uses it anymore, you just say copper(II) instead. I think his name was supposed to be some sort of reference to Malcolm's shite fibre-to-the-node NBN.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong. If you ask me, that bloke wasn't in possession of all his marbles. He seems to have wandered off now anyway.

Dear phanto,

<<… why would you assume that they would be offensive to me?>>

I did not, necessarily. Note my wording “… may have caused you.”

<<You would have to be sure you have caused offence and that you intended to cause offence or else it is meaningless.>>

Why can not one apologise for any offence that they suspect they may have caused, for there to be any meaning?

<<Why would you apologise unless you were sure you had done something wrong?>>

As a contingency measure.

<<[The government] does not give rights and advantages to everyone on the [de facto] continuum as described by you.>>

It does per its definition of de facto as outlined in s 4AA of the Family Law Act, which also captures the hypothetical teenagers of which I spoke.

<<Check out the Centrelink definition of a couple it runs for several pages.>>

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/your-relationship-status

I am not sure how this changes anything I have said. The teenagers are still treated the same as the life-long committed de facto couple, as far as I can see.

<<Why shouldn’t those who fit this definition be given the same rights and privileges as married couples?>>

Because they have not formally agreed to the terms and conditions.

<<It only makes sense to focus on the section of the continuum to which the government gives rights and privileges.>>

And how does the government define this section separely from the Family Law Act? How do the hypothetical teenage couple not qualify?

<<Why should people be forced to make promises …>>

This is expected of all parties entering contracts entailing rights and responsibilities.

<<But why does it bother you in particular …>>

“Because [I] do not want to be seen as cruel.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7926#245780)

<<But that’s not living with much integrity if you behave according to what others want you to do.>>

I did not suggest that anyone should, myself included.

<<I called you cruel. That is not a change in tone it is a statement of opinion.>>

That was indeed one such example, as neither of us had engaged in name-calling before that.

I'm a very slow learner, and it's just hit me that something might be legal, we can support its legality, but we don't have to like it. I can't stand slow drivers (unless it's me teasing one of those big-arse 4-WDs, by weaving slowly all over the road - it drives them CRAZY ! Try it !) but I'll defend their right to use the road. There's legal, and there's desirable.

Maybe getting over this morning's hangover (well, it IS Tuesday) showed me that, while I support the right to drink to excess, since it's legal, I don't necessarily like its consequences. Nor do I like even the idea of drinking sweet sherry, ghastly stuff.

So I'll come out of the closet and admit that although I support its legality, I find poking some other bloke up the arse with one's member is distasteful and repulsive, but that I don't have to like it, nobody does. People should be free to do it if they wish, but nobody else has to go all gushy over it.

Just saying.

Joe