You are a Racist, a Bigot and a Sexist.

You might want to check this even for heterosexual marriages in your own jurisdiction. Many people quite reasonably assume their spouse has this right if something happens to them.

However a relative found out the hard way that he actually had no rights to make decisions about his wife's health once she was declared incapable of making her own decisions.

What is required for this in Australia is an Enduring Guardianship agreement even between married couples. Otherwise the State has control of the decisions.

Note this is separate from Enduring Power of Attorney which covers financial decisions.

True, but in situations where the spouse is granted the ability to make these decisions, they should have the right. ;)
 
Racism, genderism, ethnicism, sexism, religious sectarianism, and all of those other -isms are simple outgrowths of our evolutionary "herd mentality" heritage to seek a group with which one can identify. The problem is that we should have outgrown such narrow thinking long ago, but have not.

I have not been accused of sexism before but if someone accused me of inappropriate behavior, I would probably explain their ignorance publicly and make the charges that would be laid against me worth the effort. But then, everyone who knows me personally knows that I am outspoken and do not suffer fools gladly.

This is also why when someone starts gay-bashing, I go berserk. I have a family member who is lesbian. I love her as I love my other family members. When someone starts speaking ill of her character, I go on the attack. In a modern society there is no excuse to demean or condemn someone for being different unless that difference manifests itself in criminal predilections.
 
What is required for this in Australia is an Enduring Guardianship agreement even between married couples. Otherwise the State has control of the decisions.

Note this is separate from Enduring Power of Attorney which covers financial decisions.

A quick explanation of the difference would be nice if you have the time.
 
I am no expert but rely on our solicitor who we visited to set it all up after discovering the insensible anomaly that gives the state more power than the spouse.

As I understand a guardian is responsible for health decisions but doesn't have control of financials. Power of Attorney is for financial stuff.
 
I am no expert but rely on our solicitor who we visited to set it all up after discovering the insensible anomaly that gives the state more power than the spouse.

As I understand a guardian is responsible for health decisions but doesn't have control of financials. Power of Attorney is for financial stuff.
Different States.

I think we call them an enduring power of attorney up here, or am I wrong.
 
Different States.

I think we call them an enduring power of attorney up here, or am I wrong.

Our experience was in NSW.

It happend when my wife's aunt was declared a being of unsound mind.

Our solicitor confirmed that both Enduring Power of Attorney and Enduring Guardianship were required to cover both financial and health decisions.

I would suggest getting advice for your own situation. Sure would piss me off if I had to let the State decide what was best for my wife in that situation.
 
I am no expert but rely on our solicitor who we visited to set it all up after discovering the insensible anomaly that gives the state more power than the spouse.

As I understand a guardian is responsible for health decisions but doesn't have control of financials. Power of Attorney is for financial stuff.

I worked it out.

An Enduring Power of Attorney takes over when a General Power of Attorney ceases. If you have an accident, or an illness strikes and you cannot communicate your wishes properly then the Enduring comes into effect. The Enduring should be written so that it has no power until it is required.

I also believe that the Power of Attorney can cover both Financial and Health decisions. It all depends on how the document was drawn up.

What happens in your State could be different to ours. I am not sure if this is under State or Federal Law.

I any case your advice on seeking legal advise is wise. This is also a good reminder for me as I could benefit from having this in place. Even my will is no longer valid.
 
Last edited:
As time goes on, one tends to forget simple things.

I did get a Alzheimer's test recently but I can't remember what the result was.
 
By its original definition marriage is a permanent union. Consequently I presume you are also against the right to divorce.

Philosophy based on the current meaning of a word is a thin veil over what are simply prejudiced attitudes.

Not only do you selectively quote but presume that I am against homosexual unions, I was merely pointing out that the term marriage does not necessarily in its current definition fit a homosexual union, you quite rightly point out that many couples also don't comply, a better example than divorce might be Charles and Camilla , since marriage also seems demand that we beget kids and they obviously couldn't.

What is needed is a redefinition of marriage but until then why not answer my question that I posed in the post regarding civil unions.

Also one man's definition of prejudice can be another's principle.

Brian
 
Not only do you selectively quote but presume that I am against homosexual unions,

Your position is revealed by the fact that you described those who want equal access to marriage as "extremists".
 
What is needed is a redefinition of marriage but until then why not answer my question that I posed in the post regarding civil unions.

So the homosexual couple can say to their friends:

"We were civilly unified in 2013."

"I would like to introduce my civil partner."

Do you get the picture now?
 
Where do these people get the right to steal the word "Gay"

Gay means happy. Can my 90 Year old plus mother no longer be gay.

Fred Flintstone was out for a Gay old time.

Not any more. The pillow bighters have stolen that.

As far as these equal right are concerned. They have the same rights as me and I have the same as them. But equal rights is not what they want. They want special rights at my expense.

I don't want to do what they do. BTW you can't discuss this at a gathering of respectable people. Could you imagine my dear old mum when I explained exactly what a Homosexual does to another. It is enough to put one off their dinner for years.

I want my rights. The same rights that have existed for decades. If you are a Homosexual or Lesbian you can share my rights if you want. They are given freely. But if you want special rights because you have chosen a different lifestyle then that is your problem.

Please don't drag me into your world.
 
So the homosexual couple can say to their friends:

"We were civilly unified in 2013."

"I would like to introduce my civil partner."

Do you get the picture now?

Since all of our forms no longer talk of spouses but partners I don't see the problem

However I do think a legal redefinition of marriage is the best solution.


Brian
 
Your position is revealed by the fact that you described those who want equal access to marriage as "extremists".

Those who have spoken out are, but not just on this issue, they are the very vocal few but then I can't really know the numbers so just maybe the vast silent majority feel the same way, although not all do.

Brian
 
Rain I agree with all of your post except the bit about it being a lifestyle chose, I believe it to be a natural although not normal happening, I don't think I worded that very well.
I'm saying that nature has caused them to be the way they are, they should not be prejudiced against because of that, but neither should they expect their lifestyle to be accepted as the norm and taught as such in our schools or over influence our way of life in any way.

Brian
 
Nature made them that way therefore they are part of the "norm".

You may apologise but are a bigot Brian.
 
Last edited:
In what way am I a bigot?

How can both homosexual and heterosexual be the norm, you are not saying that because something is not the norm it must be wrong are you, I don't think homosexuality is wrong, just not the norm

Brian
 
In what way am I a bigot?

How can both homosexual and heterosexual be the norm, you are not saying that because something is not the norm it must be wrong are you, I don't think homosexuality is wrong, just not the norm

Brian

"The Norm" includes both ways (and more).

Redheads are relatively rare. Are they not part of the norm?
 
BTW you can't discuss this at a gathering of respectable people. Could you imagine my dear old mum when I explained exactly what a Homosexual does to another. It is enough to put one off their dinner for years.

So you and your Mum happily discuss what you do sexually with your wife?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom