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

Bravo Bill Muehlenberg on your correct snapshot of the defintion of family. I'm a 36-year-old Gen X. female and contrary to what some of the men on this post have said I would say that myself and my peer group of Gen Xers believe in marriage as between a man and a woman. I'm afraid the people who are sounding off the loudest about the structure of the family ARE a group of revisionary elite cultural theorists. If the nuclear family model which Bill subscribes to is so dead then WHY do 90 per cent of all families currently consists of a mother, father and children?!

Not only this but 88% of all ‘couples’ are married, only 12% are de facto and a miniscule 0.45% are same-sex. The nuclear family is far from coming to an end.

As a teacher and counsellor in both a primary and secondary school, I see first hand the results of divorce and same sex couples with children. In every case, the children struggle with either depression, identity issues, anger and generally far lower academic performance than standard nuclear families. I know that many will simply not want to believe this and actually ackowledge what the research and annecdotal evidence is saying, but the traditional family does a far better job than any other model. Those who deny this are in fact themselves in denial.

The selective citing of anthropologists in this article fails to acknowledge that the ‘family’, while always consisting of a relationship between men and women was in some cultures structured in a way that did not involve a nuclear family or a primary commitment between one man and one woman. Not all cultures rejected homosexual relationships either.

The crucial aspect of the Wilson quote is that marriage has always been required for childcare and economic responsibility. This is no longer the case. We live in very different world than any previous cultures and marriage is no longer required for these things.

You seem to be arguing that because marriage has always been the norm, it should remain the norm. Do you apply this to all other aspects of human activities?

mollydukes,

"The crucial aspect of the Wilson quote is that marriage has always been required for childcare and economic responsibility. This is no longer the case."

While that is true maybe we would be better served as a society not by asking in what alternative ways we can raise kids but rather what is the BEST way to raise them. With the childs welbeing uppermost that is.

I would like to comment on this issue from a young female’s point of view.

I am a 17-year-old student who has attended 9 schools in the last 13 years, both across Australia and overseas. In this time I have had the opportunity to both develop my own and observe the attitudes of my peers in relation to such topics as family and marriage.

Monogamy and marriage are very important to my age group. I have read that in a survey of sexuality amongst young people, intimacy and permanency in relationships were rated the primary concerns. This seems to be support what I have seen so far.

Currently I am attending a selective all-girls school. Despite the girls’ high career drives and ambitions, almost all of my friends hope to end up married with kids one day. The only person who has ever told me that marriage is “unnecessary for today’s generation” was a 40-year-old man I met (at a wedding) who seemed quite happy to be living in his quasi-commitment de-facto relationship with his pretty young girlfriend. My teenage female friends however want husbands, and they want kids.

Maybe the 20-21 year old males who have read this post so far don’t. Any bets they probably will in about 5-10 years- unless society keeps telling them they can have their cake and eat it too, settle down into a de-facto relationship with a girl until somebody better comes along, and thus never have to commit to one sexual partner for life. But regardless of how it serves men, tomorrow’s women do not desire it. We want husbands (not boyfriends), we want commitment.

As far as I have seen, the nuclear family (and the desire for it) seems to be alive and well. But then what would I know about where society is heading? I’m just a year 12 student after all.

I agree wholeheartedly with Bill. Science and history have shown conclusively that the family is the fundamental unit of society and that ideally the family is comprised of a married heterosexual couple and any children they may have.

Of course, it is recognised that single parent families exist too and need society's support. But a family is definitely not any group of people who happen to share a wheelie bin!

I work in an industry which daily sees the flotsam of family breakdown wash up upon our doorstep. In my line of work the vast majority of teenagers and young adults in crisis are those who have either come from dysfunctional family units, usually due to degenerative addictions, or they have missed out on the balance of a two parent household due separation or breakdown in family relations.

The cost of assisting these people, sometimes over and over again, is virtually incalculable. Our taxes, together with the ongoing generosity of the all too few members of the public who donate to charities, barely covers the cost of providing support and rarely makes a lasting difference in these people's lives.

Having myself been raised in a single parent household for much of my childhood, I can testify firsthand to the effects on a child where one parent, in particular the father, is absent. Without going into too much detail, I found that without the discipline of a father, I was quickly able to become the dominating male in the house, as is the case in the vast majority of households where there is an absent father, and my mother had little chance of correcting my increasing juvenile delinquency.

