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