How exactly do you define a 'couple'? If two men live together for thirty years as companions but never have sex should not they be considered a couple in terms of rights to all the privileges afforded a married couple? If a man and woman live under the same roof and share everything except a sexual relationship should they not be entitled to the same rights that homosexual couples want?

There are many people who publicly proclaim themselves as homosexual couples but never have sex. There are many heterosexuals who are either married or living in de facto relationships who never have sex. Is having sex the criteria for a relationship that is able to access the privileges provided by law and government? If that is true then should not the government be seeking proof of sexual activity before it gives out those privileges?

There are many loving relationships that are not sexual and these have as much right as those that are. It is about rights for all people not just for sexually active people. The problem is that if rights were extended to all couples irrespective of sexual activity there would be no way of telling who was sexually involved and who was not and this would not be acceptable to anyone who was looking for public recognition of their sexual behaviour.

It shows how ludicrous the laws pertaining to marriage and partnerships really are. How can the government or any legal institution determine who is truly a couple? Certainly a piece of paper does not make a couple and neither does sex. The laws are based on antiquated definitions of relationships which do not truly reflect who should be entitled to the privileges.

Excellent points Phanto - agree with all.

A great deal is made of the sex act. Love is a lot more than just sex. Too many people spending too much time thinking about what goes on in the bedrooms of same sex couples and not enough on what being a committed couple is really about.

phanto,

If you could wave your magic wand, what would you have instead?

CJ Morgan <" The trouble is that those gay people who want to marry their partners are legally unable to do so. That this blatant discrimination not only persists in Australian society, but was also affirmed this week in the Senate, is an indication of the extent to which structural homophobia is still very much with us."

I agree CJ, however I guess I was only discussing marriage between a heterosexual couple, because that is all that is legal at the moment.

I really don't see a problem with gay people marrying.
What I wouldn't like to see happening is the inevitable follow-on of people then demanding their 'rights' to marry multiple partners.

Polygamy is a practice that I abhor, given that so far it has traditionally been men who are 'able' to take several wives in some countries.

Polygamy would be a backward step in the rights of women, were it to become legal in Australia.

Cornflower "If you could wave your magic wand, what would you have instead?"

For me it would be for the government to get out of the business of regulating relationships. The ability to register another person (or persons) with next of kin type rights so that they could do the hospital visits (and other stuff an near blood relative would not normally be able to do) should be about the limit of specific government involvment. Most stuff should be able to be handled by other mechanism's - will's, contract, power of attorney etc. I pondered the role of consent but again that should be handled by other laws.

Suzie the bit that bemuses me with the objection to polygamy (or other plural marriage's) based on it's implementation in other countries is that those issues mostly have a lot to do with cultural views and religious beliefs which we do allow in this country.

Those entering into a polygamous relationship would have to consent, those already in the relationship either initiate the change, consent to it or leave. Under a our current laws people get left for a new partner with no real redress for the harm they suffer, those whose partner has a mistress (or whatever the male equivalent is) have the choice to demand it stop, put up with it or leave. Where is the new harm?

Other than complicating issues around government support for families I struggle to see where legal recognition of plural marriages actually introduces a harm that's not already in the system.

R0bert

Robert, have you watched the problems that have come out of Polygamous marriages in the USA?
Very young 'women' and girls have been 'chosen' as new wives by much older men.
Often these girls have no choice at all whether they wish to marry an old man or not.

If some men may think this sounds great to them, what about the young adolescent male youths who are thrown out of the 'family' home and the wider community lest their lust take over and they may take off with some of the young women the elders want?!

Underage girls are particularly prized as brides by paedophiles that frequent these communities under the guise of wanting to join that religious way of life.

Yep, it all sounds a great way of life and simply another alternative lifestyle does it? I beg to differ.