# Mistresses to cash in on de facto laws



## horsesrule (Nov 12, 2008)

Family Law Act reforms entitling de facto partners of two years or longer to the same rights as married couples stipulate that such a relationship can exist even if one of the partners is already married, the Courier-Mail reports. 

Family lawyer Paul Hopgood said living together was not a requirement to qualify under the new rules. 

"You don't have to live in the same house and under the same roof to be a de facto," the _Courier-Mail_ quoted him as saying. 

"A lot of people are living in de facto relationships and don't think they are." 
The new Act, passed Monday in the senate, defines a de facto relationship as a couple — regardless of sexual orientation — "living together on a genuine domestic basis".
But Mr Hopgood said courts would accept explanations like travel commitments as reasons for recognising de factos not living under the same roof. 

Queensland Law Society chair Julie Harrington said the laws would also hit polygamists who had only one recognised marriage but multiple de facto partners who now had some rights under the Act. 

She added that men who had been in a succession of monogamous relationships could also face paying maintenance support to multiple ex-partners. 

But a spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland said people in this situation could show "just cause" to family courts for dropping any order. 

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=664147


What is this country coming to ? This will do nothing but create more problems.


----------



## missllama (Nov 12, 2008)

lol thats the craziest thing i have read all wk

look at this comment left by someone about the article

" Who really cares... let people do what they want and sort it out themselves in a relationship, cheating or not. Just another way women are sucking money out of men. "

thats rediclulous how sexist!! lol


----------



## channi (Nov 12, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> What is this country coming to ? This will do nothing but create more problems.


 I am not saying its right or wrong but what problems are you refering to?


----------



## bundy_zigg (Nov 12, 2008)

channi said:


> I am not saying its right or wrong but what problems are you refering to?


 
Gee I dont know may be a husband is cheating with a #### for a year or so and then calls it off she goes ape and wants money and takes him to court AND WINS and takes half of his stuff - what about the poor wife and kids who loose stuff cause he scrwed up?


----------



## Australis (Nov 12, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> She added that men who had been in a succession of monogamous relationships could also face paying maintenance support to multiple ex-partners.



Why just men, weird.


----------



## cobrajet (Nov 12, 2008)

I think it is a joke. The government is getting stupid on these things now, the silly tart who is with the married man deserves nothing. She wants to ruin his life fine, but doing it by money is even worse!! It will be interesting though to see if anyone does go through with taking the man for it


----------



## Australis (Nov 12, 2008)

cobrajet said:


> I think it is a joke. The government is getting stupid on these things now, the silly tart who is with the married man deserves nothing.



What if she didn't know he was married though? I agree its stupid though.


----------



## bundybear (Nov 12, 2008)

[B said:


> She added that men who had been in a succession of monogamous relationships could also face paying maintenance support to multiple ex-partners. [/B]
> 
> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=664147
> 
> ...


 

why is it that the 'man' ends up paying out?
there are plenty of women who get up to no good!


----------



## Colin (Nov 12, 2008)

It may just be easier, more fun and an economic alternative to invite the new girlfriend to move in with you and the old girlfriend :lol:


----------



## Sturdy (Nov 12, 2008)

looks like ill need to cut down the length of my affairs to 6 month sessions on all my girls..... bugger....


----------



## FAY (Nov 12, 2008)

OMG what next?


----------



## Lewy (Nov 12, 2008)

So you no whats going to happen now women are going to go looking for rich married men get with them for a year the get them to break it of and take them to court 

What a joke I mean what next sue some one for talking to you its just getting stupid

Lewy


----------



## Jay (Nov 12, 2008)

Ok given the media rarely seems to give the complete picture so gota ask, Is this ONLY in position of men cheating with mistresses etc, or does it also apply to women cheating ?


----------



## Colin (Nov 12, 2008)

Jay said:


> Ok given the media rarely seems to give the complete picture so gota ask, Is this ONLY in position of men cheating with mistresses etc, or does it also apply to women cheating ?




would definitely have to apply to women as well.. after all.. any experienced adulterer will tell you.. 
cheating married women are a growth industry :lol:


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 12, 2008)

This is beyonf a joke i am actually ashamed to be an Australian if this becomes law. 

It is forseeable men who are unhappy in there marriages will have affairs and with this some women will no doubt use this as a gold digging tool. 

Then the kids and wife will be left without money or less money.

What is this world coming to.

If someone has an affair with a married person there not entitled to **** in my book.


----------



## Chris1 (Nov 12, 2008)

how does that work in regards to co-habitation/pre nup agreements?

i'd never have a problem signing something like that, and anyone who does is there for the wrong reasons.


----------



## -Peter (Nov 12, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> This is beyonf a joke i am actually ashamed to be an Australian if this becomes law.
> 
> .



Tell me when you leave, I'll come and wave goodbye.


----------



## Reptilian (Nov 12, 2008)

so mistress takes 50%, wife finds out and leaves husband and takes 50%....Man left with 0%...lol


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 12, 2008)

Intelligent repsonse Peter, hopefully your mistress will take half of your money lol


----------



## Sdaji (Nov 12, 2008)

Wow! How ridiculous! You go out with a girl for a few months and married or not she has a claim, even if you don't live together? I can see guys everywhere saying "Sorry, love, it has been five-and-a-half months now, I have to say goodbye and hit the singles bar for your replacement now".

