Like you I expect "the ignorant minority to attack" and I'm sure Warwick would appreciate, S & N, your taking time on a Sunday to become a user and submit 2 posts in his support – but you're not assisting the attempted inference in the article of his not being "obviously a homophobic bigot."

With a simple edit one of your sentences can include everyone in Australia, regardless of their beliefs or circumstances: "Society starts at home with parents teaching morals, love, respect & discipline to their children!"

As you presume to judge the parenting abilities of others publicly, I feel entitled to draw your attention to the fact your daughter doesn't deserve her friend's trust and confidence…

"My daughter has a friend who trust & confides in her that he is ashamed his parents are gay & has asked her not to tell anyone."

I'm confident you will use this as an opportunity to discipline her appropriately and reflect on your own failures as a father to impart the appropriate moral lesson and your part in publicly extending this breach of confidence. Jesus would – wouldn't he?

I really don't understand the desperation by some to conflate issues facing father and attacks on homosexuals.

I've not noticed the homosexual lobby being a significant part of the push to retain or add to the bias in family law outcomes.

Leaving aside the wrongs of the discrimination for the moment from a pragmatic sense all that's achieved is to alienate another section of the community when father are needing all the support they can get.

Howard I hope the libs also have some interest in a fairer approach to child support rather than the very damaging formula's and approach taken at the moment. After some years of being a full time parent is still shocked by CSA's claim that a 13 year old boy costs around $420 a week to keep if the combined parental income is high enough and that's applied regardless of the actual circumstances of the parents.

My guess is that without special needs or much extra curricular activity $150 per week pretty much covered it with healthy food, clothes, some recreation and some pocket money.

Likewise the needs of a parent who's remarried someone on a good income and keeps an easy and flexible but low paying job for the lifestyle benefits compared to someone doing it on their own are very different but the formulas are applied without regard to the relative impacts on people or the circumstances leading up to residency arrangements.

Allowing so called child support to be used to gouge money from the other parent at a level way beyond actual needs and at a level that creates hardship for the payer is a massive wrong.

R0bert

To the arrogant and bigotted would-be "scientist," I suggest Natural Law existed at least a million years ago, when science tells us humans first aspired to be scientists and ended as destroyers of all creation in an anticlimax. As for the gays and feminists destroying the natural family, as well as the entire country, Warwick, the supreme irony is however to be seen maybe when all the boat people take over, rescue us from ourselves, and circumcise our grand-daughters in twenty-sixty. We'll still be able to recognise Julia in a burqa however with those prominent physical features. To all and sundry, I hope you've been practising saying your "Allah is Great" if you wish to go on living. Study history all you ignoramuses! Otherwise, read Enoch Powell's speech of 20th April, 1968.

The current state of political correctness means that many of our politicians are brainwashed by the extreme feminist lobby. It is a monster of their own creation that now wields so much power they either truly have faith in the dogma of extreme feminist beliefs, or are so manipulated by the power of their lobby that they follow it out of fear. This is putting our children in extreme danger due to the political support for laws that seek to destroy the rights of fathers, mothers and their children. Laws that allow a parent to ignore the power of a court order by denying a child the right to have the caring hand of the other parent and their extended family. This they are able to do without fear of consequences because of our governments’ and courts’ lack of courage to enforce access orders.

Further to this, most of our politicians have supported the introduction of a law that also denies natural justice by allowing one parent to make unsubstantiated and unproven claims of aggression or violence to deny any contact by the other parent. This is a form of “controlled violence” against the victim partner in the form of completely denying a child the access to that parent.

The real fact that has been proven time and time again, and that I also know from 40 years experience dealing with family breakdown, is that children need both their mother and their father in their lives to have the best chance to develop the ability to understand and cope with the trials and tribulations of life as we know it.

You simply can not substitute the male influence in a child’s life by replacing it with another female. This also applies for trying to substitute the female influence in a child’s life. Each of the sexes in a parental role gives a unique and “natural” set of lessons and examples to a child during their development.

They are all laws that do nothing more than seek to erode the family structure upon which our society is founded.

Barry

BarryW <"The current state of political correctness means that many of our politicians are brainwashed by the extreme feminist lobby..."

Extreme feminist lobby?
Where?
In a predominantly male parliament and judiciary, how is there a
feminist 'lobby' apparently pulling all the strings?

Is it some sort of mind-power thing these rabid feminists have over all the male pollies?

Why is it that the current Family Court and CSA are the way they are, when the politicians who agreed to all the laws concerning them are predominantly male?

Could it be that the overwhelming truth of the family problems and/or domestic violence situations made them do what had to be done?

Or is there some secret 'feminist lobby' out there somewhere, pulling all the Pollies strings, and obviously not caring one iota about how their decisions may affect their own brothers, fathers, sons, nephews etc, if we are to believe in this supposed conspiracy against fathers?

Sorry, but that scenario doesn't make any sense to me.
And no, I don't want to read any dreadful tales from family court scenarios, because we are only getting one side of the story, and that isn't enough.

"And no, I don't want to read any dreadful tales from family court scenarios, because we are only getting one side of the story, and that isn't enough."

And yet the entire fabric of lies that claims of gendered DV is founded on is based on "one side of the story", Suzie's continued refusal to pay attention to the results when both genders are asked about partner violence seems to be based on on getting "one side of the story" as a nurse.

The reality is very clear, when both genders are asked about partner violence the numbers are similar, females initiate violence more often, men do serious harm more often (with some correlation to mutual violence).

Getting "one side of the story" is apparently ok when it's the woman's side of the story, not so good apparently if it's the man's side of the story.

R0bert