In regards to family, there is no substitute for a mother and father despite what people believe they are capable of doing, two females do not have the sustained capacity for providing the emotional balance needed in a young male's life. He will either suffer the emasculation of his early adolescent development and withdraw from societal participation or ultimately seek out his own methods of adult transitional rites of passage by becoming delinquent and anti-social in the opposite extreme. Either case is dangerous and costly and increasingly becoming a blight on our society, and there remain too few people who care enough pick up their pieces after each crisis.

I don't need anthropologists or socialologists or self proclaimed individuals who are tapped into this so called national psyche to tell me what a family is or isn't. Without a male and female parent committed to each other in marriage, these kids will continue to drain our social and economic coffers and in many cases carry their dysfunction into the next generation.

If we as a society are incapable of maintaining such a basic institution as marriage and a the proper perspective on what constitutes as a family, then somewhere in the not too distant future, society as we know it will have become too degenerate to support its infrastructure and welfare as we know it today will have become a thing of the past and survival will be of only the fittest.

Let us hope that we are not alive to see it.

Good on you Bill for standing up for the preservation of the very fabric of our society. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. If people don't like hearing God's version of the story why not go and pick up a pack of Tarot cards and take a look at one of the Major Acana Cards No.6:The Lovers, which depicts the Eternal One - Eternal Spirit overlooking His first creation of yes, you guessed it,a male and female in paradise enjoying harmonious relationship with each other and the Eternal One. The winged angel extending her hands toward the male and female blessing them, as man and woman stand side by side depicting that the balance of relationship was one of harmony and equality in status and role not dominance or exploitation.

One doesn't need to come from a biblical perspective to stand up against minority groups wanting to re-define 'family' as we have always known it. Most cultures contain stories of their beginings starting with yes that's right a male and female out of which come offspring and so the cycle continues, unless, that is unless, Adam and Steve take over.

The bible defines family, cultures define family, the tarot even defines family, one that is comprised of a male a female and offspring as a result of that union.

So for a moment let us just ponder the following scenario of wiping out all of history and starting afresh with only Adam and Steve - what do we see 50yrs. down the track? Adam and Steve. What about 100yrs? We don't see anyone Steve died 20yrs. earlier and Adam died yesterday....mmm

Shout it from the roof tops Bill!

Director, you completely misunderstood my point. I made the point, and I'll make it again, that the Australian Family Association (AFA) continues to campaign against gay relationships even though it is obvious that the reoccurance of gay relationships generation after generation and even in countries where they are relentlessly persecuted, must indicate they are a natural part of human life. They are not a form of "politically correct social engineering". They are simply are part of human history which the AFA and anyone else can do nothing to change. I conclude from AFA policies on same sex marriage that they would prefer gay people to shut up about their sexuality and enter into opposite sex relationships (causing marriage breakdown and even worse) than enter into an honest relationship in accordance with their sexuality.

I don't want Muehlenberg to "approve" of my sexuality. I want him to be indifferent to it and stop campaigning against legal recognition of same-sex relationships. As for children's role models there are teachers, relatives and other responsible adults who can provide role models for both sexes. And interestingly enough, there are many gays, including myself, who come from families where both parents are happliy married and it had no influence on their sexuality. Infact, much to Muehlenberg's chagrin, they didn't "turn out the right way".

Bill Meuhlenberg makes sense in his definition of the family. If society chooses to call every social unit living at the same address a "family", it won't be long before we will be defining family as anyone who shares a wheelie bin.

Patti Smith, Vice President and Media Advisor, FAMILY COUNCIL OF QUEENSLAND.

Bill Muehlenberg has made a reasonable case for the natural definition of a nuclear family consisting of a mother and father with their children.

By stating an exclusive position there seems to be people who feel they are being targetted because they do not conform. In an age where some people struggle with any position that claims to be "absolute" it must seem abhorrent that someone dares claim that there is an absolute family concept which is either produced or reproduced (such as through adoption) with a mother and father.