This takes away peoples' ability to get involved with someone without getting intertwined, and as most of us know, women (and men also I suppose) can turn very nasty down the track with no reason other than their own stupidity. This takes away the protection of having the ability to choose your own period of the 'no strings attached' period of a relationship, which will give men in particular very big commitment issues, and with very good reason. Some people want to be with their partner for a few years before getting married, because they know it can take that long to be sure about your partner. Not any more! Two years on and like it or not the law says you're married, whether or not either partner wants it.

It's bad enough for people who start out with the best of intentions, but considering the number of people out there who actually start out as gold diggers or homewreckers... wow... scarey! Which monkey was put into the position of power which enabled this to happen? You'd think they'd at least be able to find a monkey which didn't have a severe brain disorder.


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 12, 2008)

Sdaji said:


> Wow! How ridiculous! You go out with a girl for a few months and married or not she has a claim, even if you don't live together? I can see guys everywhere saying "Sorry, love, it has been five-and-a-half months now, I have to say goodbye and hit the singles bar for your replacement now".
> 
> This takes away peoples' ability to get involved with someone without getting intertwined, and as most of us know, women (and men also I suppose) can turn very nasty down the track with no reason other than their own stupidity. This takes away the protection of having the ability to choose your own period of the 'no strings attached' period of a relationship, which will give men in particular very big commitment issues, and with very good reason. Some people want to be with their partner for a few years before getting married, because they know it can take that long to be sure about your partner. Not any more! Two years on and like it or not the law says you're married, whether or not either partner wants it.
> 
> It's bad enough for people who start out with the best of intentions, but considering the number of people out there who actually start out as gold diggers or homewreckers... wow... scarey! Which monkey was put into the position of power which enabled this to happen? You'd think they'd at least be able to find a monkey which didn't have a severe brain disorder.


 

Well summed up.

I couldnt agree more.


----------



## -Peter (Nov 12, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> Intelligent repsonse Peter, hopefully your mistress will take half of your money lol



You get the response you deserve. My mistress and I have been together since 1984. She gets everything. My wife and I resolved our differences a long time ago as well.

I do find the whole thing rather ridiculous but then the response on here is pretty funny as well.
Thats what happens when religious right wingers come to power. Their morality police go with them.


----------



## slim6y (Nov 12, 2008)

Whoa... hang there - are all you males living in the 50s?

Where on this thread does it state that females have the right to half of all the possessions? By all rights and for what i read, it's a 50/50 thing - men and women are entitled to the same fair half of everything.

It's a common law around the world where people who live together are considered de facto - however this now differs if the person is having an extra marital or extra relationship affair and they don't need to be living with each other.

As far as I can see it doesn't seem to be that unfair - although it's a little too much.

In many cases you can prove that the items that are being divided are not part of the relationship - or alternatively if that doesn't work, just make sure you have a HUGE credit card debt - because half of everything - that also includes half the debt.

I learnt this through a situation that occurred - At the time of my break up with my partner we had quite a bit of debt - though she never threatened to take half of everything - I went to a law expert to ask what she was entitled to - it appeared after she paid the debts she may have come out with a tiny sum if she'd chosen that road.

It is a good idea for a relationship that is beginning and you know you want to move forward to discuss the clauses of what is rightfully yours etc - and there is no harm in signing something that says so.

But as far as I am aware the paper, even if signed in front of a judge is still worthless.

So - know what you're getting into - if you're at all worried rack up a huge credit card debt and you should be happy


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 12, 2008)

I would have thought this went across extreme religeous views as its actually giving voice to immorality?

If you dont live together i dont think your entitles to 1 glass, 1 spoon or 1 cent.


----------



## Reptilian (Nov 12, 2008)

My partner always threatens me with taking all my stuff when we argue...I always tell her that she can have it, I get to keep my herps (and she aint got a licence), they are the most important to me...lol


----------



## Chris1 (Nov 12, 2008)

Reptilian said:


> My partner always threatens me with taking all my stuff when we argue...I always tell her that she can have it, I get to keep my herps (and she aint got a licence), they are the most important to me...lol



haha, my partner tried that, so i made him sign a cohabitation agreement!


----------



## albino (Nov 12, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> This is beyonf a joke i am actually ashamed to be an Australian if this becomes law.


 

is this the same horsesrule who loves the labor party and claims only liberal governments make bad laws?????

find yourself a rich bloke and then you don't have to worry about your health benefits, free education, unemployment benefits, your disabled parking stickers, etc etc etc. do it for yourself, and then you can be proud to be an australian. how many slags would bob hawke have to fork out for????


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 12, 2008)

Lol never said i love labor in fact far from it but i prefer them to the extreme right liberals.

I actually vote greens just to set the record streight.


----------



## albino (Nov 12, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> Lol never said i love labor in fact far from it but i prefer them to the extreme right liberals.
> 
> I actually vote greens just to set the record streight.


 

is that the same greens who give their preferences to the labor party???

if you vote green, it might make you feel all warm and fuzzy and good about yourself, but you are still voting labor.


----------



## Mrs I (Nov 12, 2008)

I wonder if the new law would work if the wife got a mistress.

