leoj,

I usually don't bother reading your posts for
obvious reasons - however as you persist in addressing
me - I shall try to make things clearer.

How exactly do "singles" support gay-life style choices?

Gays work, are high income earners, pay taxes, and all
they are asking is to have the same legal rights in this
country as the rest of us - which includes their legal
right to marry. And the Human Rights Commission
agrees.

As taxpayers - we all support each other to a certain extent
in one way or another. We support the unemployed, the aged,
the sick, and so on. Our taxes go towards providing the
necessary services, be it health, education, whatever. Our
taxes support welfare recepients, people with disabilities,
amongst others. I don't have a problem with what the government
does with my taxes.

However what is under discussion here is that there is a
small percentage of our population who although they
are high taxpayers are treated as - second-class citizens
as far as some of our laws are
concerned and particularly regarding the legal right to
marry - and this is what we are now being asked to correct/or
not - depending on how you voted.

Are you suggesting that some single is supporting Senatory
Penny Wong, or Dr K. Phelps - and their life-style choices?
Really?

Wow!

I can't make it any clearer for you or be responsible for your
comprehension skills.

Dear Joe,

Yes indeed - people's entire way of thinking about
marriage has changed: it is now viewed less as an
economic arrangement or a kinship alliance, and
more as a companionship based on the emotional
commitment of two individuals.

This transformation is , of course, a general trend,
not a hard and fast rule. Nevertheless, the overall
pattern is unmistakable" in industrialised societies,
traditional family forms have given way to others
that are better adapted to the changed conditions
of social and economic life.

Dear EJ,

Thank You so much for your kind words.

//but I don't.//

No, of course you don't. And your denial is so very convincing... I'm sold.

Foxy,

As was listed in detail in the AHRC site you linked to, anyone who can 'married' status has a very broad range of valuable entitlements they can claim, which can represent quite a pay rise.

On top of that, 'marrieds', a definition (de facto 'relationships') broadened substantially by the Gillard government (and Gillard and members of her Labor Caucus were beneficiaries of the changes) are also the beneficiaries of price discounting. My earlier posts refer.

Again, the money has to come from somewhere.

Now, you might be willing to subsidise others' 'love' and to add to that a horde of gay de facto 'relationships' (thanks to Gillard), because you and your partner are also a long term beneficiaries of 'married' lurks and perks. That is up to you. But you don't give singles any choice in the matter and they don't get any of the cream as you do and have been getting for years.

Most singles would be students, low income earners and aged and are on fixed incomes such as pensions. Of course it is discriminatory for singles to be forced to subsidise others' love choices and that includes the SSM mob. Singles should have lower taxes accordingly and 'married' conditions of wage agreements, including superannuation should attract a married contribution, or pay singles more in the hand.

should be "..anyone who can CLAIM 'married' status has a very broad range of valuable entitlements they can claim, which can represent quite a pay rise.."

leoj,

I don't know what you are talking about.

It makes no sense.