The argument that radically alternative parenting models can be justified because there have always been people like this down through history is an extremely flimsy argument. If this principle is also taken to its logical conclusion (that any human orientation which has been present throughout history must therefore be recognised as "natural") it would be a cruel insult to the many victims of various forms of sexual abuse and exploitation. There are certain forms of human interaction and conduct that society can not in all compassion to its members be "indifferent" to.

Mr Muehlenberg is correct in saying that the social evidence supports his position. His attitude toward those who feel targetted by his argument is not one of hate, but one of compassion. And compassion, which we all crave, should not be confused for the much misunderstood and abused word: tolerance.

The attacks on Mr Meuhlenberg for his case for a family being based on a mother and father seem to be grounded in a defence of alternate sexual expressions, which is almost a completely different issue. But it is interesting that this type of rebuttal highlights and brings into focus the two opposing worldviews: on the one hand- life has meaning for who we are; on the other hand- life has meaning as we express ourselves sexually. Put another way, the debate over what constitutes a family has at its core a fundamental question: can we be human beings without being sexual beings? If we fail to grasp the magnitude of this question by buying into the reasoning of Sigmund Freud that we exist merely to express ourselves sexually, then *any* form of sexual inclination can be justified. But if we can find dignity simply in who we are rather than how we express our sexual urges we can see that "family" is not merely the clinical reproduction of more potentially sexual beings, or the justification trophy of our conduct, but the basis for nurturing developing human beings into people of great worth for their sakes and just because of who they are.

In this worldview the role of a mother and father is indispensible and complimentary and not because they merely represent the two Gender Roles (parents are much more than mere "examples") to their children but because parents give to their children what no other parent, teacher, sporting coach, or aunt/uncle could ever give.

The greatest argument for Mr Muehlenberg's case however is not his sound reasoning, but the demonstration that what he says is right. Sadly, the objection raised by those who feel targetted by him is often valid. Where are the families of a loving mum and dad loving their kids who love them and each other? The expression "You're just like your father!" is automatically taken as an insult today. This is tragic. What Mr Muehlenberg argues is sound, but unfortunately the argument is thin on the ground (but not entirely absent) when it comes to demonstration. This is a real challenge to husbands and fathers (including myself, married with 1 wife and 3 children) to pick their games up and put the truth of the theory into practice.

Andrew Corbett, author of "What Is A Family?" ISBN 0-9751296-1-9

Insofar as Muehlenberg has described the phenomena of nuclear families throughout the ages, I would cautiously agree with him that they do have a long tradition. I say cautiously because I don't have time to explore the research comprehensively. I would also suggest he examines the class perspective - for example, the French aristocracy prior to 1789 had somewhat different family relationships to the middle class. They were different again for peasants and artisans. And don't forget ancient Athens where older men had sexual relationships with younger males (part of the mentoring process) in addition to their more traditional family life. He should also consider that marriage has undergone change. For instance, adult-child marriages are no longer considered a feature of civilised society. That is, they were a tradition that has thankfully been abolished for the most part. Just because something is traditional doesn't always make it a good thing. Nonetheless, I would agree that homosexual relationships have always been in the minority compared to Muehlenberg's preferred family arrangement. I can live with that.

But is the family tradition the Australian Family Association (AFA)prefers really under threat? I mean, when have gay men and lesbians ever been in a position to legally and socially persecute heterosexuals in nuclear families? Does the mainstream gay and lesbian movement really want to do this? I for one do not and I don't think any serious gay lobby group would ever suggest such a thing.

Sadly, the thing is that my relationships ARE targeted because they do not conform. In Australia much headway has been made regarding gay and lesbian rights. But not in other countries. And this is something the AFA can't seem to get into their heads - gay and lesbian oppression is still a legal and social reality. And partly so because groups like the AFA contribute to it.

DavidJS and others of the gay community

Here is the irony - the gay community is actually more intolerant of those who oppose it than than who oppose it are of the gay community. Why do I say this? Because you cannot handle groups like the AFA, and any other like minded people, expousing the views that they do. You attack with such vehemence, yet I do not detect that tone on the other side of the argument. And all this built on an ethic of toleration and acceptance!

Bill - what's his name - is right in what he affirms. Don't some people understand the meaning of words - especially marriage?

