Hear what Penny Wong says:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/05/17/religion-still-standing-in-the-way-of-marriage-equality-senator_a_22094895/

Arguments about the respect that the Institution of
Marriage has is understandable - however, it should
also be noted that there are folk who have been
"happily married 3 (or more) times. The divorce statistics
are awesome. There are dull marriages that eventually
become corrosive, grinding and destructive. Though marriage
has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do
with it. What marriage had in common was that it really
was not about the relationship between a man and a
woman - it was a way of getting in-laws, making alliances
and expanding the family labour force.

As family plots of land gave way to market economies and
kings ceded power to democracies the notion of marriage
transformed. Now most of us see marriage as a bond between
equals that is all about love and companionship.

That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex
marriage.

One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in
acceptance of same sex marriage is because many heterosexuals
have changed their notion of what marriage is. It is not
about being between a man and a woman.

It is based on love, mutual sexual attraction, equality, and a
flexible division of labour.

Dear Josephus,

What evidence do you have that people
will be discriminated against
and by whom

Still outstanding, why should singles be required to subsidise Gay or anyone else's love choices?

"Foxy,

So the Human Rights Commission says that same sex couples are being 'discriminated' against because they may not get getting their claws into financial and work-related entitlements that attach to marrieds? And there is a heap of other benefits out there that attaining married status can given them a leg into as well?

However the REAL truth is that SOMEONE has to pay. And it is SINGLES, many of them on low incomes and young or aged, who are being required to indirectly subsidise those married benefits and Gay couples just add to the burden.

Why should singles, who are also penalised through dearer rent, dearer holidays and other imposts be forced to carry the extra load and subsidise Gay love choices, or anyone's love choices for that matter?

Here are some of the extra benefits that the Human Rights Commission say Gays should be getting. But the AHRC says nothing about singles who miss out but have to pay.

-Same-sex couples are not guaranteed the right to take carer’s leave to look after a sick partner.

-Same-sex couples have to spend more money on medical expenses than opposite-sex couples to enjoy the Medicare and PBS Safety Nets.

-Same-sex couples are denied a wide range of tax concessions available to opposite-sex couples.

-The same-sex partner of a federal government employee is denied access to certain superannuation and workers’ compensation death benefits available to an opposite-sex partner.
(and the AHRC list goes on...)"
Posted by leoj, Sunday, 5 November 2017 9:02:55 PM

Foxy, What absolute nonsense you post.
"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between a man and a woman - it was a way of getting in-laws, making alliances and expanding the family labour force.....One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in acceptance of same sex marriage is because many heterosexuals have changed their notion of what marriage is. It is not about being between a man and a woman."

I whose research did you get this from? It has always been between a man and a woman. Please give evidence to support your claim.

Evidence SSM impinges upon Religious faith.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/09/ssms-likely-impact-religious-freedom/

Soviet Russia, Communist China, the Khmer Rouge and (in a different way) Nazi Germany were all determined to tightly control religious practice in an effort to stop it from dividing society or eroding the power of the state. The result however, was not more peace and harmony, but more oppression.

Foxy read the whole article carefully, and see who is discriminated against.