Discussion in 'Four Corners' started by 2_Smoking_Guns, Jul 1, 2017.
What makes marriage less desirable than a de facto relationship?
I just said .The State regulation of private relationships.
What makes marriage under Act of parliament a human right?
How is a de facto relationship less regulated by the state?
Missed the human right part. I would think a basic right of anyone would be to have their relationship protected and recognised by the state to ensure they are not discriminated against. At the moment the australian government discriminates against homosexual relationships in a number of ways e.g. for the purpose of immigration.
Because in my view we don't really need it, up until very recently it was used for political ties....even though westerners cringe at arranged marriages...this was actually the norm not that long ago.
I think various levels of commitment ceremonies can stay, that would keep the thumpers happy.
But to me marriage is outdated, why do we need it?
Well without getting into any sort of debate as to the relationship satisfaction, happiness levels, and all that jazz of married vs unmarried long term partners, why exactly do you think it's your business to tell someone else they aren't allowed to get married if they want to?
You can think what you like about it, and choose not to partake in it (although obviously you don't have the choice to partake at the moment anyway. Hopefully hay will change soon). You have exactly zero right to tell others they are not allowed to have it.
Honestly as a homosexual aren't you able to see the irony in trying to dictate to others about the kinds of relationships they should be allowed to enter into?
The real irony is Danish,that it is the Marriage Act that dictates relationships.
In response to your question about immigration issue - homosexual couples are treated no differently to any other defacto couples when it comes spousal visas and priving your relationship is genuine .
In fact the immigration issue is a great example of how the State favours those who choose to submit to State rules around what their relationship should look like .As Shorty implies,the issue here is not that gays cant be in the controlled group..its that the group exists at all.
All people who refuse to have the State dictate how their relationship runs are being discriminated against here ..thats the real issue.
Actually up until very recently it was used to indicate women as the possessions of their husbands.
The changing of names , women had no rights to refuse sex, ...in fact it isnt all that long ago that marriage(in Australia even) was seen as a contract were a woman ceded legal power and possessions to her husband in exchange for a protectir and provider...
..not all that different from some of the attitudes expressed by spouses on this forum .
How do you think a de facto relationship is discriminated against by the state?
What state rules do you think are applied to married couples but not de facto ones?
Why do you think people shouldn't be allowed to be married?
I just told you how ,in your own example.
Sounds very islamic
this forum seems to be roughly 95% male..... probably about 50% married... and it appears to me to be well over 80% strongly against male chauvinism and 100% against domestic abuse..... but you don't seem to have any friends... and not many people agree with you or engage in conversations with you.... do you think that's because you're a woman?
I think she cops shit because you guys can't handle debating a feminist viewpoint.
Proving your relationship for immigration purposes? Married couples have to do that as well you know, although given marriage has a paper trail that can be shown obviously it gets a little easier to prove your relationship status. There is also the very obvious show of commitment that marriage implies (proven by married couples staying together far longer on average than unmarried couples), so they likely don't feel the need to dig as far into your background proving how long you've been together etc.... although if you are only recently married they'll hit you up with a tonne of questions wanting to be sure the relationship is genuine.
What about my other 2 questions?
What state rules do you think apply to married couples as opposed to de facto ones? As in the rules or regulations that you think involve too much influence by the state on a married couple's relationship.
Why do you think marriage should not be allowed?
No, do you?
Danish,you seem to be arguing against yourself niw .So I'll just leave you to it.
What part of my post was me arguing with myself? I stated that a marriage certificate can assist in immigration cases as providing some level of proof of a relationship, although it does not guarantee anything and married couples still need to prove that they are in a legitimate relationship much like a de facto couple does.
I've asked this a few times now so lets set if you can finally answer it. You stated that marriage involves too much state intrusion on a relationship. Can you explain what this intrusion is?
I disagree that this is the reason she cops shit...... and I disagree she argues as a feminist... I think she argues from a narrow point of view as a social worker dealing with a sub-set of society struggling to deal with an apparent freedom they are unaccustomed to.... as well as the obvious sexual frustrations she frequently admits.....
Right , I'm sure she could get sex, probably wouldn't even have to travel overseas for it.
I laugh when a government claims a mandate for every stupid idea they shit out during an election campaign
I say let this farce drag on and the gays can tear the liberals a new mandate at the ballot box
The whole concept of a mandate on minor issues because that policy was presented to the voting public is laughable. Unless you can show that particular policy played a substantive role in an elections result, you really can't claim a mandate on that issue.
From where I sit mandates are formed around key issues, policies such as scrapping work choices and the carbon tax, or the introduction of the GST could be considered mandates, as they are clearly issues that have been instrumental in the decisions that voters have handed down.
Separate names with a comma.