In the Middle Ages there was a philosophical debate between two schools of thought - Realists and Nominalists. Realism is the belief names express a genuine knowledge of real things. Nominalism is the contrary belief there are no fixed realities underlying a name. Names are linguistic conventions which can be changed at a whim.

apparently, most social reformers are Nominalist. The concept of marriage can only have meaning in a realist sense. It has always been about procreation and the transference of the family name and property inheritance. Two people of the same sex cannot produce offspring and clearly is a violation of the natural order for a species to perpetuate its kind.

Gay marriage' is an oxymoron. Homosexuals cannot marry. To be `married', the following conditions must be meet:

1- the ability to procreate
2- The transference of the family name
3- Property inheritance, and
4- Sexual exclusivity.

Two people of the same sex cannot meet these four conditions of the marriage contract. Marriage has always been understood as having a specific, clear and unambiguous meaning. But the bleeding heart do-gooders want to refine the term and literally turn it into a meaningless concept.

Homosexuals cannot produce offspring naturally and this clearly is a violation of the natural order for a species to perpetuate its kind. Then there is the right of children to be raised with both masculine and feminine influences. Fathering - and mothering - by definition can only be done by fathers and mothers. This simply cannot be accomplished by a homosexual coupling.

Homosexuals attack the family unit as `unstable'. However, the divorce rate for all married couples is one in 17 - not one in three as some claim. Homosexual relationships are less durable and stable as only five per cent of homosexual relationships last more than three years. It is not uncommon for homosexual males to have many hundreds of partners in their lifetime.

And some gay activists have the effrontery to say the nuclear family is a `violent' institution. Research shows the safest place for children is in their own two parent family. Child abuse is almost universally rare in such families. Further more, research shows the incidence of violence in homosexual relationships ranges from slightly above the rate for heterosexuals, to almost double in some surveys.

There is a right and wrong way to do anything - including marriage and parenting. When Ben Johnson won gold in the 100 metres in 1988 he was stripped of his gold medal because he cheated.

Homosexuals want to cheat on nature by insisting on their `right' to
marriage and parenting. If a person chooses to live as a homosexual, then they must face the consequences of that choice.

sincerely

Alan Barron

Dr Greg appears not to understand what argument is. Let me explain: Bill Muehlenberg has put his argument forward. I am disagreeing with it. That is argument. If I am attacking with "vehemence" so what? It is still only argument. I am not preventing anyone from legally marrying (unlike the Howard Government), I am not introducing any policies that would legally discriminate against anyone. I am not assaulting anyone on the basis of their sexuality or religion.

However, the AFA actively lobby against same-sex marriage and against gay men and lesbians adopting children. Christian Democrats have opposed the equalisation of the age of consent. Do the AFA and their supporters have any evidence where gay men and lesbians have actively lobbied to discriminate against Christians or to prevent them from marrying?

As for Alan Barron's comments, well unfortunately (for you) same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships are already a reality in various countries and we continue to make headway in legislative areas. This is inspite of your "research" (which is uncited). And we do so inspite of the active and sometimes violent opposition of anti-gay forces.

Finally, Barron's criteria for marriage would exclude childless heterosexual couples. What an insult to many heterosexuals out there as well as gay people!

Keep up the excellent work, Bill. I sure appreciate you and your well-defined "argument". You're not on your own Bill; there are millions who agree with you.
A few negative comments (that really don't make much sense) should not deter you and the AFA. Look what happened to Bob Brown and Mark Latham, both of whom wanted to fudge the family lines a little bit!
Please remember, you're not on your own Bill
Regards
Dr.Bob

It is quite interesting to read these posts and wonder how many of these older men (it seems) actually bother to ask the younger generation how they feel about this issue.

I am a 23yr old woman who is in close contact with people ranging from 14-30yrs old. I agree with "YngNLuvnIt". I too have observed the attitudes of this generation and the majority of people who seem to enter these debates are older men who mince fancy words and try to represent a generation that they themselves are not even a part of.... not wanting to sound harsh but it is true... talk to the youth of this generation and they will fight for the nuclear family. Every girl/woman I know has already picked out wedding dresses, thought about what he will be like, and they havent even met the guy yet. This is so common amongst the youth today, as was any other generation, I wonder if people have their eyes and ears open?

