Now it's going to be a postal vote that won't count.

[Magellan]

So the gay community are relying on 90% of the population to make a decision on who they can marry, which I will say again doesn't effect 90% of the population...

Makes zero sense that this is a debate. It's a human right. And if in same way two males or females getting married offends you HTFU

Civil right, not a human right.

How so?

Marriage isn't a fundamental basic entitlement that humans need to survive. As Booney rightly says, it's a civil right based on the interaction of two parties.

[Magellan]

What about the fact they don't get access to their partners superannuation when they die like married people do

Excellent point.

[woodublieve12]

Still haven't heard one person who is against it explain to me how two people getting married directly affect their lives.

[Jimmy_041]

A clear benefit for SSM?

What about the fact they don't get access to their partners superannuation when they die like married people do

A person can nominate the beneficiary.
I have even nominated my wife!

[bennymacca]

A clear benefit for SSM?

What about the fact they don't get access to their partners superannuation when they die like married people do

A person can nominate the beneficiary.
I have even nominated my wife!

True but if you don't have a will it defaults to your spouse. If you are defacto it would default to next of kin right?

[HH3]

A clear benefit for SSM?

What about the fact they don't get access to their partners superannuation when they die like married people do

A person can nominate the beneficiary.
I have even nominated my wife!

True but if you don't have a will it defaults to your spouse. If you are defacto it would default to next of kin right?

A will would be much easier and cheaper than a wedding.... believe me.

[bennymacca]

Potentially but that's not the point

The point is there are some legal assurances that marriage provides that aren't available to same sex couples at the moment

[Booney]

Perfect opportunity to have your loved ones gather and recognise the bond that you share by signing a will.

[HH3]

Just for the record, before I get called a racist or something again, I agree with SSM, even though it won't effect me until I come out in my 50's when I'm bored of vagina and wanna try something new.

We even got the celebrant to put "but HH3 and the woman who will be known as Mrs HH3 in about 3 minutes think that everyone should have the right to marry who they choose" after the compulsory part about marriage exclusively being between a man and a woman.

[Booney]

Just for the record, before I get called a racist or something again, I agree with SSM, even though it won't effect me until I come out in my 50's when I'm bored of vagina and wanna try something new.

We even got the celebrant to put "but HH3 and the woman who will be known as Mrs HH3 in about 3 minutes think that everyone should have the right to marry who they choose" after the compulsory part about marriage exclusively being between a man and a woman.

I'd ask, but explaining the large hadron collider might be easier.

[Dogwatcher]

A clear benefit for SSM?

What about the fact they don't get access to their partners superannuation when they die like married people do

That is the major reason, I think, that the gay community needs marriage equality. Gay couples have minimal rights if something happens to their partner and it doesn't matter how long they have been together. It's not fair and it's not right.
I think this issue gets significantly lost in this debate.
If politicians and others are so adamant on keeping the sanctity of marriage, then they need to accept a solution that gives long-term and loving partners the same rights as a M/F relationship has in those circumstances.

[HH3]

A clear benefit for SSM?

What about the fact they don't get access to their partners superannuation when they die like married people do

That is the major reason, I think, that the gay community needs marriage equality. Gay couples have minimal rights if something happens to their partner and it doesn't matter how long they have been together. It's not fair and it's not right.
I think this issue gets significantly lost in this debate.
If politicians and others are so adamant on keeping the sanctity of marriage, then they need to accept a solution that gives long-term and loving partners the same rights as a M/F relationship has in those circumstances.

Isn't that what non-supporters are suggesting though.

Have a legal union, just don't call it marriage? It seems like a compromise that most people aren't willing to accept.

[Dogwatcher]

A clear benefit for SSM?

What about the fact they don't get access to their partners superannuation when they die like married people do

That is the major reason, I think, that the gay community needs marriage equality. Gay couples have minimal rights if something happens to their partner and it doesn't matter how long they have been together. It's not fair and it's not right.
I think this issue gets significantly lost in this debate.
If politicians and others are so adamant on keeping the sanctity of marriage, then they need to accept a solution that gives long-term and loving partners the same rights as a M/F relationship has in those circumstances.

Isn't that what non-supporters are suggesting though.

Have a legal union, just don't call it marriage? It seems like a compromise that most people aren't willing to accept.

I'm not sure that it covers all of the legalities.

[Booney]

A clear benefit for SSM?

What about the fact they don't get access to their partners superannuation when they die like married people do

That is the major reason, I think, that the gay community needs marriage equality. Gay couples have minimal rights if something happens to their partner and it doesn't matter how long they have been together. It's not fair and it's not right.
I think this issue gets significantly lost in this debate.
If politicians and others are so adamant on keeping the sanctity of marriage, then they need to accept a solution that gives long-term and loving partners the same rights as a M/F relationship has in those circumstances.

The case of the married men from the UK who were honeymooning here and one passed away, as we didn't recognise the "union" there were major complications with the repatriation of the deceased etc.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-ma ... 02e0ec3442

[HH3]

A clear benefit for SSM?

What about the fact they don't get access to their partners superannuation when they die like married people do

That is the major reason, I think, that the gay community needs marriage equality. Gay couples have minimal rights if something happens to their partner and it doesn't matter how long they have been together. It's not fair and it's not right.
I think this issue gets significantly lost in this debate.
If politicians and others are so adamant on keeping the sanctity of marriage, then they need to accept a solution that gives long-term and loving partners the same rights as a M/F relationship has in those circumstances.

Isn't that what non-supporters are suggesting though.

Have a legal union, just don't call it marriage? It seems like a compromise that most people aren't willing to accept.

I'm not sure that it covers all of the legalities.

Wouldn't it be smart to actually work with the opposing party (who actually has the power to change your life) on what they are offering?

Maybe if the LGBTOGIGNOFNFEWJDCBDJ+--++ community just let go of the condition of it having to be called "marriage" it might actually streamline the transition to having equal legal rights as married couples.

[Booney]

If the religious sect didn't lay claim to ownership of the word "marriage" maybe the process could be streamlined.

[HH3]

If the religious sect didn't lay claim to ownership of the word "marriage" maybe the process could be streamlined.

Maybe, but if both sides are gonna be pig-headed over one word, prepare for this to drag on for ages.

I predict the vote will be in favour of SSM, but the Government will only recognise it if they change the word "marriage". Which they won't, so back to square one.

When you're trying to get someone in power to change something for you, sometimes you need to be a bit flexible to get the outcome you are aiming for.

[MW]

What baffles me is these politicians change their tune on ALL topics to sway with the public vote to stay elected, but not on this issue. That must mean they think the popular vote will be a no, otherwise they can make it happen and save $122 million.

[HH3]

What baffles me is these politicians change their tune on ALL topics to sway with the public vote to stay elected, but not on this issue. That must mean they think the popular vote will be a no, otherwise they can make it happen and save $122 million.

Plenty of politicians have flip flopped on this issue.

[MW]

Exactly, to sway with popular opinion.