Marriage Equality
- Thread starter Jets
- Start date
- Status
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
Sorry I cannot quote you all but my account is buggered on here took me half an hour just to get here.
Charger what protections? Without kids marriage is just a contract stating who gets what. That is property it can be settle without going to a court and can be disbanded with another agreement.
Matty_K you should come to the Cape Flats every girl 14 and up almost run around with a pram. But a unwed father have way way more less rights than the father have in a marriage. If you are not married the mother got say and she have to proof in some cases the peternity with blood tests from the father. Where in marriage you have to appear before a court to decide what is best for the kids. You can not promise human beings or decide who gets it like you did with property. That would be illegal and come almost down to slavery.
Bullrush I suggest you go look up the rights of fathers who are married and those who have children out of wedlock. Also I suggest you should look up the family privacy laws and the child protection laws. The goverment will voilate the parents constitutional rights when it comes to children. Because its a dispute the government have to jump in and both parent constitional rights equal each other out. In the US mothers have lost custody of children who got divorced and married again in a marriage with a person of a different racial background.
Marriage protections are for the children not for the parents. State do not care who gets the TV or the Ford or whatever. When it comes to children the family privacy rights are activated.
Charger what protections? Without kids marriage is just a contract stating who gets what. That is property it can be settle without going to a court and can be disbanded with another agreement.
Matty_K you should come to the Cape Flats every girl 14 and up almost run around with a pram. But a unwed father have way way more less rights than the father have in a marriage. If you are not married the mother got say and she have to proof in some cases the peternity with blood tests from the father. Where in marriage you have to appear before a court to decide what is best for the kids. You can not promise human beings or decide who gets it like you did with property. That would be illegal and come almost down to slavery.
Bullrush I suggest you go look up the rights of fathers who are married and those who have children out of wedlock. Also I suggest you should look up the family privacy laws and the child protection laws. The goverment will voilate the parents constitutional rights when it comes to children. Because its a dispute the government have to jump in and both parent constitional rights equal each other out. In the US mothers have lost custody of children who got divorced and married again in a marriage with a person of a different racial background.
Marriage protections are for the children not for the parents. State do not care who gets the TV or the Ford or whatever. When it comes to children the family privacy rights are activated.
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Lol. So why don't you want this protection extended to the adopted children of same sex couples?
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
Adopted children have that protection. But who would aprove adoption to persons who are not married to each other.
Remember state wants stable households.
So it wants people to marry have children and set some restrictions on divorces.
Children are always protected equally married household or not. But the partners rights to certain thing is less than what you would have in a marriage.
Again we must distinguish between a parent, guardian and the biological father.
If a woman who is not married die then the state place the child in a foster home and the dad has basically no say in it
Yet again they promote marriage. But they want people to have children and a stable home. That is why government also provide child support to married couples and those who are not married.
So what is marriage as we understand it? It is the union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. I think it is different things to different people. Some very religious experience, others for friendship or convenience, or to be parents… but you can distill it down to the common denominator, which is the joining of the two people as a unit legally and excluding others. Also idea that marriage evolves… it has changed from woman being property, easier divorce changed it, etc.
In the end its a government patented thing to look at it in a simple way. In the end its just a word and they can state between man and woman.
So why not just create a word for a marriage of people of the same sex. Put up protections for it and problem solved. Call it a parriage. Patent it and issue licenses for it.
In Australia I believe some states the recognize de facto relationship. A defacto relationship is called a common law marriage in other countries . Australia do not mention anywhere about common law marriages. The real problem is that marriage is a universal thing. Like the metric and imperial systems as well as the scoring system in rugby union is accepted world wide by everyone. In all countries a marriage between a woman and a man is accepted. But same sex marriages are not a universal accepted standard.
Again how much would gay people accept. Are they willing to go halfway? Then its common law marriages aka defacto relationship. Juyst rename it to common law marriage and of you go. But again its not accepted world wide so I do not advise anyone to go on honeymoon in countries like Iran, Iraq or Nigeria thinking everyone is going to accept you.
Remember state wants stable households.
So it wants people to marry have children and set some restrictions on divorces.
Children are always protected equally married household or not. But the partners rights to certain thing is less than what you would have in a marriage.
Again we must distinguish between a parent, guardian and the biological father.
If a woman who is not married die then the state place the child in a foster home and the dad has basically no say in it
Yet again they promote marriage. But they want people to have children and a stable home. That is why government also provide child support to married couples and those who are not married.
So what is marriage as we understand it? It is the union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. I think it is different things to different people. Some very religious experience, others for friendship or convenience, or to be parents… but you can distill it down to the common denominator, which is the joining of the two people as a unit legally and excluding others. Also idea that marriage evolves… it has changed from woman being property, easier divorce changed it, etc.
In the end its a government patented thing to look at it in a simple way. In the end its just a word and they can state between man and woman.
So why not just create a word for a marriage of people of the same sex. Put up protections for it and problem solved. Call it a parriage. Patent it and issue licenses for it.
In Australia I believe some states the recognize de facto relationship. A defacto relationship is called a common law marriage in other countries . Australia do not mention anywhere about common law marriages. The real problem is that marriage is a universal thing. Like the metric and imperial systems as well as the scoring system in rugby union is accepted world wide by everyone. In all countries a marriage between a woman and a man is accepted. But same sex marriages are not a universal accepted standard.
Again how much would gay people accept. Are they willing to go halfway? Then its common law marriages aka defacto relationship. Juyst rename it to common law marriage and of you go. But again its not accepted world wide so I do not advise anyone to go on honeymoon in countries like Iran, Iraq or Nigeria thinking everyone is going to accept you.
