Jay Of Melbourne,

Good analysis.

General Comment
There may have been some rationalisation in the past for having single people support married, but I can see no justification whatsoever in modern times for single taxpayers, single members of super funds, health funds and the like being forced to financially subsidise and support other people's choices in life.

As small contributors to superannuation, young workers, especially casuals are shown no quarter, their meagre investments being eaten away by fees equal to larger investors.

Why the hell should young working couples who are having difficulty being able to provide for themselves and provide the wherewithal such as a home for the family they hope for, be required to shoulder the additional burden of others' choices, freely made?

Has anyone come up with the additional costs to the Taxpayer of the expanded costs from defactos in the Australian Public service and quangos gaining the same entitlements as their married colleagues? On top of that came the gay partner rights and what cost?

Add to that the victim industry enabled by that fool Whitlam and the bucket of taxpayers money is leaking like a sieve. No problems for the leftist 'Progressives' though - just keep on raising taxes and taking out loans.

Young working singles and couples are going in blind, being led like lambs to the (tax) slaughter when they support sly and selfish lobbyists whose real aim isn't 'rights' at all but getting a seat on the gravy train to swing from the taxpayer's teat.

Quite obviously the leftists have been getting away for years with raiding the pockets of young working people. Another example could be the cost of all of that infrastructure in the major metropolitan cities that is made necessary by hordes of migrants for the completely unnecessary 'Big Australia'.

Honestly now, why the hell should the taxes of young working taxpayers who are struggling to pay their rent and transport be applied to fund travel and other allowances entitlements for the spouses, gay or otherwise of very well paid federal politicians and public servants?

Fox, "However prior to 2004 it did not contain the amendment clause that marriage was between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. This was inserted under the Howard Government in 2004"

Your inference that gay marriage was intended before or was occurring is deceitful and misleading. That is a deliberate, manipulative and shameless lie that has been corrected many before on this and other forums.

Bald-faced lies are an essential part of the toolkit and integral to the modus operandi of cultural Marxists. The narrative aims at wearing down the stupid and weak-willed to surrender their capacity and right to independent thought.

As you very well know and it is on the public record, PM Howard inserted the clause to ensure that the meaning and intent of the Act were preserved and the well-established institution and tradition protected against a possible sly legal assault by gay activists that could waste a heck of a lot of taxpayers' money.

Onthebeach: I have no idea why some folks choose to come out of the closet, so to speak; nor why some folk choose to remain in one; the only element of choice on display here!

I mean I know of at least one well reported micromanaging control freak who butches it up most of the time; swearing like a trooper,with in your face aggression, visiting strip clubs, where he gets blind drunk and has fooled everyone including most family members?

And remain in the closet, as opposed to losing the kids, their position in the church, or maybe put their job at risk?

No mames or pack drills, but I dare say most of us know one or two similar characters or "eccentric" uncles; or too nice by half, aunts?

Incidentally a reported 40% of us apparently believe the sun revolves around the earth; and quite happily accuse those who assert otherwise, of being liars?

Proof positive one might claim; that conviction doesn't make an uninformed or entirely ignorant opinion correct!

One would assume given your comments to date that you have no idea whatsoever of the actual biology or literal mechanics of the human sex drive; be it hetrosexual or homosexual?

But then those who've engaged in some form of gay bashing, active passive or in your face aggressive?

Are just having too much fun and therefore are never going to let go of a learned position that simply has no basis in learned medical science, or civilized society.

Personally I can't see what your problem is?

I mean nobody is ever going to ask you to participate in any way in a same sex union? So how are you affected by what other folk choose to do?

It goes against your personal beliefs?

If that's the case, do you believe we revolve around the sun or visa versa?
Rhrosty.

The government should only change any type of legislation because it is reasonable to do so. It should only support behaviour which is reasonable. Homosexual behaviour is not reasonable – there can be no logical reason to indulge in homosexual behaviour much less to form relationships and to try and mimic heterosexual relationships by getting married.

That is all the government needs to know. Until homosexuals are able to prove that their behaviour is reasonable they should not be supported in any attempt to try and change legislation. When they come up with a perfectly good argument in favour of homosexual behaviour then we should change the Marriage Act.

Let's Look At The Facts:

It is on public record that the Marriage Act had
changes made in the past but that prior
to 2004 the laws did not define marriage.

As for why Mr Howard inserted the changes to this Act -
the following website explains:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

All Australians are supposed to be equal under the
law - that means that nobody should be treated differently
because of their race, ethnicity, country of origin, age,
gender, marital status, disability, political or religious
beliefs, or sexual orientation.

However, seeing as there seems to be so many strong feelings
on this issue - why not allow a conscience vote in
parliament or have a plebiscite and let Australians decide
for themselves the kind of society they want to live in.