The redefinition of 'married' resulting from the Rudd and Gillard ideologically-based imperatives and deals with the Greens has dramatically changed the essential nature of marriage, and deliberately broadened and changed the status of de facto to equate 'love' & 'relationships' with marriage.

The costly result for employers and government (taxpayers) is many thousands more now expect and qualify for the preferential treatment, benefits, concessions and entitlements as 'marrieds'.

The Rudd and Gillard governments had no mandate for the changes they wrought. They obviously believed as socialists do, that they knew what was best for the public and public consultation was unnecessary, as were estimates of cost.

The Problem
If there ever was some rationale in the distant past for conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists. The distinguishing features of marriage have been contested, weakened and effectively set aside by Rudd and Gillard.

Gay advocates and the Kardashian-sized rump of feminists and leftist 'Progressives' behind gay marriage hotly dispute the worth, practicality, fairness and contribution to society of what they insultingly refer to as 'traditional' marriage. They say that marriage should be dispensed with, but are willing to accept gay marriage as the stepping stone to that goal.

It follows that if there ever was some rationale in the distant past for conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists. It is unfair, discriminatory, for singles to be denied benefits enjoyed by 'marrieds' especially where the number of 'marrieds' has been increased substantially through the inclusion on defacto 'relationships' and then again, by including homosexual defactos as a further burden.

It is unfair, discriminatory, for singles to be denied benefits enjoyed by the new 'marrieds' and it is intolerable that singles are being obliged to pay for the 'love' choices of others.

Why should society and singles in particular be forced to pay for gay 'love' or for anyone else's 'love' choice/s for that matter?

Onthebeach, I think you are a little confused! You seem to be lumping in together the rights of defacto couples and gay couples?

I believe that similar tax concessions and payments to bring defacto relationships in to line with marital relationships, financial-wise, was in place long before your hated Gillard/Rudd Government came into power?

Are you suggesting that defacto couples shouldn't get the same tax concessions and payments as married couples? I never had you pegged for such an old-fashioned bloke before now? Just how old and/or religious are you?

As for single people 'paying for' defacto couples tax concessions, well I am sure all the defacto parent couples aren't happy paying for some tax concessions for single parents, or indeed for their own children working to provide continuing tax concessions/pensions for the single, childless people to be cared for in their old age.

As for any marriages that may result from legalizing gay marriage, their numbers will be so small as to not really mean much to the tax department or wider society anyway.
It all works out in the end now doesn't it?

Yawn! Beach you tried to peddle this nonsense on another thread. Seeing Foxy shot you down in flames there, you spit the dummy and have set up your own thread peddling your crackpot notion, as I said, yawn!

Why do your posts always sound like Dennis Denuto? Following is OTB explaining his vib to Foxy! LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ

Posted by onthebeach, Friday, 28 August 2015 11:43:36 AM

" ... The costly result for employers and government (taxpayers) is many thousands more now expect and qualify for the preferential treatment, benefits, concessions and entitlements as 'marrieds'. ... "

What exactly are these preferential treatments, benefits, concessions and entitlements that you are referring to?

And I assume that you are not referring to (non-pension age)welfare recipients, who generally avoid "partnered status" like the plague, because it is "a stone, a blight and a pox around their necks" as their income gets savagely cut as soon as they become confirmed as partnered by Human Services.Rest assured that there is a fair bit of "Love in the Dark" going on in Australia people. HaHaHa

Perhaps that twit Dutton can send his goons to peep through windows in addition to checking people's papers on the street:

GOON: "Right! You in there! I heard that! You're r__ting in there aren't you?! And your form says "just friends""

SNOGGER 1: "No we weren't! We were just .. jumping on the bed .. to make sure it was .. strong enough .. "

SNOGGER 2: " Yes, yes, you know - to get a good nights sleep. But don't worry, we're done now and I'm going home."

GOON: "Oh well, that's alright then."

SNOGGER 2: "Great. Glad that's settled."

SNOGGER 1: "Aren't you going to have a shower first?"

SNOGGER 2: "OH! Do you think so? Scrub my back?"

GOON: "Right! I heard that!" ..

;-)

Lol Dream On!
That sounds exactly right :)

Now lets blow a big hole in Beach's argument with some facts. Take the Aged Pension benefit in Australia for example.

The maximum single rate with supplements; $860.20 per fortnight.

The maximum married rate with supplements; $648.40 each per f/night,
or a combined rate of $1296.80 which is $423.60 less per fortnight than a pair of singles.

Putting it in parlance that even Beach can understand. A gay couple are better off financially remaining Adam and Steve, rather than pursuing the life of the married couple Adam and Eve. I haven't even mentioned the extra benefits Adam and Eve receive for their child Able, benefits which Adam and Steve do not receive for their basset hound Cane.

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/centrelink/age-pension/payment-rates-for-age-pension

Paul1405,

But I don't agree that the married rate of age pension should be discounted. You are supporting my contention that there should be no differences between entitlements for 'marrieds' and singles.

Although you should also be admitting that Centrelink has not been so forthcoming about the number of gays who have declared a 'relationship'. It was said that the number of gays who admitted their relationship was much lower than expected. -Still, with Australia becoming a 'dob-in' society and gays getting even with each other the number of anonymous dob-ins would be increasing.

General Comment
This is the main issue:

<It follows that if there ever was some rationale in the distant past for conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists.

You can add 'vice versa' if you wish and I would not object.

No-one has presented a business case for discrimination in favour of 'marrieds'. Nor has anyone obliged by defining what that 'love' is/entails -that should result in any benefits, entitlements and concessions being warranted.

I will make it easier, "Why should the taxpayer be paying for gay 'love' or anyone else's 'love' for that matter?"

Paul, you are simply playing the manipulation game with your figures.

The reason single pensioners receive more comparatively than couples, is that the costs for couples, housing, insurances, rates, car, etc etc are shared with couples whereas singles pay these alone. But it's a nice try and I say this because I don't see you as a dill. A politician perhaps, but not a dill.

Well, that's the "party line" *RehTub* but the reality is that when you break the numbers down the partnered rate is in most cases a significant financial disadvantage, which is why more than a few conduct their relationships on the sly or choose not to have anything more than a casual relationships and live by themselves.

And with that I recall a favorite Ozzie saying:

"People who ask too many questions get told lies."

;-)

Butch, you beat me to the punch, and posted what I was going to anyway. That two can live as cheaply as one (well almost) with;

"housing, insurances, rates, car, etc etc are shared with couples whereas singles pay these alone." EXACTLY!

IT makes a nonsense to BEACH'S claim that;
"If there ever was some rationale in the distant past for conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists."

I say it never NEVER EXISTED in the first place based on what you posted. EUREKA!
Beach went as far as saying singles (I can only assume he was referring to heterosexual) would be paying for GAY LOVE! A euphemism of his for married, or de facto gay couples. UTTER NONSENSE!

DreamOn made the valid point that if you are a couple, you would be financially better off pretending you are doth single.

Beach is now trying to have more positions on this than the 'Kama Sutra' he started with a false premise and others, mainly Foxy, called him on it, went off and started his own thread based on that false premise and is now getting a hiding!

"I don't see you as a dill. A politician perhaps, but not a dill." Spot on Butch.

Paul1405,

It is impossible to take anything you say at face value. You could share that trait with some politicians.

General Comments

It is incontrovertible that reducing marriage to 'love' (undefined) as the radical feminists and socialists behind gay marriage have done, finally knocks away any vestige of previous justifications for support and advantageous treatment of marrieds.

Further, the rejigging of 'de facto', broadening its application to 'relationship' where even students sharing digs could easily result in a later claim to the income and assets of either party and then including homosexual 'relationships' as well, were also deliberate interventions to accord with the ideology of radical feminists and socialists. Both want to destroy marriage and family and never tire of saying so.

An example could be Labor's Julia Gillard who as PM took full advantage of partner 'married' benefits and entitlements, but of course as a member of Emily's List (where allegedly she set up the slush fund) was an implacable feminist opponent of marriage and all it stood for.

Gillard's own rationalisation of why she opposed gay marriage in all of the years she was PM and held a senior portfolios gives a window into the hatred of marriage and family of both feminists and socialists (since Gillard is both a feminist and leftist 'Progressive' aka International Socialist),

<Julia Gillard Just Changed Her Mind On Marriage And No One Is Impressed

..This is former prime minister Julia Gillard. She led the country for three years from 2010 to 2013, and has been consistently opposed to marriage equality.

That is, until today. Now retired from political life, Gillard tweeted out a speech on Wednesday evening, explaining why she now supports the reform.
..
Many advocates are critical of Gillard for not supporting marriage equality while she was prime minister, given she is from the left-wing faction of the ALP.

