the postal vote/survey/plebisite

[Bruce]

Nope I didn't Marty. There is an awful story ( judges 14 I think) about a man who throws his daughter and his guest's serving woman out to be raped and killed by a mob. The story is told as if the man were doing gods will by this action..So gang rape sure was known in those days.

 

 

[Bruce]

Yep I read the article and am once more amazed that some people claim to find anything worthwhile ( beyond an understanding of history) in the writings of bronze-age scribes.

 

They were profoundly ignorant in every way, and their lack of divine guidance is completely obvious by the absence of anything beyond what was known or imagined in their time.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Yep I read the article and am once more amazed that some people claim to find anything worthwhile ( beyond an understanding of history) in the writings of bronze-age scribes.They were profoundly ignorant in every way, and their lack of divine guidance is completely obvious by the absence of anything beyond what was known or imagined in their time.

Well said, Bruce. Luckily we can now say that without suffering instant and agonising death at the hands of the pious.

 

Generations of good, brave people have pegged back the power of crazy Christians; now we have another crazy religion threatening our freedoms.

 

 

[facthunter]

Looking back is a bad idea. You turn into a pillar of salt apparently. Honestly, how would you give this stuff creditable headspace?. it's what you scared little kids with before TV came along to shut them up. If I didn't do the right thing, God would GET me or I would be sent to boarding school. Both prospects would affect your ability to sleep at night.

 

People USE religion for a lot of reasons . Some of which are definitely NOT GOOD.. Why would that not affect it's reputation adversely? Nev

 

 

[spacesailor]

F T

 

Looking back gets rosier the longer the time-span, Looking to the future it gets grimmer the further you look.

 

(love the pirate movies)

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Bruce]

I don't think the past was any good space. Aborigines had terrible lives and the whites of those days not much better. I am amazed at the ignorance of those who think that any of those olden day people lived happy lives in harmony with nature. Personally, I would hate to live in a world without dentists, to name just one example.

 

We have surely lived in the best of times. I share your worry about the future, but we just don't know what is going to happen for sure.

 

For the sake of my grand-children, I just wish we were approaching the future more cautiously instead of having a mad rush with population growth and resource depletion.

 

 

[facthunter]

The rubbish we "just" dump indicates out disregard for the only planet we are likely to ever have. The way we do things , more "civilisation,"= More rubbish in the world to pollute rivers and the seas where it all ends up. Plastic for example, ends up "everywhere" and in everything, Single use coffee containers will suffocate us. they don't recycle.

 

The Aborigines were low in numbers and here for a period of 30 times the time to Christ and 5 times longer that the world was created "OLD" by the creationists. (6300 years).... What a joke that is.. Their pollution was probably immeasurable. By contrast what have WE done to this place in the last 250 years? Is the aim to cut down every tree and mine every mineral , have huge landfills to pollute as well, regardless of the contamination of aquifers, creeks and rivers and the sea.

 

I used to bushwalk in a past life. The "RULE" was you left no trace of your being there. No rubbish broken bottles etc. IF you used a "tin" you burnt it and buried it so it would rust away in no time.

 

Humanoids go back, what 300,000? years I microsecond on the billions of years the universe has existed.. Science unravels these facts with the amazing resources we have now at our disposal, but people choose to ignore them regarding them (conveniently) as just another "belief" system... Nev

 

 

[hihosland]

The Easter Islander who cut down the last tree knew exactly what he was doing and did it any way,

 

I see nothing to indicate that we as a species will be any better at caring for the planet than they were of their island.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

The Easter Islander who cut down the last tree knew exactly what he was doing and did it any way,I see nothing to indicate that we as a species will be any better at caring for the planet than they were of their island.

Sadly, I'd have to agree. While there's increasing global awareness of the damage we're doing to natural systems, most of us put our own material wellbeing far ahead of such concerns. There are still people too ignorant to care. We hear of filthy rich people who'll pay squillions to eat the last example of a critically endangered species.

 

 

[hihosland]

A point that is often missed is that if by some marvelous tech miracle one doubles a resource or halves its rate of consumption all you have achieved is delaying the date of the exhaustion, not solved the problem of consuming resources faster than they can be renewed.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Just picking up on this thread and apart from it's recent change in direction, a lot of hot air seems to have been spent on the issue (I also read Aussie papers online). Back in 2013, they had the same vote in the UK... The press tried to make a meal of it, but it sort of fizzed out. The major parties allowed a conscious vote and while it wasn't as emphatic as expected, it was a decent majority - more of the conservatives voting against than for; 2/3 of Labour voting for, all of the liberal democrats voting for, all of the Democratic Unionists Party (the motley crew May has forged a coalition with) voting against. In all honesty, hardly surprising results.

