Oh, I’ve stated that outright, Big Nana.

<<I would have more respect for you if you could just have the balls to admit you don't approve of adult incest and polygamy …>>

I had even provided objective reasoning as to why. What more do you want me to say?

<<… you are the worst type of bigot, one who pretends to be accepting whilst continually bringing up arguments why it shouldn't be accepted.>>

In what way have I “pretended” to be accepting? How does my disapproval of polygamy and incestuous relationships contradict my being accepting? As with equality, there is nothing about being accepting which necessitates that one accept things that one believes is harmful.

<<And by dragging in the " harm to community" argument you are destroying the strongest argument used by supporters of ssm. The theory that what happens in someone else's home does not affect anyone else and that gay marriage will not affect anyone else's marriage.>>

No, no one has argued that. By that logic, murder wouldn't affect anyone else if it occurred in the privacy of one’s own home, purely by virtue of it having occurred in the privacy of one's own home. What kind of stupid logic would that be?

You have over-simplified and misrepresented the argument.

<<… the law that finally fully legalised homosexuality across Australia did the same for adult incest and polygamy.>>

You are confusing or conflating living arrangements and sex acts with marriage.

But, again, I’m happy to grant that polygamy and incest are perfectly benign (healthy, even) relationships that are deserving of equality.

Now what?

leoj:

You seem to be saying that such payments and advantages should only be given to those who have a marriage licence issued by the government because anything else is open to abuse.

Married people can abuse the system just as readily as couples who are not married. If the system can be rorted then it should be fixed by the government. Marriage will not fix the rorting.

I agree that single employed people get nothing out of it and that is unfair. Either the government treats everyone as a single person or they do not but if they are going to acknowledge that those who live together as a couple are worth special treatment then they have to acknowledge ‘de facto’ couples and married couples as having equal rights.

It seems you problem is with treating couples (either married or otherwise) differently than singles.

phanto, "You seem to be saying that such payments and advantages should only be given to those who have a marriage licence issued by the government because anything else is open to abuse"

No. I am saying that a select group, politicians and middle to senior bureaucrats, are doing very well for themselves out of the extended 'married' conditions and out of the taxpayer of course. Also that single workers are being forced to subsidise the relationship choices of others, that dramatically widened group of 'marrieds' and that is grossly unfair to them. Most singles are in lower paid jobs to make matters worse.

When it was just 'traditionally' married workers it was still unfair, but the load was nowhere near as burdensome as now. To reduce the load on the taxpayer they have made it crucial to abolish those 'married' conditions.

phanto, "It seems you problem is with treating couples (either married or otherwise) differently than singles"

My 'problem' you say? But isn't it everyone's problem where there is favouritism? Yes, there may be some rationalisation where welfare is concerned for doling out some lesser amount where shared reduces costs. But equally one might argue that singles should have a mind to be reducing welfare costs too by sharing digs - an initiative that is catching on.

Now, how do you justify (say) singles subsidising 'marrieds' in employment?

Phanto,

Sorry I was a little distracted, but you did say, "I agree that single employed people get nothing out of it and that is unfair.

I'd say that the public is fed up with the additional valuable benefits of politicians for example have accrued through voting in those extended definitions of 'married'.

Also there is the hypocrisy of 'Progressives' and feminists who despise the institution of marriage (and family and fathers!), but are the very first to put their hands out for benefits when they include themselves as 'marrieds' anyhow.

leoj:

I didn’t mean ‘problem’ in a personal sense but in a sense of disagreement which can be quite reasonable.

In the past people got married to get those benefits but benefits should be given to all couples because all couples married or not, are entitled to those benefits. All couples constitute two individuals each paying taxes and expecting government assistance. It is right that unmarried couples should be treated equally.

If it blows the budget then everyone should take a reduction in benefits and not only those who choose not to marry. Married couples are no more ‘worthy’ than unmarried couples.

If it is unfair to single people then something should be done to make it more equal. Either eradicate all payments to couples or give some other benefits to singles to even the playing field.

What you seem to be presenting is an argument to retain government recognition of traditional marriage alone based on the cost of extending benefits to other types of relationship. All couples have equal rights whether the government can afford to sustain them or not.

phanto,

I reckon that people are fooling themselves where they don't realise and act as though we are all in this 'space capsule' together, it is a cooperative effort
and
where they don't seem to accept that there is a limit on the taxes that can be collected before those who earn them choose to get up and leave for elsewhere.

I don't see why any junior worker starting out should be obliged to accept fewer dollars in his/her pay packet to subsidise the travel of those staff who are entitled to travel and to have their squeeze, married, de facto, gay, lesbian or alphabetical other with 'rights', along as well and paid for it.

However this is all away from my essential point, which is that I really don't mind what applies as long as the decisions have been made democratically. That presumes that voters, the public , are properly informed to start with and are properly engaged and consulted on the needs and options. Our universities have practical, well-tried examples of consultations that work and very economical too.

A reminder of the Gillard government example given earlier and by a party in government that doesn't even believe in internal democracy for itself.