Same Sex Marriage Survey

[davidc4430]

a week out from result day and allready cracks apearing on the govt side,

Same-sex marriage: 'More than a dozen' conservatives prepare alternative bill to protect religious freedoms

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-09/conservatives-to-sponsor-alternative-same-sex-marriage-bill/91...

any chance a simple change to the law "IF" the survey says YES, looks doomed allready.

we were promised, if we allowed this stupid survey to be held and if it was a yes result then it would be a simple change to the wording of the act and that will be that.

oh but here come the 'well, how about we add this, and this, oh and we dont want that.....ect ect.

again i fully expect malcom to be a 'yes' man, saying yes to whatever the guys keeping him in the PMs chair say.

[davidc4430]

it wouldnt surprise me if there are unmarried people living in situations like, 1 man to 2 or 3 women, or mixtures of the m to fm right now.

giving gay people the right to marry wont make it legal for anyone to marry multiple wives.

if foreigners are marrying underage girls, or having several wives, then they are breaking this countrys laws.

therefore they are doing it in secret. anyone knowing its happening and not speaking up is also breaking the law i believe.

same with female circumcision, and any other customs in the 'old' country they decide to continue here.

[chameleon54]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

I'm not talking about "sharia law"........I'm talking about D-I-V-O-R-C-E........Our beloved president is on his third wife........

---

Sure there is lots of social changes that have already been made and are being pushed by small interest groups. That doesnt mean they have all been positive.

I dont consider myself to be all that old, but I certianly feel "Old Fashioned". I look around and see society falling apart at the seams. We have high levels of welfare dependancy, large numbers of kids without a parent and role model from one sex or the other, broken marriages, remariages and more broken marriages. Record rates of drug dependancy, isolation and lonliness as people are lost in the vast burbs, old people that are forgotton, young people with rampent levels of mental health problems, a lost generation of indiginous Australians, record reports of child abuse, falling educational standards and rising unemployment and underemployment, the list goes on and on.

If you look at many of the changes to social policy that have occured or are proposed, they are contributing to the breakdown of family and social bonds, not building stronger societies.

I cant see the problem with reserving the word marriage to mean what it has always meant and that is a union of man and woman with the potential to raise children as a family unit.

If others want a similar legally binding union and commitment to share and care for each other, great. Just dont change the definition of the existing word to suit your purposes. Use your imagination and think up another term to describe your legally binding union. PROBLEM SOLVED !

[springyzone]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

I'm not talking about "sharia law"........I'm talking about D-I-V-O-R-C-E........Our beloved president is on his third wife........

---

But he's only had one at a time.

I'm not saying you're wrong at all. What you are describing is exactly what I was mentioning earlier on-the changing attitude to marriage within our society If you look at families in the 1800s, several had 2 partners but it was usually because of death of an earlier partner.

Divorce was extremely shameful, believe me, even amongst protestants.Let alone the concept of living together. I know this because of researching my own family tree.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it was well hidden.

As you know, times have changed, which leads me to wonder-why the enormous push for gays to marry, in an era when marriage is considered by many as unnesessary anyway & just a piece of paper?

Don't read me wrong, I am not against gays having the same legal rights & a ceremony but I do think the whole issue is more about pulverising the current legal status quo & once that falls, I would expect to see other interest groups pushing their barrow. And once you change the definition of marriage as between one man & one woman to between anyone, it's a fair enough question to ask, why just 2 people, why not 3 or 4 or 5?

[springyzone]

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

it wouldnt surprise me if there are unmarried people living in situations like, 1 man to 2 or 3 women, or mixtures of the m to fm right now.

giving gay people the right to marry wont make it legal for anyone to marry multiple wives.

if foreigners are marrying underage girls, or having several wives, then they are breaking this countrys laws.

therefore they are doing it in secret. anyone knowing its happening and not speaking up is also breaking the law i believe.

same with female circumcision, and any other customs in the 'old' country they decide to continue here.

---

They are only breaking the law at the moment. The law is a flexible thing, as the debate on changing the definition of marriage proves.

