Hi Rusty,

But none of that reasoning provides any necessary support for homosexual marriage: if couples, and children of such couples, can enjoy all the legislative benefits that exist for hetero couples who are married, and their kids, then what is the need for any of it ? If anything, the whole shebang is a pretty good advertisement for doing away with marriage: as long as couples with children undertake to look after them properly, then don't they enjoy equal benefits ?

As women's rights have improved, and their very existential security has become less and less under threat in cases of abandonment and destitution, with birth control, legalised abortion, single mother's benefits, higher education, etc., the need for the protection offered by 'marriage' has declined, to the point where it is little more than symbolic, just another category of people living together - church marriage, civil ceremony, hetero, homo, de facto, etc.

Let marriage wither away as relationships evolve and security concerns for women gradually disappear.

Cheers,

Joe

Congratulations, Sven, on your insightful expose of the way some researchers, including some peer-reviewers employed by respected journals, have corrupted the scientific method in their quest to affirm their ideology.

The decline in objectivity in leading journals reflects poorly on referees and publishers. And the biased reporting by the media is in breach of journalists' code of ethics. The situation is reminiscent of Hans Christian Andersen's tale "The Emperor's New Clothes".

Rusty Catheter, "There is *no* harm to others in making marriage available to gays"

Why should single workers be forced through their salary and wage agreements and superannuation to subsidise the 'love' choices of fellow workers with married status?

It is a double penalty since two can live much more cheaply than one, eg housing and unlike the married husband and wife of decades ago, where the wife could not continue employment in the public services for instance, in modern times the participation of women in tertiary education exceeds men and women still enjoy 'positive' affirmative action enhancing their already excellent employment and advancement prospects.

Few homosexual couples might have child support responsibilities and where they do, the number of children in the household can reasonably expected to be fewer. In short, homosexual couples would usually have both free for employment.

In another thread a poster kindly posted this link detailing the broad range of 'relationship' status that can claim married benefits from government, business and employers. Jolly good for them and any wonder homosexuals in government employment and politicians especially would be very keen to get the entitlements, eg partner accompanied travel.

But what about the singles who are missing out on the lurks and perks, but are forced to subsidise them through wage agreements and taxes? How do singles survive and many of them are on low wages or fixed incomes?

The always forgotten singles must vote 'NO!'. It is their only rational choice.

Sorry, the link that shows the spectrum of couplings that can be used to attract married benefits from government, business and employers,

Australian Government on relationships

www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/your-relationship-status

Leoj,

<Why should single workers....>

I don't know Leoj? Why *are* they? Because they retain the option of gorging at this alleged horn of plenty?

Your efforts to ban heterosexual marriage are conspicuously absent.Perhaps you should seek "married" status for a non-sexual but similarly-committed union with the aim of achieving household economies? In any case, nothing is stopping singles from cohabiting "as cheaply as one" if they like, even when they are the same sex. Good luck proving that a married couple that is *not* cohabiting can somehow achieve such economies.

Double-income households could be formed by singles, as above. Married people in ordinary paid employment are unable to use the option of "income splitting" unless they incorporate and divert director's fees to the non-working partner. This only works for self-owned businesses. So no great advantage for the general population there.

<Few homosexual couples might have child support...>
Heterosexual couples had the *choice* of being childless, though many on this forum would deny them a last-chance to change their minds. In any case, if by mischance or donation a homosexual becomes a parent, they enjoy the same child support burden of any other parent. Their *choices* are not curtailed, and it is not as if the there is a special gay legal exemption to the risks of child support.

< the broad range of 'relationship' status...>
By all means avail yourself of any of the relationships that enjoy such status. Clearly gay marriage would only expand your options, and would improve your chances of qualifying. Or perhaps you can be adopted and enjoy an additional parental funeral too ("how many grandmothers do you have?" asks the bursar). Why should intimate partners not be recognised as reasonable grounds for time off if sick or bereaved? No employer worth your time or loyalty would try it.
As for partner travel lurks, I think it runs much more on how highly the company regards it's employee. Most institutions draw the line at their own staff only, for the duration of work only.

I'd swap for single, and I'd still support gay marriage.