Wonder if the wife and the mistress split whether the mistress would still be entitled to her cut.

OR

If the affair was with a mister/mistress of the professional type, sometimes these can go on for years, i wonder if they would then be entitled, even though it was of a professional nature, where is the line drawn.


----------



## moosenoose (Nov 12, 2008)

albino said:


> if you vote green, it might make you feel all warm and fuzzy and good about yourself, but you are still voting labor.



You're spot on...plus, if you do vote for the Greens you might as well vote for Daffy Duck. They'd have to be one of the most useless parties this side of Family First :lol:


----------



## nuthn2do (Nov 12, 2008)

The law says 50/50, so if i had a wife and a mistress i could get 50% off each of them and they would each be entitled to 50% of mine so all up i lose the lot. 
However if i have a wife and 5 mistresses i get 50% off each of them, my 100% is gone on the first 2, so i'll be 200% ahead ...........


----------



## waruikazi (Nov 12, 2008)

Where's the point in getting married now??


----------



## Slateman (Nov 12, 2008)

Gee I hope that neighbors dog will not start any legal action against me now. 
I love this dog. She is darling.


----------



## waruikazi (Nov 12, 2008)

Slateman said:


> Gee I hope that neighbors dog will not start any legal action against me now.
> I love this dog. She is darling.



:shock:

LOL You crack me up Slatey!


----------



## Sdaji (Nov 12, 2008)

nuthn2do said:


> The law says 50/50, so if i had a wife and a mistress i could get 50% off each of them and they would each be entitled to 50% of mine so all up i lose the lot.
> However if i have a wife and 5 mistresses i get 50% off each of them, my 100% is gone on the first 2, so i'll be 200% ahead ...........



Hey! I hadn't thought about it like that! If people are cheating on their spouses, they now might as well do it with as many people as possible! Gee, it could get messy if you're having the equivalent of a dozen simultaneous divorces! :shock:

What they've done is taken away peoples' effective right _not_ to get married, even if both people want to remain effectively unmarried. No point in saying you're not ready for the commitment of marriage now, guys. Half of us are about to get effectively married without our desire, decision or action


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 12, 2008)

albino said:


> is that the same greens who give their preferences to the labor party???
> 
> if you vote green, it might make you feel all warm and fuzzy and good about yourself, but you are still voting labor.


 

Better the preferences go to Labor than Liberal or National extreme right capitalists


----------



## Slateman (Nov 12, 2008)

Yipi
It would be interesting to live in communist society again. I did this once.
Nothing would be more interesting than Australian refuges in detention centers around the world.

Sorry for exaggeration, I just responded to quote; _Liberal or National extreme right capitalists_

Millions of people emigrated and still emigrate to live in style and wealth of this Liberal or National extreme right capitalist worlds
for simple reason. They searching for better live standard.

But all this politic stuff is off the topic. Sorry to mention that here.


----------



## cement (Nov 12, 2008)

Right, thats it...... I am going to start thinking with my other head now..


----------



## Fester (Nov 12, 2008)

Makes hookers a much more cost effective option!


----------



## Sdaji (Nov 13, 2008)

Fester said:


> Makes hookers a much more cost effective option!



I can see guys trying to pay their girlfriends to make sure the buck stops there


----------



## jessb (Nov 13, 2008)

I don't know if anyone actually read this article before jumping on the "Today Tonight" -esque bandwagon.  

Dating someone for 6 months does NOT automatically entitle them to marital rights. Only when a couple have been "living together on a genuine domestic basis" for 2 years does the law kick in. Affairs where you have an occasional shag outside your marriage aren't included, its only when you have a long term relationship where you spend time with the person at their home, holiday with them etc that you will be affected. ie if you have "a domestic arrangement". 

The lawyer quoted also pointed out that situations such as this will be extremely rare. Unsurprisingly, this quote wasn't included in the article because it would have added a measure of balance to an otherwise sensationalised piece of tripe.

This is a sensible decision considering many people are no longer choosing to get married, despite many situations where one partner may work to support the other's study; or one might be a stay at home parent, forgoing a career, despite being unmarried. Should these relationships break up, the new laws will provide protection for the non-working partner should they be unable to support themself. 

I also think its interesting to note the rampant sexism apparent in most of the responses. The mistresses are being painted as the evil money-grabbers. But surely it is FAR more morally bankrupt to betray your wedding vows, lie and cheat to have an affair with another woman, than to be a single woman who chooses to sleep with a married man!

Also, happily, this law provides the same protection to de-facto same-sex couples which is a step closer to providing legal equality for all Australians.


----------



## jessb (Nov 13, 2008)

Sdaji said:


> What they've done is taken away peoples' effective right _not_ to get married, even if both people want to remain effectively unmarried. No point in saying you're not ready for the commitment of marriage now, guys. Half of us are about to get effectively married without our desire, decision or action


 
Sdaji, co-habitation agreements are available to "protect" you from all those evil, money-grabbing women who are out to pillage your fortune if you are that worried...


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 13, 2008)

The issue here is not whether one has an affair or not.

It is living arrangements! if someone is married and lives with there married partner but is having an affair for lets say 5 years the person who the married partner is having the affair with is not entitled to ****. 

