Philips:

So the rights are dependent on life-long commitment? Why would anyone want to make a life-long commitment to stay in a relationship with another person? Moreover, why would anyone want another person to make that commitment to them?

Relationships do not stay the same and people change. Every human being has a right to come and go in or out of any relationship they choose. To forgo that right would be to do a serious injury to one’s fundamental right to happiness. Why does the government make the distribution of rights dependent on a commitment that threatens one’s fundamental right to happiness?

Why would any person sign a contract that could commit them to a life of misery and why would the government insist on this before it distributes rights?

Your criteria is obviously commitment and not only commitment but public commitment before the state but this flies in the face of everyone’s fundamental right to happiness. You see this as a contract but it is not a contract that anyone with any sense of self-respect would enter into.

This is not to say that it is not possible to spend a life time together in happiness but that is a day to day proposition. Why would you commit to a life-long commitment without knowing what may eventuate in the future? That would be an absurd act of violence upon oneself.

Why should this act of violence upon one’s self be the criteria for obtaining government benefits? Surely de facto couples have a much more human attitude to relationships and deserve to be given the same rights as those who have so little regard for their own well-being.

Joe:

I think it is distasteful and repulsive to homosexuals as well but they would never admit it.

Dear phanto,

That has traditionally been one of the premises behind marriage, at least.

<<So the rights are dependent on life-long commitment?>>

There has been talk of changing this with the introduction of fixed-term marriages.

<<Why would anyone want to make a life-long commitment to stay in a relationship with another person?>>

Because they love each other deeply. I am sorry if you have never experienced such a love before.

<<Moreover, why would anyone want another person to make that commitment to them?>>

Because they love that person too.

<<Relationships do not stay the same and people change.>>

Indubitably. This is one of the challenges of marriage.

<<Every human being has a right to come and go in or out of any relationship they choose.>>

Correct. This is the reason for no-fault divorce.

<<To forgo that right would be to do a serious injury to one’s fundamental right to happiness.>>

I agree. Some more conservative types do not, however.

<<Why does the government make the distribution of rights dependent on a commitment that threatens one’s fundamental right to happiness?>>

It does not. Divorce is legal.

<<Your criteria is obviously commitment …>>

A commitment to certain rights and responsibilities at least, yes. But it matters not what I think.

<<Why would you commit to a life-long commitment without knowing what may eventuate in the future?>>

Out of love.

<<Why should this act of violence upon one’s self be the criteria for obtaining government benefits?>>

Well, I would disagree that it is an act of violence. But I think, more important than the “life long” bit, is the agreement to certain rights and responsibilities; for so long as the marriage lasts, at least.

<<Surely de facto couples have a much more human attitude to relationships and deserve to be given the same rights as those who have so little regard for their own well-being.>>

Perhaps, assuming that your premises are accurate, that is. But, then, we just come back to the problem of how we differentiate between the hypothetical teenagers and the committed de facto couple.

Philips:

“ I am sorry if you have never experienced such a love before.”

That is a very arrogant attitude. Is that one of your forbidden ad hominums? You have absolutely no idea what I have or have not experienced.

So two horny teenagers can pop down to the registry and get married and immediately have all the same rights that a married couple who have been together for fifty years. They promise to be committed but have no intention of honouring such a commitment. Still they get all the rights because they have signed the contract.

A de facto couple who have been together for fifty years have no power of attorney and no rights of property unless they front the Family Court. The horny teenagers win by a mile and you call this justice?

Dear phanto,

Arrogance is the exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities.

<<That is a very arrogant attitude.>>

I do not see how one could interpret an expressed sorrow over another’s apparent lack of experience in a particular area as “arrogant”.

<<Is that one of your forbidden ad hominums?>>

No, it is not.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

<<You have absolutely no idea what I have or have not experienced.>>

Indeed I do not. However, if you express bewilderment at how anyone could want to spend the rest of their life with someone else, then this suggests that you may not have ever fallen in love before.

<<So two horny teenagers can pop down to the registry and get married and immediately have all the same rights that a married couple who have been together for fifty years.>>

Yes, if that is was they choose.

<<They promise to be committed but have no intention of honouring such a commitment.>>

If they sign the paperwork, then who are we to decide if they are worthy? We cannot read the minds of others, after all. We can, however, expect of them all the responsibilities that come with marriage regardless.

<<Still they get all the rights because they have signed the contract.>>

That is correct, yes. Because they have agreed to the rights and responsibilities.

<<A de facto couple who have been together for fifty years have no power of attorney and no rights of property unless they front the Family Court.>>

Correct, and perhaps not even then. They could also get married, though.

<<The horny teenagers win by a mile and you call this justice?>>

So long as no-one is preventing the de facto couple from marrying (as is the case with same-sex couples), yes, I do, however unfortunate that may sound.

As any conservative will be quick to remind you, we all make choices in life.

"Tony Abbott's daughter Frances has opened up about her support for marriage equality in a candid interview on behalf of the 'Vote Yes' campaign"

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/09/26/same-sex-marriage-tony-abbotts-daughter-frances-appears-new-yes-campaign-video

Dear Paul,

Being raised with a politician as dad and being fed on state-salary, no wonder that young Frances cannot think outside the square, that it is possible to marry without involving a government.

Perhaps the first sign of independence: for the first time dad says black - and she says white.

While it may feel great, this is still not independent thinking, only the first step - but she will grow!