Dr Van Gend is right to remind us of our common duty to give priority to legal protection of the rights of children. As signatory to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Federal Government has an obligation to protect "as far as possible a child’s right to know and be cared for by his or her parents" (Article 5) and to protect "every child's right to have his or her identity and family relations preserved and respected" (Article 8).
To be motherless or fatherless is always a human tragedy. Injustice occurs when the State takes a hand in deliberately imposing motherlessness or fatherlessness on a child. For the State to endorse deliberate formation of a motherless or a fatherless family is as unjust as to set up structures that would deliberately deprive these children of hearing or sight or any other of the natural advantages enjoyed by the vast majority of children.
In compensating for the loss of a mother or a father, the original pattern of identity and family relations should be “preserved” and “respected”.
It is not a just compensation to replace this loss with two female parents or with two male parents. It is fraudulent, in the same sense as it would be fraudulent for an insurance company to replace your house that burnt down with a house that has two bathrooms and no kitchen or two kitchens with no bathroom. Of course the fraudulent replacement of a mother and a father with two mothers or two fathers is a far more serious form of cheating perpetrated against the defenceless child.
Australia has also ratified the UN Women’s Convention (CEDAW), and we are obliged under international human rights legal principles codified in this Convention to promote full recognition of “the social significance of maternity and the role of both parents in the family and in the upbringing of children”; and to enact laws that acknowledge “that the upbringing of children requires a sharing of responsibility between men and women …"

Every child has a fundamental human right to know and, as far as possible, to be cared for by his or her mother and father. Marriage is the only institution that promotes that interest. It is also in the public interest -- this is recognised by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art. 7,9.

RitaJ you are cherry picking and twisting the words of CEDAW to your own agenda, one which shamelessly contravenes its spirit in the advancement of equality and human rights.

You omitted the final part of that sentence: "that the upbringing of children requires a sharing of responsibility between men and women AND SOCIETY AS A WHOLE". This clearly does not refer to the individual family unit, rather the expression that men and women are equal members of society as a whole, and that therefore both parents, regardless of sex, should have an equal say in the upbringing of their children.

In addition, nowhere does it state that we "must enact laws" to ensure this: that is your own (authoritarian) addition.

Finally, further on in the actual articles of the convention, rather than the preamble you quote, it states:

"States Parties shall take all appropriate measures...to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes OR ON STEREOTYPED ROLES FOR MEN AND WOMEN".

But stereotyped roles is exactly what you are advocating; as I said, in direct contravention of the spirit of CEDAW. For shame.

Haha Raycom: do you think people are stupid and can't Google?

"Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by HIS OR HER PARENTS.

Article 9

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from HIS OR HER PARENTS against their will"

Nowhere does it refer to "mother" or "father" - just parents. Gender neutral.

Hell's teeth, why can't those who try to intellectualise their prejudice (and are always destined to fail) just have the guts to admit that they don't like homosexuals/homosexuality? Please refer to this handy chart:

http://ow.ly/lIv4D

More of the usual dogmatic drivel from those who indulge in the delusional beliefs of both demented and perverted religions.

In the case of the catholics in particular, whose church is riddled with pedophiles, baby stealers, those who cover up for same and those who turn a blind eye, you would have to be seriously mental to give any serious consideration to anything that they say.

And what did we get from Pell recently I would ask?

"The dead guy told me nothing, RatSinger told me nothing, I never covered up for pedophiles and we are not any more responsible to the people we have harmed than any other corporation in Australia under Australian guvment law."

(which is of course to say, " I am not by brothers keeper.")

As the reality is of course, amongst those damaged by the perversion of the catholics who view scandal as a greater issue than the sexual abuse of minors, some of the aggrieved will need ongoing $500 per hour psychiatric support and possibly $100 a month medication and that's just for starters, thus a cap of $75,000 is simply grossly inadequate.

As for sexuality, its primary purpose is for enjoyment and stress release, though in my opinion preferably founded in Love. That is not to say whilst single I have not in the past been opposed to a quickie.

;-)

Propagation is a secondary consideration, at best, and more often what is more important is how to enjoy sex without producing children.

Same with marriage. What is important is a founding cornerstone of Love, not a male and female partner.

The perverted twist in this argument is that it is a question of what must be stopped (i.e. discrimination etc) not what must be done.

What some religious people need to get through their dim witted heads is that whilst they are supported to have a right to have their own view, that does not extend to an acceptance by the general population of allowing them to inflict their muddle headed ideas on others.

JP, can you offer an objective example for your argument, as the Witherspoon Institute is an American rightwing organisation; with a strong antigay policy.