If you dont live with the person full time you are not entitled to one cent.

Laws like this actually hurt relationships and marriage.


----------



## Sdaji (Nov 13, 2008)

jessb: C'mon, it's a reptile chat forum! We're not here to talk serious politics, we're here to talk herp (sometimes) and have fun. Read Slateman's post  Read my last two posts... it's pretty clear they're tongue in cheek


----------



## hydropython (Nov 13, 2008)

jessb said:


> I don't know if anyone actually read this article before jumping on the "Today Tonight" -esque bandwagon.
> 
> Dating someone for 6 months does NOT automatically entitle them to marital rights. Only when a couple have been "living together on a genuine domestic basis" for 2 years does the law kick in. Affairs where you have an occasional shag outside your marriage aren't included, its only when you have a long term relationship where you spend time with the person at their home, holiday with them etc that you will be affected. ie if you have "a domestic arrangement".
> 
> ...



This still does not change the fact that the law is flawed and simply cannot work without further muddying and complicating the domestic environment. 

I truly hope that this means that having asharehouse which stays with the same residents for more than 2 years will not entitle the guy who is always late with the rent to claim half of my ****.

Just like the internet censorship laws which are going to be trialled soon, this pathetic piece of leglislation can only be another step down the slippery slope into a nanny state where we will have to go to court for permission to wipe our our own backsides

there is a reason people have not been getting married, and for a person to be able to claim spousal support after a relationship breaks down after only being together for 2 years is absurd.

Why do we let politicians control us in such a manner??? They derive their power from us, its not just some ethereal mandate with which they obtain their authority.

You are right that same sex couples do need equal recognition, but this legislation is NOT the way to go.


----------



## waruikazi (Nov 13, 2008)

jessb said:


> This is a sensible decision considering many people are no longer choosing to get married, despite many situations where one partner may work to support the other's study; or one might be a stay at home parent, forgoing a career, despite being unmarried. Should these relationships break up, the new laws will provide protection for the non-working partner should they be unable to support themself.



Why should people who have made the decision not to get married be forced to live under the same laws as married couples?


----------



## Lewy (Nov 13, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> Why should people who have made the decision not to get married be forced to live under the same laws as married couples?


 

I totally agree Its bull ****


----------



## nuthn2do (Nov 13, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> Why should people who have made the decision not to get married be forced to live under the same laws as married couples?


Whether you have a licence or not the road rules are still the same.


----------



## waruikazi (Nov 13, 2008)

nuthn2do said:


> Whether you have a licence or not the road rules are still the same.



No it's actually illegal to drive in the road if you don't have a license and legal if you do. Rules are different and a terrible analogy.


----------



## waruikazi (Nov 13, 2008)

nuthn2do said:


> Whether you have a licence or not the road rules are still the same.



BAhaha! I can't believe you compared the road rules to marriage.

Perhaps you could compare it to a truck license and car license... Or motor bike and car, then the rules are the same.


----------



## Fester (Nov 13, 2008)

missllamathuen said:


> thats rediclulous how sexist!! lol


 


horsesrule said:


> She added that men who had been in a succession of monogamous relationships could also face paying maintenance support to multiple ex-partners.
> .


 
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but in this sort of relationship why is there just the reference to men? It takes two to tango and I am sure that the female partner, let's say is married , should also be made to face maintenance support!


----------



## waruikazi (Nov 13, 2008)

Is maintenance even done in Australia, i thought it was only child support? If it is it's a load of bollocks.


----------



## Samantha01 (Nov 13, 2008)

Does anyone know how much it is to frieght a baby diamond python from South Australia to Victoria?


----------



## Fester (Nov 13, 2008)

Gee, that's changing the subject!!


----------



## waruikazi (Nov 13, 2008)

$65 + permit + $15 for a container.

Just get your ex defacto to pay for it.


----------



## Minke (Nov 13, 2008)

> Previously, Queensland's de facto couples could access the Family Court to resolve child custody issues, but property disputes had to be heard in Supreme or District courts. With the new laws, de factos can have all matters heard in a federal family law court. Claims on superannuation also are allowed.


 
I know when i was living in a de facto relationship 7 years ago (we had been living together for 12 months) it would have been basically treated as we had been married if we had split up. So that part has always been the same (its just changed courts). On the mistress thing - either... i don't know, maybe think about not having affairs, or make sure you keep to a maximum time frame :|

Personally, i think there is more to a relationship than just living together... I also don't think it would be as easy as they are making out to take someone to court and take half their stuff.


----------



## nuthn2do (Nov 13, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> BAhaha! I can't believe you compared the road rules to marriage.
> 
> Perhaps you could compare it to a truck license and car license... Or motor bike and car, then the rules are the same.


No the point is the difference between marriage and a defacto relationship is only a marriage licence, nothing else changes and you are responsible for your own actions. Why should you live with a partner for 2 years and not be held accountable for debt because you didn't get that piece of paper?


----------



## waruikazi (Nov 13, 2008)

nuthn2do said:


> No the point is the difference between marriage and a defacto relationship is only a marriage licence, nothing else changes and you are responsible for your own actions. Why should you live with a partner for 2 years and not be held accountable for debt because you didn't get that piece of paper?