We need more men like Bill who will stand up and fight for what the majority of society is saying. Good on you Bill.

Dom, the sexest view you have put forward regarding coming home to a 'wife' is not at all what I believe Bill is representing nor suggesting. Family has not changed, people's attitudes towards each other and sharing in the family has changed. Most women want their rights to equality, in that we have the freedom to chose whether to work etc. But that does not take away from the fact that men and women are different and have different roles in the home. People used to box women into a certain role, now they have choices and many of them choose to be stay at home mums... why is that? None of this is the real issue, the issue is the nuclear family, not roles in the family... I know many happy couples where the man cooks etc, so this predated sexist attitude as far as I have seen is pretty much erraticated (I am speaking about in Australia, not some other places in the world). There is no need for sarcasm.... the 1920's and their sexist set roles are long gone, but the nuclear family is here to stay.

Guys do we all have to go to such extreemes in this debate??? DavidJS you must also see though some roles are long gone, we are not past the FACT that women and men are different. Eg. Most women are more the nurturers in the family where usually you would find the male mind to be mechanical and therefore better at odd jobs. (in general...every house is different) Women as equal guardians and protectors to men, of course women can be good guardians, I know many single mums who are doing so well. But none of them would wish to be single mums, they would love to have a man.... Again can I mention that men are physically stronger than most women (except body builders and other extreemes obviously and I am speaking generally...)That isnt sexist or predated, its how we are wired. May I suggest you read up on this, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus could be a good start....

As for DavidS who said that being gay was not a lifestyle but 'is my life' ... I know many people who have been gay or bisexual and have later made choices to change. It is called a lifestyle because it is a choice. Check out Pavlov with his dogs, its called conditioning. Many people who profess to be homosexual/bisexual later settle down into a nuclear family and are happy. Yes, genuinely happy.. I have such friends.

stevedziedzic, a 20-21yr old male saying none of his friends are looking for marriage etc... surprise surprise. Bring out the Dolly magazines, this is what women have complained about for decades... most young guys want to be 'free' and experience life, but I give you about 5yrs or so and you will be wanting to settle down. That is an age old concern... the women complain because the men dont like commitment... but in the end, nature wins, the desire for a family kicks in along with the loneliness deep inside and oops there we have it, the nuclear family again, funny that.

If Bill has to 'adapt' and 'get with the modern era' I wonder who is in control of this modern era? Because I note again, that this generation, who by the way are THIS ERA... are often neglected in these debates... are after marriage between a man and woman... As a 23yr old do I need to 'adapt' and get with the times? Or is it you older men and other minorities that really need to adapt and get with the times because there is nothing new under the sun.... just because minorities make a little more noise now in the end, look at the biology books and figure it out for yourselves.

Dear David,
Why are you so keen to marry when marriage is an outdated and conservative institution that has its foundation in Christianity? I would think a post modernist such as yourself would be able to come up with something a bit more innovative to express yourself and your chosen lifestyle!
It amazes me that gays and lesbians continue to hanker after the trapping of heterosexuals. Get yourself a life!!!

If all family types are equal, doesn't that imply that the combination of both male and female characteristics is irrelevant to the upbringing of children?

And if people want to redefine marriage and the ideal family, is it unreasonable that, out of an abundance of caution, they should first present replicated studies which unequivocally demonstrate that same-sex parenting does not disadvantage children? Shouldn't the onus be on proponents of radical social change to base their proposals on sound science?

The fact that supporters of same-sex marriage have not produced such evidence leaves open the disturbing possibility that, for some so-called 'progressives', the interests of children are secondary.

Bill's article is a positive addition to the debate on 'defining family'. Such an intelligent (and unemotional) approach to this issue is refreshing.

David JS, from your postings you seem to have the impression that what's really at the bottom of this debate, is the AFA versus the gay/lesbian community. Perhaps in your mind it's easier to handle the debate if you see your opposition as coming from one particular corner of the ring.

Well, I'm not in any 'group', and I have never personally met Bill Muehlenberg, but his writing reflects the opinion of the majority of Australians on this issue. The avalanche of response to the Senate inquiry into same-sex marriage proves this unequivocally, as does the re-election of the conservative govt.

