Dearest sweet Foxy,

Those situations have been around for a very long time. I was just chatting to my daughter about one of her ancestors, a bloke who lost his wife, in about 1882, and had a daughter to look after; how to do it ? He had to go back out to work, no UB in those days. As it happened, a local woman had just lost her husband, leaving her with a baby daughter. So, of course, they married, within weeks. People found ways around serious, life-threatening problems in those days, there was almost nothing that the State could or would, do for them, Black or White.

That's 'family'. All sorts of arrangements. Nothing all that innovative about contemporary arrangements, Yes, maybe to simplify things, people have said, "Look, let's get married.' And lives have been saved. And genealogies continued :)

Life is far more fascinating, surprising, than stories. :)

Love forever,

Joe

Josephus wrote direct to Foxy: "Give us examples of your wild claim in advanced successful societies."

Attempts like this to bully correspondents won't work and say a lot about the fool who tries to bully people with ad hominem drivel in abusive language.

We're pretty thick skinned here and not easily bullied.

But people are irritated by blather from bullies because it is an attack on the tone of OLO which thrives on INFORMATIVE discussion which presents - even vigorously - facts and reasoning.

Ad hominem is fine when it is a riposte to ad hominem drivel and its authors. Otherwise it's a mindless attack on OLO.

There is LOTS of information in Google about the evolution in most of the civilised world (with the shameful exception of Australia) of what marriage means to the vast majority of human beings - even those addled with religion.

Google <marriage laws europe north america> for the truth behind Foxy's supposed "wild claims". Extension to the semicivilised nations of Latin America shows how widespread this thinking is, even there. But not in Australia, thanks to the stranglehold of a theocratic religion that can't grow with the times.

Marriage in spite of fractured families has always been between a man and a woman in developed countries.

//Marriage in spite of fractured families has always been between a man and a woman in developed countries.//

Except for Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay.

And soon, Australia.

Still outstanding,

<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
Posted by leoj, Monday, 6 November 2017 12:11:15 PM>

Dear oh dear Toni, you really should get the raw nerve looked at old mate.

There is nothing homophobic about having an opinion about whether two of the same sex should be married equally.

Now if I hated gays, then by all means you could brand me as such, but I don't.

Enjoy your day mate and do try to protect those exposed nerves.