 

I am not married - never have been (engaged once)... Yet I live happily with my partner and two children. To all purposes we are married, however, under UK law, I have all responsibilities but no rights as a parent of my children. She can literally chuck me out of the house and bar me from seeing my kids (thankfully it is unlikely to happen, as far as I am aware). There is no concept of common-law (defacto) status here, we are simply co-habitees.

 

Under Aus law (as I knew it), marriage does afford some rights not afforded by defacto relationships - the main one being the unmarried parter had a lower priority claim over the divorced ex-wife in case of estate - although I may be wrong there - it was a long time ago that I read about it.. In any case, does the law currently recognise same sex partnerships as defacto marriages in the same way as opposite sex partnerships in Aus? If not, then there are very good legal reasons to allow same sex marriages (@Yenn - if I hear you correctly, you just don't want their formalisation of partnership under the law called marriage - so let's call it "formal same sex union").

 

I know of one (well, two actually) SSM here where the more stereotypical male of the relationship is the provider (and does a pretty good job of it, too) and the more stereotypical female is the homemaker. They have adopted a child and from all outward appearances, seem to be a normally functional but occasionally dysfunctional family - like almost every other family I know, my own one included. Without the legal status, and forgetting about the child, the homemaker would not be entitled to benefits that a married (or defacto) partner would be.. In the case of death, entitlement to any insurance on a lump sum/annuity basis, access to superannuation (called a pension here) and there are the problems of succession. I cannot see why denying those rights is somehow right - they are perfectly functioning members of society, contributing positively and in their case, giving a child who may have had a much worse start in life, a better chance. In fact, if there were more, there may be less children of the world starting out terribly disadvantaged and ending up on the scrap-heap of life.

 

I do concede it does come with it's challenges, but bringing up kids to be gay is not one of them.. In fact recent studies indicate such preferences are linked to physiology of the brain rather than wanton gratification.

 

I wandered a bit, but the bottom line is that unless they are already recognised as lawfully unioned in a partnership in the same way as husband and wife, then there are sound legal reasons to allow it.

 

Also, in this day of inclusion and diversity being recognised as being positive, why are people even worried about it.. Each party should give their members a conscience vote and if they don't represent their constituents view, they will (in theory) be voted out. Reality is a) no one outside those directly affected or with set "conservative" ideals really cares that much about it, do they? and b) Malcolm with the majority he has (and reliance on the LNP?) doesn't want to turn that into a minority,..

 

 

[Bruce]

Jerry, there have been some horror stories about life-long homosexual partners getting nothing from an estate because of lack of marriage.

 

That's why I reckon they could always have had a ceremony where they signed wills and powers of attorney and guardianship. This would be as strong as marriage in my unlawyer opinion.

 

But heterosexual unmarried partnerships do have protections which I think are as good as being married, at least after a while.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Aussie law is foreign to me (thinking about doing a course through one of the Aussie unis that offer online tuition/foreign exam centres)... However, the enduring power of attorney is about their best bet as a will can be contested reasonably easily by other family members (think siblings, children and possibly even ex-spouses may go up the pecking order - not sure on that one)... Guardianship probably would involve fiduciary responsibilties first to the person and then to the estate, so may be moire restrictive. Of course, a PoA should only be sete up when you absolutely trust your partner as they give the grantee the right to act, without fiduciary or other responsibility, except if there are any constraints specified in it. So, if you make it unlimited and enduring, and there is a spay, you could fund yourself penniless in minutes...

 

A better result would be to confer the same rights as OSM partners/defacto in the same way...

 

 

[old man emu]

Jerry Atrick said, "the bottom line is that unless they are already recognised as lawfully unioned in a partnership in the same way as husband and wife, then there are sound legal reasons to allow it.", and that has been my position all along. The Marriage Act has nothing to do with procreation. It's sole role is to establish a recognised partnership between two people and to specify a hierarchy for inheritance of property.

 

The Marriage Act currently says that, if a marriage agreement is made using the forms and procedures of an accepted religious group, then whatever form is used is OK. Also, if the couple are not of a religious bent, the Act sets out the secular wording to seal the deal. So religious groups have the legal right to decline acceptance of SSM amongst their members, while non-members should be able to avail themselves of the secular format, as many OSM are.

 

OME

 

 

[spacesailor]

Bruce

 

I came across a grave in Kellyville NSW, a good few year's ago now, It was the first female born in NSW, but was buried in a unconsecrated grave as she was born "out of wedlock" .

