Is it reasonable to have singles, particularly young working singles who can ill-afford to do so so, compulsorily subsidising other people's lifestyle choices, ie to partner?

Heterosexual marriage has been supported in the past by the community and attracted various concessions and entitlements (such as spousal travel in the public services and for politicians) because it was seen as a social good. [Although some of the arguments that is in fact a social good are contentious. The feminists say there is only a downside.]

The definition of 'partnered' has been broadened a number of times, adding large numbers in the case of de facto provisions and then then broadened again with the inclusion of gay 'relationships'.

What they are doing is further marginalising single people who must pay directly and indirectly for the couples benefits enjoyed by those who have made that lifestyle choice.

If marriage is up for trashing to suit the few, then the whole concept of marriage should be up for discussion too. After all, one would want those demanding change to have thought through the repercussions, which could be far-reaching.

It seems to be a rush to get change in before the public has time to consider anything but the superficial mantras that receive far too much air time.

Why should a single be forced to pay for someone else's 'love'?

I don't have anything more to add to this
discussion.

I have expressed my opinion on the subject.

I shall leave any further analysis to
those who want to delve deeper into the issues that
are of concern to them.

It shall be interesting to see whether the government
decides to tackle this issue prior to the election
or put it off for the future.

Fox,

Like the missed opportunity to take action on that ANAO Report to fix the 'Open Door' politicians' entitlements, Labor had six years to do introduce Gay Marriage but they did nothing, zilch.

Now Labor and their Greens sidekicks have the gall to claim that gay marriage is all Abbott's responsibility. So do you. What front! LOL

Why should singles - most will be women (age demographics) - be forced to pay for someone else's 'love'?