Often accused of not supporting the reform for political reasons, rather than on her conscience, Gillard said after leaving parliament that SHE OPPOSED MARRIAGE EQUALITY BECAUSE, AS A FEMINIST, SHE THOUGHT THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE ITSELF WAS OUTDATED [my caps].>

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/julia-gillard-changed-her-mind-on-marriage-equality-and-ever#.nuzVgLYLYx

Just wondering ...... if homosexual marriage is legalised, will this mean that any homosexuals living together for more than six months (I think that's the time period for heterosexuals couples) will be deemed to be in a de facto relationship, and come under all the restrictions etc. of an actual marriage - i.e. will be deemed to be, in effect, married ?

It seems that homosexual relationships are not any more stable than heterosexual ones, and that break-ups are just as likely. So any legislation to recognise homosexual couples as 'married', and of course by extension any homosexual de facto relationships, would have to include clauses in relation to divorce as well.

Of course, if a few simple word changes are all that is required, then de facto homosexual couples would, willy-nilly, come under the new legislation immediately, and divorce would also immediately be as readily available as it is for heterosexual couples.

Problem: if, say, one partner in a homosexual relationship is already married in a heterosexual way but separated, does this mean that they suddenly are engaging in bigamy ? Or will there be a grace period during which they can get divorced from one partner or the other ?

And let's not talk about the legislative implications of long-term bisexual activity just yet :)

Joe

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/mistress-laws-take-hold/story-e6freooo-1225795339438

No different for gays, the Labor changes to the de facto definition and inclusion of gays already permit bigamy.

That reflects the stated intent of the socialists and feminists to disrupt and overturn marriage and family, which they hate for different reasons, one because marriage and family are seen as the bulwarks of capitalism and the other because they are the mainstays of 'patriarchy'.

The free-rolling homosexuals of the 'old' Left would be horrified and turning in their graves at the stupidity of 'gays' inviting the State to regulate their once private affairs. What they were once adult enough to sort out themselves is now decided by the State - public servants, courts and lawyers.

Statists rule.

If marriage is such an economic dissadvantage why are Homosexuals seeking it with passion; obviously there is an hidden agenda in their claim for equal rights as married. Currently they have equal civil rights as marrieds, but what they seek is access to I.V.F. surragacy and adoption, when they are themselves fertile unlike current users of I.V/F services who have difficulty.

The other thing is they want legal rights to sue anyone who does not recognise their relationship equal to a man and woman. They want to breed a fatherless or motherless community, and want to brainwash everyone to believe this is normal.

Hi Josephus,

Perhaps not just economic disadvantage but legal disadvantage as well: am I right in suggesting that, for current heterosexual and proposed homosexual relationships, a series of de facto relationships, say a new de facto partner each year, does not in law constitute a series of actual marriages, so an abandoned de facto relationship is not regarded in the same light as separation in marriage. But homosexuals can voluntarily inherit from each other. In other words, de facto couples have pretty much all of the advantages of a marriage, but fewer of the disadvantages. So, as you ask, why should homosexuals bother ?

I don't know if de facto couples, hetero OR homo, stay together longer than married couples - somebody may have the stats on that. But my suspicion is that de facto couples are far more transient. So, if some bloke, over his lifetime, shags around but breaks up with, say half a dozen women, and leaves a large fortune but no will, which ex if any has a claim on it ?

Also, I don't know if homosexuals are likely to enter into as many, or more, de facto liaisons than heteros over their lifetimes. Taking a wild punt and suggesting that homosexuals, as professionals, are likely to be on more lucrative salaries, that neither partner in such a relationship has to take a break to look after children and bugger up their careers, and that they are likely to leave at least as much in inheritances as heteros, then we may be talking about substantially larger inheritances. So if a homosexual has been playing around over a lifetime (perhaps with both men and women, and perhaps producing children as well) and leaves a large inheritance but no will, who can claim it ?

Another problem is that a de facto relationship may have no paper trail, as a marriage does. Of course, this applies to both hetero and homo relationships. But raising the issue of homosexual marriage does focus a spotlight on some of the loose ends of de facto relationships.

Cheers,

Joe

Some time ago *Josephus* made a comment on what constitutes marriage, in his point of view, by referring to its historical context as it was in Ancient Rome.

Of course, a more clinical examination (as perhaps most of you would not be surprised to learn) shows that what people though to be marriage was every bit as diverse in the ancient world as it is today.

..

Another thing that we ought consider in this debate is that there are truckloads of kids who die, suffer and or go without every day for want of loving parents, even one loving parent or gaurdian.

So, every time we confound the adoption of a kid in need, regardless of whether the prospective parent/s are gay or otherwise, is another kid consigned to the scrapheap.

DreamOn,

You seem to be saying that 'married' can be anything. Tres 'Progressive'!

The Family Law Act recognises that a party could be in multiple de facto relationships, or that a person who is married could be a party to de facto property proceedings (refer to s4AA(5)(b)).

