The redefinition of 'married' resulting from the Rudd and Gillard ideologically-based imperatives and deals with the Greens has dramatically changed the essential nature of marriage, and deliberately broadened and changed the status of de facto to equate 'love' & 'relationships' with marriage.

The costly result for employers and government (taxpayers) is many thousands more now expect and qualify for the preferential treatment, benefits, concessions and entitlements as 'marrieds'.

The Rudd and Gillard governments had no mandate for the changes they wrought. They obviously believed as socialists do, that they knew what was best for the public and public consultation was unnecessary, as were estimates of cost.

The Problem
If there ever was some rationale in the distant past for conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists. The distinguishing features of marriage have been contested, weakened and effectively set aside by Rudd and Gillard.

Gay advocates and the Kardashian-sized rump of feminists and leftist 'Progressives' behind gay marriage hotly dispute the worth, practicality, fairness and contribution to society of what they insultingly refer to as 'traditional' marriage. They say that marriage should be dispensed with, but are willing to accept gay marriage as the stepping stone to that goal.

It follows that if there ever was some rationale in the distant past for conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists. It is unfair, discriminatory, for singles to be denied benefits enjoyed by 'marrieds' especially where the number of 'marrieds' has been increased substantially through the inclusion on defacto 'relationships' and then again, by including homosexual defactos as a further burden.

It is unfair, discriminatory, for singles to be denied benefits enjoyed by the new 'marrieds' and it is intolerable that singles are being obliged to pay for the 'love' choices of others.

Why should society and singles in particular be forced to pay for gay 'love' or for anyone else's 'love' choice/s for that matter?

Onthebeach, I think you are a little confused! You seem to be lumping in together the rights of defacto couples and gay couples?

I believe that similar tax concessions and payments to bring defacto relationships in to line with marital relationships, financial-wise, was in place long before your hated Gillard/Rudd Government came into power?

Are you suggesting that defacto couples shouldn't get the same tax concessions and payments as married couples? I never had you pegged for such an old-fashioned bloke before now? Just how old and/or religious are you?

As for single people 'paying for' defacto couples tax concessions, well I am sure all the defacto parent couples aren't happy paying for some tax concessions for single parents, or indeed for their own children working to provide continuing tax concessions/pensions for the single, childless people to be cared for in their old age.

As for any marriages that may result from legalizing gay marriage, their numbers will be so small as to not really mean much to the tax department or wider society anyway.
It all works out in the end now doesn't it?

Yawn! Beach you tried to peddle this nonsense on another thread. Seeing Foxy shot you down in flames there, you spit the dummy and have set up your own thread peddling your crackpot notion, as I said, yawn!

Why do your posts always sound like Dennis Denuto? Following is OTB explaining his vib to Foxy! LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ

Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 28 August 2015 11:43:36 AM

" ... The costly result for employers and government (taxpayers) is many thousands more now expect and qualify for the preferential treatment, benefits, concessions and entitlements as 'marrieds'. ... "

What exactly are these preferential treatments, benefits, concessions and entitlements that you are referring to?

And I assume that you are not referring to (non-pension age)welfare recipients, who generally avoid "partnered status" like the plague, because it is "a stone, a blight and a pox around their necks" as their income gets savagely cut as soon as they become confirmed as partnered by Human Services.Rest assured that there is a fair bit of "Love in the Dark" going on in Australia people. HaHaHa

Perhaps that twit Dutton can send his goons to peep through windows in addition to checking people's papers on the street:

GOON: "Right! You in there! I heard that! You're r__ting in there aren't you?! And your form says "just friends""

SNOGGER 1: "No we weren't! We were just .. jumping on the bed .. to make sure it was .. strong enough .. "

SNOGGER 2: " Yes, yes, you know - to get a good nights sleep. But don't worry, we're done now and I'm going home."

GOON: "Oh well, that's alright then."

SNOGGER 2: "Great. Glad that's settled."

SNOGGER 1: "Aren't you going to have a shower first?"

SNOGGER 2: "OH! Do you think so? Scrub my back?"

GOON: "Right! I heard that!" ..

;-)

Lol Dream On!
That sounds exactly right :)

Now lets blow a big hole in Beach's argument with some facts. Take the Aged Pension benefit in Australia for example.

The maximum single rate with supplements; $860.20 per fortnight.

The maximum married rate with supplements; $648.40 each per f/night,
or a combined rate of $1296.80 which is $423.60 less per fortnight than a pair of singles.

Putting it in parlance that even Beach can understand. A gay couple are better off financially remaining Adam and Steve, rather than pursuing the life of the married couple Adam and Eve. I haven't even mentioned the extra benefits Adam and Eve receive for their child Able, benefits which Adam and Steve do not receive for their basset hound Cane.

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/age-pension/payment-rates-for-age-pension