Clearly the number of children deprived of a parent by heterosexual divorce is always going to be many times the number 'deprived' of a parent by gay marriage and childrearing; so if you sincerely believe this rubbish you have written, I would expect to see a much greater number of letters and articles by you protesting against legal divorce. Where are they?

If it's so vital that children should be brought up by two opposite-sex parents that you're prepared to sacrifice the happiness of same-sex couples for that purpose, then you should be prepared to sacrifice the happiness of opposite-sex couples too, surely, and force them to stay together in a state of mutual loathing and misery. Because of The Kids, right?

There are many loathesome things about anti-gay bigotry, but perhaps the most loathesome is the desperate attempt to pretend that It's All About The Children -- this from people who have manifestly never given a stuff about child welfare in their lives until it became politically convenient to do so.

I completely disagree with the premise of the argument, that it is:

"a child's birthright to both a mother and a father."

Even though it may be preferred, it is not the child's right. If it was a child's right, then divorce would be illegal and following the death of one parent it would be mandated that a replacement parent be provided. Orphans would be forcefully be adopted to married couples, as to not deny the child their "rights".

Now, back to the real world...

No amount of government regulation of our private lives is going to change the fundamental unit of the family. This exists due to the choice of individuals, not due to government law. Otherwise the only thing stopping you from leaving your wife to take multiple partners (male and female) is a piece of paper at the marriage registry. If this is the case, you have other problems to worry about mate.

Thank you for this article! How refreshing it is to see someone who dares to speak out loud what most people feel in silence only, because the media has made it so politically incorrect.

I used to support Kevin Rudd and his approach to government, but his latest attempt for political correcteness has made me change my mind.

thanks David for pointing out the obvious. Like in abortion however the most vulnerable come last. Man is inherently selfish.

Thanks for the article David.

To the commentator who says heterosexual divorce hasn't been taken seriously enough (for the position that it is all about the children to have consitency). I am sure there are those who wish they had fought harder against that social expiriment when it happened. I presume easy divorce laws just came without warning, and there has been many marriages left behind that may have been better to work on. Does anyone realy want another large scale expiriment like that? I am not looking for an argument, just making what seems to me a simple point. There are many who wish that heterosexual marriage was held in higher honour, no doubt David VG is one of them, as am I.

Sharan. perhaps i should get renamed as simple sharsn.

Thank you Jon J and Stezza for pointing out the painfully obvious and irreversibly fatal flaws in this "argument". It beggars belief that such a logically unsound piece of latently bigoted hogwash makes it into the national press.