CONTINUED...

Couples, trios and whole mobs in Australia may form unions of any configuration they choose, under whatever private agreement they choose - or none. They may do this on a commercial basis (prostitution, organised orgies, etc) or privately, as party animals or as caring, sharing, long term commitments.

I am not alone in seeing a terminological difference between marriage and union, or civil union. They mean different things and probably always will, even if any particular author chooses to ignore the distinction.

Where my concerns lie is in matters such as rules of inheritance, health and property, including following dissolution of such unions. There is a clear need for superannuation, health insurance and the other social support systems which society offers to be available equitably to all, independent of sexual orientation and preference. There is a need for children of multi-party unions to have rights appropriate to their circumstances and which are morally and socially equivalent to those of two-person heterosexual unions, whether those heterosexual unions are short term, common law (undocumented or otherwise) or formalised via marriage and whether subsequently the parents have separated or not.

There is need for the rights of children of assisted pregnancies using donated sperm or ova or gametes or surrogate mothers to be established and protected, regardless of parental circumstances.

None of these matters has been discussed by the author, who is intent on charging blindly into a "union = marriage" argument without any consideration of what that means when it comed down to social and ethical fairness, including intergenerational rights.

Indeed, if the whole article was edited to remove the word "marriage" and concentrate only on characteristics of the various forms of union, it would have been a positive addition to the discussion.

In Ms Gillards defense (don't faint) she did have a special relationship with her dad. I would say she realises the importance of children having a loving father and mother. She is to be congratulated.

'If voting against equal rights for gays 'doesn't appear homophobic', then what does?'

homophobic is bandied about as much as misogynistic, such is the current climate of hyperbole.

I'm not sure I agree with same sex marriage 'rights', and I am agnostic, 'de-facto' biological parent, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself homophobic.

I think a lot of people are happy for the same practical 'rights' to be granted for same sex relationships, but just not calling it marriage.

I object on a few grounds.

1. On semantic grounds
2. On logical grounds
3. On tit for tat grounds as a man who is fighting for recognition of my 'motherhood' of my children.
4. On empty symbolism grounds
5. On the grounds that I don't believe it will be the panacea for gay acceptance that proponents think it will be.
6. On the grounds I would much rather nobody have their relationships called marriage, and the government stop putting people's inter-personal relationships in boxes.
7 On the grounds that the very act of a minority group achieving it's aims for 'equality' simultaneously robs the group of it's identity.

None of my objections have anything to do with a fear of homosexuals. More about being a pedant, with an aversion to symbolism and an aversion to special interest groups, the idea of 'human rights' in general, and the idea that people don't feel having every single practical right that married people have is enough and that they must be called the same thing.

But I will say that if gender is not relevant to recognition of romantic relationships, then so gender is not relevant to parent-child relationships. I am yet to find someone who can explain why gay people should have a right to be called married, and I not have the right to be called a mother.

I suspect it will be one of those things where the minute gay people are accepted and called married will be the minute after they no longer feel they need their relationships called the exact same thing as heterosexual relationships.

JohnBennets,

'There is a clear need for superannuation, health insurance and the other social support systems which society offers to be available equitably to all, independent of sexual orientation and preference. '

I think most people are happy with equal rights for these practical and pragmatic issues.

In fact, I think it much preferable for the government to ONLY accept explicit contracts for these very rights. Not called marriage, just civil unions for gays, straights and polygamous relationships.

I think even better if every area had an independent contract.

I, as a 'de-facto' partner, have been artificially and erroneously given responsibilities for my partner and her to me that we have not explicitly entered into.

I have been 'married' by the government against my wishes. If I had wanted to be married, I would have told the government I wished to enter into such a contract.

It is currently impossible to live with a partner for more than 2 years and not be responsible for them in the way a person who contractually agrees via marriage. This is constantly overlooked as a key issue; Marriage rights for those who do not wish to be considered so.

My 'human right' not to be married has been denied me, as the government has married me off as a 'de-facto'.

To blame are the feminists who infantilize women who didn't have the balls to ask for a ring or break it off, and the gay lobby who want marriage 'rights' and the conservatives and Christians who want to stop them.

I am a victim of the crossfire of all these groups, and the full gamut of relationships and different inter-personal obligations is legally restricted in our society as a result.

So to hold a different view about something, in this case homosexual marriage, is to automatically be "phobic" of that thing? Bizarre logic...

I also find it interesting that "marriage is a social construction" is use as though it automatically means it has no validity. We have many social constructions which people are quite fond of.

In my non-phobic opinion, civil unions, with the same legal and financial protections as other couples is the appropriate answer.

Ben you don't like Gays or lesbians, why not live your life and stop interfering in other peoples lives.
Hitler exterminated near 30,000 gay Germans, the persecution and brutality to gay people still goes on today in the 21st century, so what is it with extreme right wingers that they want the power and control over the populace.