Fox,

You and predictably that bastion of political correctness the Human Rights Commission are deliberately ignoring Singlism, ie discrimination against singles, to show favouritism towards certain PC approved 'victims'(sic), some of whom could not by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as victims considering the financial and other support they already receive from government.

Why should singles have to pay for gay 'love'? Or any 'marrieds' love?

If there ever was a rationale for UNEARNED conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists.

It is a serious question.

I don't see why young working singles and couples who:

- have to pay for their own education and are facing extreme difficulties being able to plan for their own future and children; and

- are being taxed to the hilt to provide welfare and infrastructure for migrants who lob in Sydney anyhow;

should be loaded up with the extra burden of providing unearned benefits, entitlements and other breaks for gay 'love'.

Why should singles be forced to pay for gay 'love'? What possible business case can be advanced for that?

OTB all welfare bludgers are going to bring us down not just gays, unless of cause we elect a government with balls and I doubt that's likely to happen as they get all mixed up on such minor issue and ignore the real issues we face with the gay marriage debate being a prime example.

If there is one consistent message being put by gay marriage advocates it is that marriage is simply 'love'.

The essential, traditional nexus between procreation and marriage has similarly been scoffed at and broken by the very large, dominating rump of radical feminists and leftist 'Progressives' who are the power and engine behind gay marriage.

Even apart from that, the major social institutions of marriage and family have been challenged relentlessly by the same forces who are united against what they see as a common enemy to social change.

Even the most ardent supporters of marriage and family would admit that the institutions have been hollowed out and changed substantially and there is no going back.

Leftist 'Progressive' governments, particularly the Gillard government, redefined the previous meaning and arguably the perception and social acceptance and utility of de facto and at the same time broadening it to simply a 'relationship', a loaded term and the 'new speak' of Feminists. Homosexual 'relationships' were forced under the same Big State control.

What business case for 'social good' could possibly be made to justify the present situation that young working singles find themselves in, where they are directly and indirectly being required to pay for others' 'love'?

The feminists and leftist 'Progressives' who are the cowdozers behind gay marriage have already proved to their own satisfaction and certainly to Labor and Greens that:

- 'marriage' is nothing more than 'love', forget that procreation, 'for life' and other malarkey;

- that marriage is must, not should, be turned on its head and altered forever;

- that the claimed social advantages and worth of marriage were always cr@p;

- that the State should get out of regulating private 'love' lives; and,

- that there are many other just as worthwhile and viable alternatives that are a better fit for a 'diversified' Australia, the world's leader in multicultural experimentation (whether the population want that or not!).

contd..

While others might argue the rights and wrongs of the changes, it is undeniable that young working singles and couples have been encumbered with the additional load of supporting what is now a majority of the population with a strong sense of their own and their 'love' partners entitlement to all of the UNEARNED benefits and entitlements as 'marrieds'.

Young working people are already being required to provide for an aging population and for the huge costs to provide infrastructure in large metropolitan capitals plus welfare, housing and health for very large migrant intakes.

Young workers also pay for their own education an compete in a globalised workforce where many jobs are non-permanent. These are major departures from the environment years ago when government thought fit to recognise and advantage 'marrieds'.

Why should singles be forced to pay for gay 'love', or for anyone else's love for that matter?

Dear Rehctub,

It seems that your mind-set is "welfare is not good for
business." and that the issue of same-sex marriage is a
trivial issue with which the government should not bother.
When there's far more important issues at hand - such as
cracking down on unions, national security, getting involved
in Syria, and the list goes on. This despite the fact that
all the polls indicate same-sex marriage is quite an
important issue - especially for those Australians who
experience systematic discrimination on a daily basis.

You are entitled to your opinions. They differ vastly
from mine.

Still, it will be interesting to see where voters stand on these "trivial" issues at the next election.