I'll answer your question with a question. Why should a person be held accountable for the others income when they have decided they want nothing to do with each other?


----------



## nuthn2do (Nov 13, 2008)

waruikazi said:


> I'll answer your question with a question. Why should a person be held accountable for the others income when they have decided they want nothing to do with each other?


Ok you don't have an answer for part A
For part B - why are you living together for 2 years if you want nothing to do with each other?


----------



## tattoolizzie (Nov 13, 2008)

If one partner has taken time out of the workforce to raise kids, forgoing wages and super, then the other partner should be responsible for this should they break up.


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 13, 2008)

tattoolizzie said:


> If one partner has taken time out of the workforce to raise kids, forgoing wages and super, then the other partner should be responsible for this should they break up.


 

Even if they dont live together??

Surely your joking?


----------



## tattoolizzie (Nov 13, 2008)

of course I'm not joking.


----------



## nuthn2do (Nov 13, 2008)

tattoolizzie said:


> If one partner has taken time out of the workforce to raise kids, forgoing wages and super, then the other partner should be responsible for this should they break up.


Exactly, married or not you still have obligations to look after your children and be responsible for your own debt. Pretending it's not your problem because you weren't married is a lame excuse


----------



## hydropython (Nov 13, 2008)

tattoolizzie said:


> If one partner has taken time out of the workforce to raise kids, forgoing wages and super, then the other partner should be responsible for this should they break up.



wrong.
If that person chose to do that it is their choice.

everyone should be responsible for themselves.

If that person truly wanted to be in the workforce they could purchase childcare.

If not, that is a personal choice and an expartner should not bear the burden for this parasitic condition

Child support is a different scenario


----------



## nuthn2do (Nov 13, 2008)

hydropython said:


> If that person truly wanted to be in the workforce they could purchase childcare


You don't have kids do you?


----------



## bellbird (Nov 13, 2008)

bundy_zigg said:


> Gee I dont know may be a husband is cheating with a #### for a year or so and then calls it off she goes ape and wants money and takes him to court AND WINS and takes half of his stuff - what about the poor wife and kids who loose stuff cause he scrwed up?


 


i heard the story on the news.. they refer to child support for the mistress


----------



## albino (Nov 13, 2008)

cement said:


> Right, thats it...... I am going to start thinking with my other head now..


 

you had better change your location to 'central coast'


----------



## jessb (Nov 13, 2008)

Sdaji said:


> jessb: C'mon, it's a reptile chat forum! We're not here to talk serious politics, we're here to talk herp (sometimes) and have fun. Read Slateman's post  Read my last two posts... it's pretty clear they're tongue in cheek


 

LOL sorry! I tend to take things at face value (a trait my husband prefers to refer to as "gullible [email protected]") and unless I am face to face with people I know well, I am often not good at picking up sarcasm! 

That combined with the fact that some of the people on online forums actually have views which I would consider unbelievably loopy (like all those who supported McCain/Palin!) that I have no idea what the limits of the insanity might be! :lol:


----------



## albino (Nov 13, 2008)

jessb said:


> the fact that some of the people on online forums actually have views which I would consider unbelievably loopy (like all those who supported McCain/Palin!) that I have no idea what the limits of the insanity might be! :lol:


 
what about rudd and iemma. and obama's views aren't loopy??? surely you jest, who's being queen of sarcasm now?


----------



## tattoolizzie (Nov 13, 2008)

hydropython said:


> wrong.
> If that person chose to do that it is their choice.
> 
> everyone should be responsible for themselves.
> ...


 
hmm, the situation that I have described is reflective of my own. My partner and I have two preschool kids. It is in there best interests to be at home with a loving parent rather than in childcare. We have been together for 6 years, the house we purchased one year into the relationship is soley in his name. At the moment he has higher earning potential than I do so he works and I don't. I have been a stay at home mum for the last 5 year, 3 1/2 of which were spent breastfeeding, 9 months pregnant, I clean the house, do the washing and for the last year I have also been studying full for a Bachelor of Nursing degree via correspondence so that when my youngest child is school aged I will be qualified to for a better job than the one I had before I had kids. When I am working as a nurse I intend to complete a MBBA so that I can become a doctor, at which point I will work and my partner will take some well deserved time off. I don't think my behaviour could be considered 'parasitic'.

Without legistlation such as this if we were to split then I could effectively walk away with nothing. Do you really think that 5 years of raising children is worth nothing, or that the income earner is the only one that contributes to a relationship?


----------



## chilli (Nov 13, 2008)

albino said:


> you had better change your location to 'central coast'




ha ha ha you're a funny guy!


----------



## gman78 (Nov 14, 2008)

Not happy, what next


----------



## Sdaji (Nov 14, 2008)

tattoolizzie said:


> hmm, the situation that I have described is reflective of my own. My partner and I have two preschool kids. It is in there best interests to be at home with a loving parent rather than in childcare. We have been together for 6 years, the house we purchased one year into the relationship is soley in his name. At the moment he has higher earning potential than I do so he works and I don't. I have been a stay at home mum for the last 5 year, 3 1/2 of which were spent breastfeeding, 9 months pregnant, I clean the house, do the washing and for the last year I have also been studying full for a Bachelor of Nursing degree via correspondence so that when my youngest child is school aged I will be qualified to for a better job than the one I had before I had kids. When I am working as a nurse I intend to complete a MBBA so that I can become a doctor, at which point I will work and my partner will take some well deserved time off. I don't think my behaviour could be considered 'parasitic'.
> 
> Without legistlation such as this if we were to split then I could effectively walk away with nothing. Do you really think that 5 years of raising children is worth nothing, or that the income earner is the only one that contributes to a relationship?