Bill M's article studies where human beings have come from, in order to understand where they are now, with a view to passing on to future generations the MOST SUSTAINABLE structure for society. If he were a conservationist with this approach, you would applaud him!

Your suspicions about the AFA's research could perhaps have a degree of 'projection' on your part. Statistics cited by the gay community often seem to be grossly inflated e.g. the inflated statistic that 10% of Australians are homosexual, when in fact it is fewer than 1%. Not to mention the over-inflated estimations of crowd attendance at the annual gay/lesbian mardi gras. It's already been proven that the numbers claimed by your community could not physically fit on the footpaths lining the parade.

What we need in this debate are FACTS. And that's what this article has given us.

Marriage is not an institution that has it's origins in Christianity as 2into1 suggests. As Bill Muehlenberg's cited research clearly shows it pre-dates Christianity. Marriage, that is legal marriage in the modern sense, is by definition an institution legislated at Commonwealth level and not a religious institution. Read the Marriages Act 1961. Without government legislation there is no legal underpinning of marriage - all you would have would be verbal agreements. And same-sex marriage, as I've already said, is a reality in some countries - regardless of ideological opposition of religious fundamentalists.

As for those who wish to continue to refer to being gay as a "lifestyle", well I'm obviously not going to convince you. But it does reflect the ignorance of fundamentalist thinking which is completely at odds with the reality of gay men and lesbians' lived experiences. Interestingly, nobody here has referred to Christianity as a "lifestyle" even though one can change from being a Christian to being Jewish, Atheist or whatever. I'm sure if I did refer to Christianity as a "lifestyle" people would be offended. Well, pity you can't return the favour.

Oh, and here are some facts. Nobody knows how large the gay and lesbian community is. Nobody here including myself is arguing that men and women are the same. And finally, if the gay and lesbian community is only 1% then same-sex marriage wouldn't make a jot of difference to marriage per se.

You can't have it both ways - that is, you can't dismiss the gay and lesbian community as insignificant then turn around and decry the possibility of same-sex marriage as a threat to marriage and families. Either we are significant or not. Make up your mind.

David LS

I do admire your courage under fire. Well Done! But still, to refine my point further, the irony is that in the type of society that you appear to advocate the opinions and views of all would be tolerated and accepted, without the vilification of anyone. But of course this only works when such views do not come into basic conflict - then it becomes an issue of who is powerful enough to enforce their view. So in the end the issue will nearly always be one of power, and the ethic of tolerance and acceptance of all points of view will remain an illusion. Hence the bankruptcy of the postmodern view of truth. And apart from an appeal to a higher authority – which I do not expect all to accept, I’m not sure of a way out of this impasse!

David, I readily admit that the position of power in this debate has been resided with the heterosexual view. Along with this has been vilification and all the associated negative elements for the gay community for which I would humbly apologise for on the part of the heterosexual community.

Herr Muehlenberg disagrees with an awful lot of people about what "the family" means, including the United Nations, the Oxford English Dictionary, the "ruling elites", and "our intelligensia". On the other hand he finds comfort in the views of a very select group of elderly, mostly dead, white male cultural anthropologists from the ivory towers of England and America. Cultural anthropology is not a science Herr Bill, its a collection of observations that can be interpreted any way you like, and those observations are themselves culturally conditioned - you see mostly what you want to see. Look for a patriarchal nuclear family set-up in "primitive" societies and you will likely find it, especially if only men are questioned and women and children are ignored, as they invariably were. We can just imagine the polish-born Malinowski, doctor of physics, landing on the shores of the Trobriand Islands in 1916 and discovering everything we ever wanted or needed to know about human sexual and familial relations. Margaret Mead made the same hilarious mistakes later, and she was also trained by a dead white male cultural anthropologist. Malinowski has been described as "a pretentious Messiah of the credulous", say no more. And who is George Murdock? You might well ask. He was also born in the nineteenth century, and invented the term "nuclear family" in 1949, very appropriate for the ensuing Cold War of the 1950s. His Ethnographic Atlas, which Herr Bill describes as "an exhaustive analysis", was mostly done at his desk, using the field observations of other dead white male cultural anthropologists. Peter Laslett of Cambridge? Well, this dear old Cambridge don was an historian of english and french peasant life in the seventeenth century and his most favourite book of all was called "Patriarchia and Other Political Works". He also wrote a book called Bastardry and its Comparative History" and another called "The World We have Lost", so he must have known heaps about the family, and yes, he's dead too. J D Unwin is a bit hard to find much about, except that he wrote a book called Sex and Culture in 1934, and apparently believed that "all civilisations which have arisen have been monogamous and ruled by men - no exceptions". David Murray is equally obscure but apparently is part of a lobby group in public opposition to free needle exchanges to combat AIDS. Well, we know where they are coming from, don't we? In sum, Bill, with this shabby and tendentious array of so-called authorities on the subject of the family, you have proved precisely nothing. You claim to be a PhD student at one of our own universities (full of ruling elites and the dreaded intelligensia?) and it is my earnest hope that you will remain a student until you understand how to argue the toss properly.