Add to that the Dept of Human Services direction that 'There is no minimum time period for a relationship to be seen as defacto'. Remembering too that the department will advise YOU if you are in a relationship, but you MUST fully disclose your living arrangements (and not to do so could constitute fraud).

The consequence is that all shared living arrangements should be declared and investigated. After all, as you say yourself it is likely that a 'relationship', married' you say, could involve two OR MORE persons of either or whatever sex, including non-aligned).

The Department of Human Services needs to correct its instructions to applicants to make that crystal clear.

It is time that the socialists spelled out how they intend to regulate the trial/temporary/'love' relationships they favour and where to in the future?

As a taxpayer I certainly do NOT believe that money should be taken from me to support (with additional conditions) the 'love' choices of politicians and public servants for example. Nor should the single employee be denied conditions enjoyed by the booming number who get to call themselves 'marrieds'/de factos/relationships or whatever.

" ... DreamOn, You seem to be saying that 'married' can be anything. Tres 'Progressive'! ... "

What I have pointed out is that from ancient times on, what constitutes "marriage" has meant, does mean, and will mean different things to different people and societies. Obviously personal and group values, culture etc etc all come into it. It is like any other contract to the extent that it can change and I note that it is those who are willing to change and adapt that survive.

As for your comments that their is no minimum time in relation the definition of de-facto I note the following from Human Services:

" ... Definition of a partner For the Australian Government Department of Human Services purposes a person is considered to be your partner if you and the person are living together, or usually live together, and are:

• married, or
• in a registered relationship (opposite-sex or same-sex), or
• in a de facto relationship (opposite-sex or same-sex).

We consider a person to be in a de facto relationship from the time they commence living with another person as a MEMBER OF A COUPLE. We recognise all couples, opposite-sex and same-sex.

The Australian Government Department of Human Services will assess your relationship based on the following 5 factors:

• financial arrangements
• nature of the household
• social aspects of the relationship
• presence or absence of sexual relationship
• nature of commitment.

The following assessment criteria are such that assuming 2 parties were not already a member of a couple, that to accumulate evidence based on the criteria to make a determination of "coupled" status would require some passage of time.

Thereafter, I note that you haven't advised as to what exactly are these benefits of marriage etc that you refer to. Thus, I am unable to follow your logic that leads you to the conclusion that you would have to pay for the "Love Choices" of others as you put it. You'll have to fill in some of the blanks.

DreamOn,

I will not waste my time delineating differences plus or negative between the government and private enterprise treatment of 'marrieds' as opposed to singles. It is inconceivable that any adult would not be aware of examples.

The central issue is a simple one but you and others are consistently avoiding discussion of it. Why so? Here again,

<The Problem [refer to the OP]
If there ever was some rationale in the distant past for conditions and entitlements that favour 'marrieds' over singles, it no longer exists.>

Vice versa? - That singles should not be advantaged over 'marrieds' without good reason? Yes, that too.

Plainly government believes that two can live more cheaply than one where pensions are concerned.

However where the worth of marriage is, to put it mildly, highly contentious with feminists an socialists - in fact they have vowed to rid society of the institution ASAP - they themselves have put the best arguments for not treating 'marrieds' as special at all, anywhere. Oddly though, the very people who despise marriage are first in line for partner benefits. Julia Gillard is a prime (ministerial) example.

It is time that the socialists spelled out how they intend to regulate the trial/temporary/'love' relationships or whatever they favour and where to in the future? They have been driving the change after all.

Regardless of that, as a taxpayer I certainly do NOT believe that money should be taken from me to support (with additional conditions) the 'love' choices of others and single employees should NOT be forgoing anything to provide any special conditions for 'marrieds'.

Posted by onthebeach, Tuesday, 1 September 2015 11:29:01 PM

" ... *DreamOn* I will not waste my time delineating differences plus or negative between the government and private enterprise treatment of 'marrieds' as opposed to singles. It is inconceivable that any adult would not be aware of examples. ... "

Well, I think you need to come to terms with what I am saying to you.

You keep referring to "positives" and "negatives" visa vi marriage, but despite requesting you to clarify what you mean by this, I can honestly tell you that I am none the wiser.

Whilst I have a few ideas of what you may be referring to, I do not assume that I know exactly what it is that you mean. Thus, I have sought clarification.

And then you jump again to end up concluding that you have to pay for the "Love Choices" of others, but here again, I am largely clueless as to what you are referring to.

So, rest assured, I will attempt to address the points you are seeking to make, but you need to clarify what it is that you mean.