Not to get hung up on this, but it's not an erosion of the family at all. It has nothing to do with anyone's family or relationship but the couple involved.
It's not free. A defacto relationshipo operates just like a marriage.
can you really protect your assets being a male?
- Thread starter TMNT
- Start date
Not to get hung up on this, but it's not an erosion of the family at all. It has nothing to do with anyone's family or relationship but the couple involved.
It's not free. A defacto relationshipo operates just like a marriage.
Many gays are bringing children into the mix.
In schools in canada, they are teaching many relationships as being normal.
Defacto realtionships operate like a marriage, because the government gives them all the benfits.
A person could ask, why do we even have marriages?
The weddings, honeymoons and the divorces are just expensive.
What purpose does a marriage provide now?
I also disagree with gay marriages, and IVF as well,
im also half against gay adoption as well,
not being able to havea gay marriage doenst mean you cant live with eachother nor have the same rights as normal couples,
nature doesnt allow two gay people to have children, its just nature how its built, so until men are starting to get born with wombs,then if its not meant to be, its not meant to be
just like IVF, if you cant have them, thats life and how nature was meant to be, you start bending the rules here and tehre, then eventually, 80 yr olds will turn around and say, they should be entitled to a kid
but thats a complete different can of worms
Well, no. They're not. There is very little legal difference between marriage and defacto relationships. But the choice of whether or not to get married is between the couple themselves.
It's not for me nor my partner, and we have made that choice not to get married at this point in our life. We may do at some stage. We may not.
I respect that some people want to get married for religious, cultural, emotional, financial or personal reasons. Good for them. I wish them a long and happy life together. Others don't want to get married for similar reasons. Good for them. Long and happy etc etc.
It's about choice. And every one of your posts is about limiting choice and operating under a narrow window of what you deem acceptable.
As for the gay marriage debate, I raised it to make a simple point. Gay relationships are viewed as defacto relationships as they are not married, and legally cannot be married. Under your backwoods approach, a gay couple who had bought a property together would have serious issues dividing property if they split up. This is your situation. If defacto couples are nothing in your eyes then you better be prepared to give gays the right to marriage, because a lot of them buy property together.
How about medical breathroughs like open heart surgery? Organ transplants? Cochlear implants?
Isn't that just playing with how nature was meant to be? If you have a heart attack, why mess with nature? It must just have been how nature was meant to be, with no intervention from modern science. Or is this form of bending the rules ok?
I never said anything about limiting choice.
If anything, defacto relationships are doing more harm.
How does someone who wants to live with someone, but not enough to marry them, protect their assets? At the moment, with great difficulty, right?
Marriage should be between a man and woman.
If other relationships want to have certain rights, we already have means to do that. Power of attorney etc....
Gay couples would have no problem splitting up assets. They are separate people, and take away whatever they brought into the relationship.
If one gave up their job to stay at home to look after the other, that was their choice.
tell me about these people that want to shack up with someone but dont want to commit? Are they just ignorant of the law? (around defacto relationships) Cause thats no excuse....
If you are saying people should be able to do something unlawful, then thats another question, but at the moment, the law states people who cohabit are the same as married couples.
Straight defacto couples are completely different as they are not separate people? Wow. Your, ummm, "logic" continues to astound me.
Read the family law act. S.90UA-UN. It deals with financial arrangements for the breakdown of defacto relationships. It does so in a similar way as for married couples.
Here you go. Even a link for you to read. http://www.familyrelationships.gov....ivisionwhendefactorelationshipsbreakdown.aspx
The principles used are the same as for married couples. There. Is. No. Real. Difference.
Read the family law act. S.90UA-UN. It deals with financial arrangements for the breakdown of defacto relationships. It does so in a similar way as for married couples.
Here you go. Even a link for you to read. http://www.familyrelationships.gov....ivisionwhendefactorelationshipsbreakdown.aspx
The principles used are the same as for married couples. There. Is. No. Real. Difference.
fixing a medical problem is a complete differnet issue to gay marriages
I'm not disagreeing with you.
In law they are no different.
That's the problem.
The law is wrong !!
..so why have marriage?
They should just ban them.
If defacto and marriage are basically the same...get married then.
The only difference, you want your cake and eat it too.
Yes, you are right, I do have a problem with stupid government laws.
That's not an argument.
I wonder how many gays have said "if we could get married, I would", only to kick themslelves now, that it is going to be a reality.
Apart from my typo, it was meant to be slightly funny.
This is pretty much how things are for me.
To have someone prattling on about how worthless my relationship is just goes to show what their character is really like.
Mark- if women are the best at rearing children, they should be the ones to get custody. You can't have it both ways.
You want women to be kept at home to spend much of their time looking after the children while the man goes out to work. But if they split, you want that same man to have an equal right to have custody of those same children. That's inconsistent.
You want women to be kept at home to spend much of their time looking after the children while the man goes out to work. But if they split, you want that same man to have an equal right to have custody of those same children. That's inconsistent.
Similar threads