That's why people have the option of marriage. Traditionally, marriage signifies that two people are committed to each other and not getting married signifies that there is no commitment or a reduced commitment. When things started to change (not all that long ago at all), it became acceptable for people to live together, have a family, etc etc, without getting married, and some people chose to do so because they didn't _want_ the commitment of marriage. Now some people have flipped even further and say that not only is marriage not essential, it is offensive or restrictive or something which shouldn't be imposed on them, and that decision is unfairly taking away the right of people to live with a lessened commitment, even if that's what they choose. Where is the protection for someone who earns more than their partner and wants to protect their assets but wants to have a partner without the risk? To all the bra-burners: some women make more money than their partners, you know? Protection works both ways and women often get wiped out in divorces too, there are gold-digging men out there.

Marriage is a choice to be commited. Why should the government impose that choice on people who don't want it? If people want it and have some ethical, social or financial issue with marriage, and the government wants to bring in some sort of protection for them, there should be a registry of commitment/certifical of official coupleness or something along those lines. Most people in that situation don't whinge, they get married legally. If they don't like religion, social ramifications, or whatever, they just have an informal marriage in an office, using marriage as a legal agreement and ignoring all the religion and ceremony. Plenty of people have been doing that since well before it became widely acceptable to be a defacto couple. Why should the government decide when you are ready to take that step? Why should we have that personal power removed from us? It's a diverse country with people in all sorts of different situations. 

Marriage is a cheap, easy option for any couple, with any level of ceremony that the couple chooses. Religion doesn't need to come into it. Not being effectively married but living together is no longer a right or option we have, and the government chooses when that commitment comes into play, with a 'one size fits all' approach and 'your wishes don't matter' parameter.

jessb: Just to be clear, this is one of the serious posts, but it doesn't make the silly ones serious  It's pretty difficult separating the sarcasm from the real ones :lol: I used to think that if I went completely overboard people would know when I was joking, but it just made them more angry with me for having extreme views or suggesting insane things :lol: I gave up and just figure it's a place to muck around, have fun and not take seriously. Just keep in mind that it's an informal reptile chat forum and don't take anything to heart 

Maybe we should have a little 'tongue in cheek' icon toggle thing for each post


----------



## waruikazi (Nov 14, 2008)

nuthn2do said:


> No the point is the difference between marriage and a defacto relationship is only a marriage licence, nothing else changes and you are responsible for your own actions. Why should you live with a partner for 2 years and not be held accountable for debt because you didn't get that piece of paper?



The point is the choice has been taken away whether you want that level of commitment or not. It's an individuals choice to get married or not get married (or at least it used to be).



waruikazi said:


> I'll answer your question with a question. Why should a person be held accountable for the others income when they have decided they want nothing to do with each other?



I'll qualify this statement by adding that i think child support is necessary, although the way it is paid needs to be seriously looked at.



nuthn2do said:


> Ok you don't have an answer for part A
> For part B - why are you living together for 2 years if you want nothing to do with each other?



OMG are you serious? AFTER the couple split up one or both may want nothing to do with the other, not during the relationship.


----------



## tattoolizzie (Nov 14, 2008)

This legestlation is only 'imposed' on people if one of partners makes a claim. If people want to stay uncommitted (even after 2 yrs of living together on a genuine domestic basis) that's fine ... when you split, take what's yours and keep it out of the courts - simple as that. 

No one said these laws apply just for women... they are to protect both partners. The outcome is also decided by a court - so I think it is highly unlikely that people would be awarded ridiculously unfair portions of assets in the instance of some money grabbing (man or woman) trying to take their ex's $$$.

Like someone said before, these law are not new anyway - the court has changed to the family court and the wording has been altered to be inclusive of the diversity of relationships in our country. The demographics of what makes a family or a relationship are not limited to married couples: our laws need to reflect that.


----------



## waruikazi (Nov 14, 2008)

Lizzie we've all seen people relationships go sour. People get into these things with the best intentions and the couple may have an agreement that if/when they split they will do it amicably but things change and these laws make it easier for the pissed off other half to make life difficult.


----------



## tattoolizzie (Nov 14, 2008)

I know - but it's still decided by a court. It's not just a case of 50/50 split. Things like the duration of the relationship, assets accumulated prior to relationship, each partners monetary contributions, other contributions, if the ability of each partner to support themselves is affected as a direct result of the split etc etc. would all be taken into account.

edit - just correcting my typos


----------



## Sdaji (Nov 14, 2008)

tattoolizzie said:


> This legestlation is only 'imposed' on people if one of partners makes a claim. If people want to stay uncommitted (even after 2 yrs of living together on a genuine domestic basis) that's fine ... when you split, take what's yours and keep it out of the courts - simple as that.
> 
> No one said these laws apply just for women... they are to protect both partners. The outcome is also decided by a court - so I think it is highly unlikely that people would be awarded ridiculously unfair portions of assets in the instance of some money grabbing (man or woman) trying to take their ex's $$$.
> 
> Like someone said before, these law are not new anyway - the court has changed to the family court and the wording has been altered to be inclusive of the diversity of relationships in our country. The demographics of what makes a family or a relationship are not limited to married couples: our laws need to reflect that.