And of course foreigners are having several wives. I know someone in the social security sector who has had people come in with exactly this scenario. One man complained that he wasn't getting enough benefits to support a second wife & was awaiting another woman from overseas. He was told that didn't entitle him to more. Next week he came in and said he & his first wife were now separated & she would need separate benefits. He got them in the end but wife number 1 eventually ended up having more children. Funny, that.

Our welfare system is being rorted by some, & it's not usually by the pensioners or disabled although they're often the ones who are vetted the most.

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

If marriage consists of a man and a woman with the idea of creating offspring, what do you do with infertile couples?

Part of the reason for the need to have same-sex couples' relationships defined as a marriage is the fact that in some states the death of one leaves his/her partner without access the the couple's assets, not to mention being able to establish a durable power of attorney, and being permitted to see the other's medical records.

[tezza2844]

---

@springyzone wrote:

They are only breaking the law at the moment. The law is a flexible thing, as the debate on changing the definition of marriage proves.

And of course foreigners are having several wives. I know someone in the social security sector who has had people come in with exactly this scenario. One man complained that he wasn't getting enough benefits to support a second wife & was awaiting another woman from overseas. He was told that didn't entitle him to more. Next week he came in and said he & his first wife were now separated & she would need separate benefits. He got them in the end but wife number 1 eventually ended up having more children. Funny, that.

Our welfare system is being rorted by some, & it's not usually by the pensioners or disabled although they're often the ones who are vetted the most.

---

Usually, when someone starts with I know someone, you and I know, It'a matter of fact, every body knows, somebody who knows told me, it's on the public record, I won't insult your intelligence but  etc etc, the first thing I think of is here we go again another rumour or "incident" trying hard to pretend its a fact. 

[bsal6160]

not that same old argument again. it was about a male and female of the species which together history has proven can create a new life. now lets count all the same sex couples capable of the same...  ummmm......

same sex couples have the same legal rights when recognised as a defacto couple.

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

Then let's count all the couples who, for one reason or another (advanced age) can't.  And no, only in states that recognize same-sex marriage can two men or two women enjoy the benefits of marriage........imagine going for a power of attorney in Mississippi or Alabama.........

[chameleon54]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

Then let's count all the couples who, for one reason or another (advanced age) can't.  And no, only in states that recognize same-sex marriage can two men or two women enjoy the benefits of marriage........imagine going for a power of attorney in Mississippi or Alabama.........

---

The answer is very simple. When the law is changed to legally recognise same sex union and give these couples equel legal rights as hetorosexual marriages, simply call the same sex union something other than marriage !!!   Retain the existing meaning of the word marraige for hetorosexual union with the possibility of having your own children and most of the problem is solved.

Why are same sex couples sooo stubborn about changing the meaning of the word marriage to suit their union ???    As much as SS couples would like it to be, it is not the same thing, so just call it something else. !!!!

[springyzone]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

If marriage consists of a man and a woman with the idea of creating offspring, what do you do with infertile couples?

Part of the reason for the need to have same-sex couples' relationships defined as a marriage is the fact that in some states the death of one leaves his/her partner without access the the couple's assets, not to mention being able to establish a durable power of attorney, and being permitted to see the other's medical records.

---

As i said earlier, I believe marriage itself arose in societies as a way to protect children/families. Of course it doesn't work 100% of the time as we know, we're dealing with people. Marriages break down, some couples can't have children etc. That doesn't change the overall concept though. Just about everything you look at in society is aimed at the majority.

The question of assets & access to superannuation is to my mind, the main one. From what I have read, that was fixed in legislation some time ago. The same problems you mentioned also applied to unmarried couples and as you know, there are many more of them now than there have been in the past.

The advantage of marriage (as i see it) is that it is a declaration of intent. So if one partner dies intestate, the other partner inherits, even if the marriage was just a very short one. With couples living together for a very short time, that intent is nowhere near as clear.

Ideally, people should make wills, that is the whole purpose of a will, to establish intent. But there should also be the opportunity for legal unions too, I agree. It might be more practical to give it a different name to marriage-call it legal union or whatever-but with identical legal status to marriage.

With regard to power of attorney, medical or financial, my understanding is those powers cease upon the death of a person. And a living person can appoint whoever they like into those positions.