Assuming Muehlenberg's research is generally correct (and I have my suspicions regarding research from the Australian Family Association) it is not necessarily grounds for future social policy. For example, he quotes Malinowsky:

"...The most important moral and legal rule [in primitive societies] is that no child should be brought into the world without a man - and one man at that - assuming the role of sociological father, that is guardian and protector, the male link between the child and the rest of the community."

I think we've moved a bit beyond that (assuming it to be true then). Women are quite capable of being guardians and protectors equal to men.

But the thing I take issue with is his snide comment about "alternative lifestyles". My homosexuality is my life and not a "lifestyle" - Better Homes & Gardens is about lifestyles. Being gay is simply being - something that the likes of Muehlenberg continue to denigrate in their bid to de-legitimise gay people and their families. And I would like to ask this question: would the Australian Family Association prefer gay people to enter non-gay relationships causing misery for all concerned or have a same-sex relationship that is in tune with their sexuality? I think sadly they'd prefer the former rather than the latter in their bid to socially engineer "correct" families.

it irks me that a "man" like Muehlenberg cites other men to denigrate women, namely by insinuating that they are less capable of raising children without the aid of men. Hmph!

And to quote Malinowsky ("I know of no single instance in anthropological literature of a community where illegitimate children, that is children of unmarried girls, would enjoy the same social treatment and have the same social status as legitimate ones.") is surely good reason to change society, not to conform to history.

Illegitimate offspring together with adopted and fostered children, the progeny of widows and widowers, and the children of same-sex couples all deserve equal respect and status in a civilised world.

Mr Muehlenburg's world is of a time when feudal lords had the legal right to bed any peasant woman and to hell with any bastard offspring! I'm glad we've come a long way, though I wish Bill would join us in the modern era of respect and equality.

Sam, you could go even further by saying that we've always had poor people, we've always had wars, we've always had anti-semitism, we've always had (fill in the atrocity) etc etc. Not to mention the fact that homosexual relationships have always been around even though they weren't necessarily with us. Muehlenburg omits to mention that because it somewhat undermines his argument.

Perhaps, Bill, we should hold on to the entire social structure of, say, the 1920's? That way we could easily maintain a society where the man helps the woman raise the child (as though its her duty and the father simply lends a hand). This is fine if you want a 'wife' to wash your clothes and cook your food while you go out and have an active work/social life, but since most people moved on from that idea about 50 years ago family HAS changed. It isn't a bunch of revisionary elite theorists; it is the way people are actually structuring their lives. Adapt.

Bill, you can quote all the sociologists you want but if you want to tap into the national psyche it's better to simply look around you. The majority of my friends and acquaintances have no real interest in marriage (as a ritual or social institution at least.) A substantial minority are sceptical about the idea of spending the rest of their lives with only one other person. Those of us who believe that we'll probably "mate for life" are generally quite happy to leave marriage out of the picture. My general impression is that we're pretty representative of people our age (20- 21 or so.) I'd have to support Dom's suggestion to Bill, and kindly ask him to "adapt."

So DavidJS,

Let me see if I understand you here. You're saying that Bill and his ilk should accept or approve of the way you lead your life presumably because 'that's the way you are'? (No need to go into the reasons behind your homosexuality ATM as it's not particularly relevant to the topic at hand.) That being the case I'm often intrigued that on one hand while the gay/les community seeks for the acceptance of society at large, on the other they dont seem to want to accept the card that nature has dealt them themselves. If you are born gay then nature has determined that you are not to reproduce, why is it then that so many of you strive to have kids by any and all means available to you? Now I'm not saying who would make a good parent or not, there's plenty of heterosexual screwups in that league. What I am saying is that no matter how good a parent you are there is one necessary thing that no gay couple can provide for their kids, and that is a male/female role model. In these cases the wants of the parents always outweigh the best interests of the kids.

As for the rest of the replies so far, well lets just say there's nothing new there. A bit of knee-jerking, a bit of histeria, a smidge of misrepresentation thrown in for good measure.

As for the calls to adapt, why should we? If the world is going to hell in handbag why shouldn't people like Bill and others who can see the writing on the wall strive to swim upstream? Why shouldn't they be allowed to voice their concerns? I guess it would be nice world for some if they could silence anyone who raises a dissenting voice.
But then I guess misery loves company eh?

Cheers