Paul1405,

The answer has already been given. Read the posts.

It has already been stated that Rudd and Gillard Labor governments slyly enacted law amendments (de facto changes) that redefined de facto 'relationships'(sic), including gay, providing access to 'married' benefits and entitlements.

Back to the original question: why should singles, young working singles especially but all singles, be required to pay for gay 'love?

We have values and principles in this country
that reflect strong influences on Australia's
history and culture. These include Judeo-Christian
ethics, a British political heritage and the spirit
of the European Enlightenment. Australian values
which are important in modern Australia include
equality under the law.

Therefore Australian governments are obliged to enact
laws that ensure that all Australians are equal under the
law. This means that nobody should be treated differently
from anybody else because of their race, ethnicity or
country of origin, because of their age, gender,
marital states or disability, political beliefs,
religious beliefs, or sexual orientation.

Government agencies and independent courts must treat
everyone fairly. Hence Amendments to Laws are enacted
from time to time by governments -to do precisely that.
This is done to create a society that is stable
cohesive and diverse. Our values define why
so many people want to become Australians and the type
of cohesive society we can all be proud of.

Fox,

How are singles being treated fairly? The reverse is obviously true.

It has already been shown that the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments were frivolous and cavalier where singles' rights were concerned.

The Rudd and Gillard governments dramatically increase the discrimination against singles by slyly enacting law amendments (de facto changes) that redefined de facto 'relationships', including gay, providing hugely increased access to 'married' benefits and entitlements.

Fox, you yourself have posted a list of additional 'married' benefits the Human Rights Commission is spruiking for gays. You support that.

It is time that singles of all ages, homosexual singles too, woke up to the Singlism, it is REAL discrimination, of Labor and Greens that plunders their pockets to support a whole new gravy train of entitled 'marrieds'.

Why should singles, young working singles especially but all singles, be required to pay for gay 'love?

otb,

I prefer not to read your posts
because most of them are the same repetitive rants,
with no logic to them.
Not worthy of a response.

You rave on about -
"unfairness" of "singles" having to pay for "Gay love."
Which doesn't make any sense.

I presume that you are upset because in April 2008
the then government proposed greater recognition
of LGBT rights in Australia. They announced reforms to
the recognition of same-sex relationships in -
taxation, health, employment, superannuation, aged care,
and other areas.

Originally 58 Commonwealth laws existed where gay couples
faced discrimination. These were identified in HREOCS
year-long inquiry - "Same-Sex - Same Entitlements Inquiry,"
which was tabled in Parliament in June 2007.

An Audit conducted by the government in early 2008 found around
100 Commonwealth laws where gay couples faced discrimination.
The last of the legislation to remove the discrimination that
was identified passed the Senate in November 2008.

You seem to be convinced that all this has a great effect
on working "singles."

All the government did was right the discriminatory laws
against LGBT couples and families - by reforming these
discriminatory laws .
Which is what governments are supposed to do in this
country. All Australians are supposed to be equal under
the law. All Australians are supposed to be treated fairly.

However if you have serious complaints - by all means do take
the issues up with either - your Member of Parliament or
the Attorney-General's Office - I am sure that
they will be able to explain the law
reforms to you, and why they were necessary.

I find it rather interesting that someone who consistently
on this forum spruiks the rights of "decent-hard-working Australians,"
yet rants against the rights and entitlements of of same-sex couples
and by regaining their rights they are somehow causing
grief to "singles."

We used to live in a society where all people mattered - not
just a select few. Where the rights of all mattered not just
those of a select few.

Is it any wonder that I prefer to scroll past your
posts.

Beach, you simply are making up nonsense with your claim that single taxpayers are in some way supporting gay love. There is nothing in the rubbish you post that can be construed as fact. Make an outlandish claim then call it fact.

Foxy, I could not agree more;

otb,

I prefer not to read your posts
because most of them are the same repetitive rants,
with no logic to them.
Not worthy of a response.

It is easy to see when the leftists are on the back foot.

Fox is forever holding forth about how Australia is a 'wealthy country' and is always able to pay for more to swing from the taxpayer's teats. More of the 'ought be entitled' victims and drones to claim special treatment from government, but the taxpayer pays.

Paul1405, as one of the NSW Watermelon Greens thinks the same.

Both have difficulty figuring out that the government has no money of its own and all of that bucket of money is taken from taxpayers. Inevitably, someone has to pay for the unearned benefits and entitlements claimed and for the concessions given to select groups.

Similarly in employment where some group of employees is entitled to claim an entitlement (and accompanying spousal travel is an example), that allowance is taken from the allocation available generally for staff pay and conditions, which must shrink accordingly somewhere else.

To take an example, the federal public service has always led in providing advantageous conditions and entitlements to marrieds. That has a double impact, first on the money available for pay for public servants generally and secondly on the tax bucket overall. On the funds available for government services and benefits, eg age pensions, for the public the public service is supposed to be servicing.

Where some get concessions, benefits and entitlements, singles who are excluded on the basis of marital state are always disqualified and miss out, but singles still have to pay, directly or indirectly, for the entitlements of married.

However, as pointed out in earlier posts, successive socialist governments (Rudd and Gillard) through manipulating the definition and scope of de facto into a 'relationship' and including gays, have greatly increased the proportion who can claim benefits, entitlements and concessions as 'married'. That is from their employer and from government.

Plainly there is widespread discrimination against singles who are being treated differently and are being required to pay for others' 'love' (whatever that is).