:lol: No one goes into a relationship expecting their partner to make a claim against them! Unless you've lived in an insulated, steel-plated box for your whole life you'll know that relationships can turn very bitter and nasty, even though they started out rosey. It only takes one party to make a claim, and all the time we hear about it being done by people who started out swearing they'd always be reasonable and never do that.

Surely you're not naive enough to think that the courts will get it right! It's extremely common that one party gets a ridiculously unfair amount of the assets, and this can be either the man or the woman (both genders tend to claim that the other usually gets the better deal - the reality is that more often than not, both sides lose).

Sure, families/relationships don't require marriage, but the laws make it impossible to have a certain type of relationship which people should have the right to choose. Marriage means next to nothing in the eyes of the law - the whole point of getting married (in a legal context) is to show that both parties agree to the commitment, that they've made that choice. No one should be forced into a situation where they are effectively married against their own wishes, we shouldn't have the right of choice taken away from us.


----------



## tattoolizzie (Nov 14, 2008)

It's not taken away... if you don't want the responsibility of a relationship don't enter into one.


----------



## waruikazi (Nov 14, 2008)

tattoolizzie said:


> It's not taken away... if you don't want the responsibility of a relationship don't enter into one.



No. Now your statement should read, 'If you don't want the responsibility of marriage don't spend anymore than two years with your partner.'


----------



## tattoolizzie (Nov 14, 2008)

I totally get your point, and it is certainly valid.

It just differs from my perspective though. I feel that if you are 'living together on a genuine domestic basis' , (as the legistlation defines it) for more than 2 years, you shouldn't get the option of shirking responsibility just because you don't want to be commited.


----------



## Australis (Nov 14, 2008)

Avoiding responsibility is what made this country great


----------



## waruikazi (Nov 14, 2008)

Honestly my biggest problem with this legislation is that it cheapens marriage, makes it obsolete and unnecessary. Not that i'm a huge fan of marriage, until same sex couples are allowed to marry i wont be a fan of it. 

The next issue i have is that it takes peoples choice away, there is no option if you have a relationship with someone for more than two years, BAM, your de facto and subject to these laws (which makes me wonder if this would affect teenagers? It's quite common that high school aged kids have long term relationships).

The final of my big issues with this law is that it opens the door for the pissed off ex to drag you through the mud!

Not to mention that this is gonna make more guys even more afraid of any kind of commitment.


----------



## slim6y (Nov 14, 2008)

Just don't forget - half of nothing is still nothing...

Half of negative $25,000 debt is only a debt of $12,500 - it makes perfect sense to me!


----------



## tattoolizzie (Nov 14, 2008)

Only if you live together ... the exceptions to this were descibed as situations where one partner is interstate for work most of the time etc, or the travelling salesperson scenario where someone has 2 families in different places each oblivious to the other and thinking they are the only one. I don't think any self respecting family court judge would consider teenage relationships to be de facto unless they were living together as adults or had a child. 

Plus, I think if people aren't ready for commitment they shouldn't be shacking up with someone for 2 years.


----------



## Australis (Nov 14, 2008)

tattoolizzie said:


> Plus, I think if people aren't ready for commitment they shouldn't be shacking up with someone for 2 years.



I rented a house with a group of girls once upon a time - my commitment was to the lease.
But i guess i would have to prove this would, other wise they might do me for my white goods :|


----------



## Sdaji (Nov 15, 2008)

tattoolizzie said:


> Plus, I think if people aren't ready for commitment they shouldn't be shacking up with someone for 2 years.



It's a big world with all sorts of people wanting to live their lives in all sorts of different ways. The option of commitment was always there, the alternative has been taken away. If _you_ don't want to live with someone for two years without commitment, good on you, don't! If _someone else_ wants to, for whatever reason, they should have that option. Who on Earth are you to be making a statement about how other people should be living their lives? What right does any of us have to say that two people shouldn't be allowed to make the choice to live together for whatever period they like with whatever level of commitment they want?


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 16, 2008)

Same sex marriage is just plain wrong. 

Marriage is between a man and a woman not 2 of the same sex.


----------



## Hooglabah (Nov 16, 2008)

really worst case scenario for a man 

girlfriend / mistress leaves takes half
wife finds out leaves takes half

man has nothing at all.

lol im not worried i havent cheated since i was 16 (and i still feel bad about it even tho i hate the ex) and will never cheat again.


----------



## jessb (Nov 16, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> Same sex marriage is just plain wrong.
> 
> Marriage is between a man and a woman not 2 of the same sex.


 
LOL. Well thought out, rational argument there! :lol:


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 16, 2008)

How about marriage is a religious institution. 

Gay marriage violates and insults religious beliefs and actually insults them not to mention makes a mockery of marriage.


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 16, 2008)

Pre nups the only way to go now because of the money hungry obsessed society we live in today.


