Foxy, I do have a problem with the way our welfare is distributed just like I have issues with job seekers getting out of bed at 11 am to look for a job, or filling their faces full of crap, or getting a purple mow hawk just so they don't get the job and don't tell me that doesn't go on.

As for discrimination on a daily basis, this group make up less than 1% of the population so I doubt many get discriminated against on a daily basis.

I just don't get why they, the queers, need to change our world to incorporate them. Why not create a world for themselves instead so everyone can be happy. A simple addition to the marriage act can do just that but that's not all they want.

Dear Rehctub,

If they are such a small group as you describe
then why on earth do you see them as such a
big threat? And to whom are they a threat exactly?
To you? In what way and how?

We're told that there are more than 33,000 families
with same-sex parents living in Australia. This is
according to the most recent ABS Census.

And here's the reality of same-sex families:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-05/children-raised-by-same-sex-couples-healtier-study-finds/5574168

Here's the reality of their discrimination:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-community-guide

It appears that it wouldn't do you any harm to learn
the full realities of the issue. It just may give you
a different perspective.

Foxy it's quite simple, as a straight couple I don't want the meaning of my thirty year marriage to be the same as two queers .

Fox,

As you have been advised before many times on this forum, the operative word of that same sex 'research' you linked to means that the findings should be treated with caution. Most people would be aware that any research findings are subject to various limitations which are usually not mentioned in news reports - otherwise there would be very few 'sex' findings to sensationalise. By way of example, and this has been pointed out to you by posters before, one must be very careful with the interpretation of results obtained from a self-selected sample.

Next, you talk of the 'discrimination' against gay couples who allege they cannot get access to all of the UNPAID benefits and entitlements of marrieds.

Yet so many times on OLO you have ducked the rather obvious unfairness of requiring singles to pay for gay 'love'. See here,

<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.>
Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 25 August 2015 10:27:22 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6959&page=29

My, " otherwise there would be very few 'sex' findings to sensationalise" should be " otherwise there would be very few 'SEXY'(sl) findings to sensationalise".

otb,

Your opinion is of no interest to me.
I don't bother reading it.