Forum Home
PC World Chat
 
Thread ID: 130551 2013-04-13 14:26:00 So much for "Marriage Equality" goodiesguy (15316) PC World Chat
Post ID Timestamp Content User
1336700 2013-04-15 02:23:00 Statistically you're probably related to a few as well.
I think you will agree, that is a bit different to being one!
Cicero (40)
1336701 2013-04-15 02:28:00 the title of this thread is an oxymoron Gobe1 (6290)
1336702 2013-04-15 02:31:00 I think you will agree, that is a bit different to being one!

I'm not entirely sure where this is going is entirely relevant, just keep it civil gentlemen yeah?
Chilling_Silence (9)
1336703 2013-04-15 06:44:00 I find this hilarious because I couldn't care less. Good luck to anyone who wants to get married, it seems most people can't pull it off anyway. Agent_24 (57)
1336704 2013-04-15 06:54:00 .................it seems most people can't pull it off anyway.

And that is a whole new argument :) :)
Zippity (58)
1336705 2013-04-15 07:39:00 I find this hilarious because I couldn't care less. Good luck to anyone who wants to get married, it seems most people can't pull it off anyway.

Depends who's doing the pulling :D
goodiesguy (15316)
1336706 2013-04-15 08:31:00 It is a well worn maxim that an unwritten contract is not worth the paper it isn't written on.

With the casualisation of personal relationships these days, more and more people are finding themselves seriously disadvantaged if their relationship does not work out, and the common law can't work miracles.

A formal contract, be it civil or marriage or whatever also gives some stability and certainty for future offspring, and for division of assets if the free-thinking experiment doesn't work.

Lawyers are rich and rapacious enough already with inviting another level of feeding frenzy.

We all pay for such liberalisation because the liability for sorting out failures ultimately will fall on the State, as it always does, and that is our money.

Maybe civil contracts will become more common, they may have the flexibility to cope with multi-partner arrangements as well.

Whatever may develop in the future, it must have a framework to protect children, the elderly and those in between who cannot fend for themselves.

That is the essence of humanity. and I hasten to add, none of this has anything to do with churches, which are another blight on the landcape.


Billy 8-{)under the relationship property act I'm just as screwed as you are. Marriages fail left, right and centre. So I can certainly say that a relationship that is marriage has the same chance of failure as a defacto relationship
plod (107)
1336707 2013-04-15 09:33:00 I read that defactos have a slightly higher failure rate, over 50%, which I believe is around the same as the amount of failed religious marriages.

Your best chances of surviving a lifelong relationship are if you're not religious, and a heterosexual couple, in a marriage relationship :p
Chilling_Silence (9)
1336708 2013-04-15 21:32:00 If you come across a better model, why not move on.? Cicero (40)
1336709 2013-04-15 22:53:00 That's a philosophical discussion... but anthropological studies do suggest we were serial monogamists throughout early human history. pablo d (15490)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25