----------



## Sdaji (Nov 16, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> Pre nups the only way to go now because of the money hungry obsessed society we live in today.



Except that due to our system they aren't legally binding. Australian law won't allow that either, although if you're lucky the court _might_ take it into account to some extent, if they choose to, but if they want to they can ignore it entirely.


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 16, 2008)

I tell you its not good at all.

No security for either sex from gold diggers (and there is plenty out there)


----------



## Dodie (Nov 16, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> How about marriage is a religious institution.
> 
> Gay marriage violates and insults religious beliefs and actually insults them not to mention makes a mockery of marriage.


 
Erm I'm not 100% on this but... 

I don't think everyone that gets married is religious..

Moot point on you're behalf.


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 16, 2008)

Regardless of whether they are religeous or not marriage is a religeous institution.


----------



## Dodie (Nov 16, 2008)

Yes it came about from religion (assuming, religions also tend to 'steal' ideas)
But the two people that get married do not have to have religious ties, beliefs etc.
It's about commitment and love to most people, not appeasing a certain god.


----------



## jessb (Nov 16, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> How about marriage is a religious institution.


 
What a load of rubbish! Marriage is a civil, legal institution. You can't just get married in a church without signing the same marriage register that every marriage in Australia requires. If it was purely religious then it wouldn't be legally recognised.

You can't get married by any religious person unless they are a legally registered marriage celebrant, and a church marriage isn't binding until you sign the legally recognised marriage register.

And you seem to assume that marriage is the preserve of Christian religion too - every faith has their own type of marriage ceremony (which are equally obliged to undertake the exact same requirements as a civil ceremony).

I am a staunch atheist and chose to get married in a civil ceremony with no mention of any sky fairies in white robes . We chose readings from our favourite novel, instead of verses written by a bunch of blokes a couple of millennia ago and translated half a dozen times by biased mediaeval monks. Why should your opinion of marriage be any more (or less) valid than mine? 

I just find it hilarious that so many religious/homophobic types are so insecure about marriage, that the idea of two people of the same gender who love each other getting married could undermine the whole institution!


----------



## horsesrule (Nov 16, 2008)

Neither of us are religeous either.

However in saying that it doesnt mean i cant see how the idea of gay marriage offends millions of people worldwide.


----------



## Australis (Nov 16, 2008)

jessb said:


> I just find it hilarious that so many religious/homophobic types are so insecure about marriage, that the idea of two people of the same gender who love each other getting married could undermine the whole institution!



Gays in general just breathing cause natural disasters, god help us if they get married
double the power to cause natural disasters!


----------



## jessb (Nov 16, 2008)

Australis said:


> Gays in general just breathing cause natural disasters, god help us if they get married
> double the power to cause natural disasters!


 
nice to see you are such an open-minded, tolerant, compassionate person...


----------



## tooninoz (Nov 16, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> Neither of us are religeous either.
> 
> However in saying that it doesnt mean i cant see how the idea of gay marriage offends millions of people worldwide.



Let them be offended. It's irrelevant. You live your life, others live differently.
Society has become such an anal and homogonised bunch of whingers that _any_ change is welcomed!


----------



## Australis (Nov 16, 2008)

jessb said:


> nice to see you are such an open-minded, tolerant, compassionate person...



Thanks!  .. someone has to think about the people effected by these natural disasters, i do my bit.


----------



## jessb (Nov 16, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> it doesnt mean i cant see how the idea of gay marriage offends millions of people worldwide.


 
The idea of preventing a significant minority of the population from accessing something we consider a right is pretty damn offensive to me!


----------



## Recharge (Nov 16, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> Regardless of whether they are religeous or not marriage is a religeous institution.



it wasn't always  oops there goes your argument...

what's really annoying is that there are different laws for different government departments, under Centrelink rules, defacto status is achieved in three months.

ok, even a blind man could see australis was being sarcastic ;P lol


----------



## notechistiger (Nov 16, 2008)

horsesrule said:


> Same sex marriage is just plain wrong.
> 
> Marriage is between a man and a woman not 2 of the same sex.


 
Here we go again. Your homophobic opinion has no bearing upon anyone else but you.



horsesrule said:


> How about marriage is a religious institution.
> 
> Gay marriage violates and insults religious beliefs and actually insults them not to mention makes a mockery of marriage.


 
I actually laughed when I read this. What a load of crock. If you're not religious, then why do you care? It won't affect you, but it'll make a good number of people happy. But no, they're sinners and thus, have no rights...



jessb said:


> What a load of rubbish! Marriage is a civil, legal institution. You can't just get married in a church without signing the same marriage register that every marriage in Australia requires. If it was purely religious then it wouldn't be legally recognised.
> 
> You can't get married by any religious person unless they are a legally registered marriage celebrant, and a church marriage isn't binding until you sign the legally recognised marriage register.
> 
> ...


 
Well said.



Australis said:


> Gays in general just breathing cause natural disasters, god help us if they get married
> double the power to cause natural disasters!


 
LOL.



tooninoz said:


> Let them be offended. It's irrelevant. You live your life, others live differently.
> Society has become such an anal and homogonised bunch of whingers that _any_ change is welcomed!


 
Too true.


----------