Rassie
Trevor Allan (34)
And Bru i am not against it. I don't care who you want to get married to. I wouldn't mind my wife getting married to another woman for example. In fact I am trying to encourage her but no luck.
Almost took me a hour to post that reply. Between 5 - 10b/s The page loads almost as slow as South African ruck ball.
Almost took me a hour to post that reply. Between 5 - 10b/s The page loads almost as slow as South African ruck ball.
The Raging Potato
Allen Oxlade (6)
Serious question... In a heterosexual marriage there are certain obligations particularly where it relates to the involvement of children. Usually the male in the marriage bears the brunt of the financial responsibility for the break up of a marriage largely due to the societal norms associated with marriage and the definitions of responsibility. Rightly or wrongly, courts generally rule in favour of the female in the relationship. How does this work for your average same sex marriage, bearing in mind it's "moral equivalence"? And in the absence of an equal system of resolution how can such an arrangement between same sex couples be deemed to be equivalent to those marriages between two people of the opposite sex?
Dunno, but one would hope that the person best able to take care of the kids would be chosen
Key issues to me are ensuring a partners rights are protected. As I live in a de facto relationship, I end up with some of the same issues, like the ability to care for and make decisions for your partner in a serious medical situation. If her family hated me they could make it rather difficult me, there are ways to get around it, but should you have to?
Sent from a tiny evil keyboard
Key issues to me are ensuring a partners rights are protected. As I live in a de facto relationship, I end up with some of the same issues, like the ability to care for and make decisions for your partner in a serious medical situation. If her family hated me they could make it rather difficult me, there are ways to get around it, but should you have to?
Sent from a tiny evil keyboard
stoff
Bill McLean (32)
Thats not actually the basis - it comes down to who is the primary care giver. The primary care giver usually has a lower earning capacity due to the constraints of actually raising the child. If the primary care giver was to have a significantly higher earning capacity, the input from the other partner would be negligible, however this is not often the case.
The courts decisions are all based on the interest of the child (at least in theory), not societal norms around marriage. When it comes down to custody, the school of thought is that for children to be separated from their primary care giver, at least in the early years, is detrimental to the childs mental wellbeing and long term development. This person is generally the mother, but does not have to be.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I would add to stoff s comments the observation that, in this context, there is not a "ruling favour of anyone" but rather an attempt to adjust the financial position to reflect non financial contributions over the life of the marriage.
I am sure that it can seem like a ruling in favour of someone, though.
The Raging Potato
Allen Oxlade (6)
Thanks for the answers. Previously, if asked I would say a big no on the subject which was a gut reaction which I have recently questioned. I certainly have no religious objections so I have tried to justify my objection logically and reasonably. And the truth is, unless there is some fundamental difference in the legal status of a gay vs hetero marriage giving gays more rights in the marriage context (as alluded to by my question), I can't think of a justifiable reason for objecting. This doesn't mean I'll be changing my moniker to The Raging Homo, donning leather chaps and rainbow marching on parliament but for someone as "old fashioned" and "right wing" as myself to have moved in my thoughts on the matter I'm sure those actively seeking such legislation will probably get it sooner rather than later.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
Why? Did we call the taps and doors something differet when we decided to let coloured folk use the same ones as whites? Did we call voting something else when we decided to let women do it as well??
AngrySeahorse
Peter Sullivan (51)
Went to a mates "Buckettes" party today, her & her partner are tying the knot Friday week, despite it not actually being legal yet in Oz. The partner is preggers after IVF. Could not think of a nicer couple to raise a bub. Hopefully they'll be able to make their union legally recognised in the near future.
^^ Go to NZ, Spend some Aust earned money propping up the NZ economy.
Wine is good, Ski season is still in full swing. Get to see some ITM cup action.
Mr Rabbit is in favour isn't he?
Wine is good, Ski season is still in full swing. Get to see some ITM cup action.
Mr Rabbit is in favour isn't he?
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
It's probably one of the most disappointing results from yesterday's election. Taking into account past objections of the Coalition leadership and party room the chances of anything happening in marriage equality is highly unlikely in the next 3-6 years.
While I wasn't too convinced of K Rudd's pledge early in the election to table a movement looking to ratify it early in his next term if he were re-elected, I thought it had more of a chance under a Labor government as opposed to the current Coalition line up.
While I wasn't too convinced of K Rudd's pledge early in the election to table a movement looking to ratify it early in his next term if he were re-elected, I thought it had more of a chance under a Labor government as opposed to the current Coalition line up.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
I was cynical to Rudd's motives for changing his position on the issue but when he lashed out on Q&A (the peoples forum that Abbott avoids) at the bloke saying the bible didn't accept gay marriage, I was convinced it was genuine. His response shoed a passion that couldn't be staged.
I worry about Abbott being more subservient to his faith than the attitude of greater Australia.
I'm hoping his sister can talk some sense into Mr Rabbit.
The only greater love than that between siblings, even if they hate each other, is the love between mother and child.
The only greater love than that between siblings, even if they hate each other, is the love between mother and child.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
I believe the conviction in which he responded to the question was genuine. However, I'm always a little cynical when speculative promises are made early in a election campaign regardless of party. His stance was a strong indicator that he was serious though which is commendable.
I don't think many voters went into yesterday's poll considering policy or issues such as marriage equality. Otherwise I think the election would have been very different. They more or less tired of the disunity within the Labor party and wanted them out. So I don't think it was a reflection of the sentiment of the electorate regarding this issue.
- Status