 

Makes you wonder at the humanity back then.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

BruceMakes you wonder at the humanity back then.

 

spacesailor

Agreed - As I look around today and wonder about it, too when these storms in teacups are whipped up into frenzies...

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

BruceI came across a grave in Kellyville NSW, a good few year's ago now, It was the first female born in NSW, but was buried in a unconsecrated grave as she was born "out of wedlock" .

 

Makes you wonder at the humanity back then.

 

spacesailor

Good old Christian forgiveness was a but thin on the ground. Punish the children for the sins of their parents. Dumb, ignorant and spiteful.

 

 

[Marty_d]

BruceI came across a grave in Kellyville NSW, a good few year's ago now, It was the first female born in NSW, but was buried in a unconsecrated grave as she was born "out of wedlock" .

 

Makes you wonder at the humanity back then.

 

spacesailor

A truly enlightened society may look back at us and wonder the same thing. "Yeah... they had this thing called 'money' which they had to use to buy everything they needed to live... but a few of them had so much of this stuff that they could never spend it all, while millions of them didn't have enough to feed their families..."

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

A truly enlightened society may look back at us and wonder the same thing. "Yeah... they had this thing called 'money' which they had to use to buy everything they needed to live... but a few of them had so much of this stuff that they could never spend it all, while millions of them didn't have enough to feed their families..."

Careful - them they are left leaning words and the false false meeja will be onto you

 

 

[Bruce]

Thanks jerry, you are obviously a lawyer.

 

Is it not strange that these legal reasons for the move have never been explained to us plebs by the powers that be? Maybe we will hear more as the voting day comes closer... I wonder.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Not a lawyer - know enough to be dangerous though.... And studied English (including Welsh) law... Though I have seen probate spats with my wider family in Aus (one went to the high court apparently).. And I have had to execute my enduring PoA to my brother - whom I trust and in any case - it is restricted to Aus so if he did pull a swifty it would only be for debt..

 

On guardianship - I really have no idea but in the legal sense it does imply a sense of duty to the guarded. Maybe I should have been more explicit

 

BTW the good family advice is have a will - and if you trust your partner (and your partner trusts you) execute an enduring PoA each because marriage does not imply PoA and in the case of a partner becoming incapacitated but still alive, the challenges on the other partner are enormous (think accessing money in single name accounts or asking a service provider to cancel a service in the name of an incapacitated partner)

 

They are adjuncts to, but not replacements of the marriage contract

 

 

[storchy neil]

Well I'll be buggard heard to day that two gays living together one can work and the other can claim un employment benefits

 

Well try living de facto relationship and you lose unemployment benefits

 

Married couples the same neil

 

 

[octave]

Well I'll be buggard heard to day that two gays living together one can work and the other can claim un employment benefitsWell try living de facto relationship and you lose unemployment benefits

 

Married couples the same neil

 

Neil perhaps that is what you heard, do you ever think maybe you should fact check? 2.2.5.10 Determining a De Facto Relationship | Guide to Social Security Law

 

Definition of a member of a couple

 

A person is a member of a couple under the SSAct if they are living with another person as their partner, where both people are over the age of consent (applicable to the relevant state or territory), are living together on a permanent or indefinite basis, are not in a prohibited relationship (subsections 4(12) and 4(13)), and are either:

 

• legally married (2.2.5.14), or
   
  
• in a registered relationship (whether of the same sex or a different sex) (2.2.5.13), or
   
  
• in a de facto relationship (whether of the same sex or a different sex).
   
  

 

Indicators of a member of a couple relationship are set out in SSAct section 4(3) and the 5 factors listed in the SSAct are described below.

 

Note: If a person is not living permanently or indefinitely with another person then they are not considered to be in a member of a couple relationship.

 

Act reference: SSAct section 4(12) and section 4(13) Prohibited relationship

 

The rules for de facto relationships are the same regardless whether same sex or not.

 

Now perhaps you have heard of a same sex couple exploiting the system, I am sure that happens just as mixed gender defacto couple have also been known to do this. This, of course, would become more difficult for same sex couples who choose to marry in future.

 

Sorry Neil but yet another swing and a miss.

 

 

[old man emu]

The Social Security Act recognises same sex relationships for the purpose of determining benefits.

 

Yet another Act that is in conflict with the Marriage Act!!

 

 

[storchy neil]

So this it is lying to the centre link can't trust em

 

Know all about de facto and centre link 35years ago when moved in with my current partner she did inform centre link got dobbed in quite a few times

 

Should anything happen to me she gets me gold card neil