In all fairness in this debate - Grace Pettigrew, with all due respect, I dont think personal attacks on Bill are called for... personally, I've never met Bill face-to-face but lets not let a good debate turn into personal attacks, I think the fact (while you are wanting facts) rather than the claim that he is a PhD student has nothing to do with this debate.

May I also add that in light of the recent bill that was argued in Parliament regarding the legislation of same-sex marriages and the amazing response from the public to keep marriage as between a man and woman, what really are we debating about? The public has spoken. We can bring whatever facts we like to the table but at the end of the day, dinner has already been eaten. It is clear to see by the results of the marriage bill and even looking at the election results, to see what the majority of people are voting for. Call me young and nieve but what is the point in arguing about what the public wants when they have already spoken?

Dr Greg, just to fill you in: I am definitely not a post-modernist nor moral relativist. I have quite fixed views about what is right and wrong. As you can guess, I regard discrimination against gays as wrong. I also regard sexism, racism and other forms of bigotry as wrong. I certainly regard intolerance towards Christians, Jews and other religious groupings as wrong. That may even make me seem intolerant (I have been accused of black and white thinking at times - not on this forum) but while I hold certain principles, as far as I am aware I don't discriminate against groups or individuals.

I also think it is interesting that sometimes groups like AFA will accuse opponents of "political correctness" AND moral relativism. Say what you like about being PC, it is the complete opposite of moral relativism.

Finally, my views do not represent the gay and lesbian community as a whole - anymore than AFA's represent all heterosexuals.

Cat, the public have spoken in Belgium, the Netherlands etc where same-sex marriage is in practice. You are okay with that I take it?

David JS

So if you have a firm view on what you consider right and wrong, what would your view be on a consentual sexual relationship between myself and my sister, with no desire or ability (contraception or whatever) to reproduce? If it is wrong, on what basis? If we invoke the law, then homosexuality was once against the law (in some places), and laws can be changed.

Bill Muehlenberg is well known as a spokesman for the right-wing lobby group, the Australian Family Association. He should have left it at that in his by-line. However, Bill also tells us that he is a "PhD candidate Deakin University", presumably to add academic weight to his essay on the family. Sorry about this, but being a student is not a professional qualification, and is not worth mentioning really, unless the subject of study is somehow relevant to the debate. So now that you have mentioned it Bill, what exactly are you studying? Also intriguing is Bill's statement that he is a "lecturer" (salaried?) in "ethics and philosophy" (whose ethics?) at "several Melbourne theological colleges" (which ones?). More information please...

Ah, Dr Greg. The "slippery slope" argument. Interestingly, such relationships as you describe were sanctioned in less enlightened times. Marriages in Ptolemaic Egypt between the ruler and his consort were brother-sister marriages (no wonder they died out). Cleopatra VII, the Cleopatra of Shakespeare and Liz Taylor fame, was officially married to her brother (although she seemed to prefer her sexual liaisons with Julius Caesar and Marcus Antonius).

Now that we know the consequences of consanguinity such a relationship is not approved by society by conferring marriage upon it. And I agree. Frankly, I would find such a relationship distasteful rather than morally wrong. However, I would unequivocally describe a relationship between parents and children or adults and unrelated children as morally repugnant. That is because they would be inherently unequal and would constitute a violation of a child's developing sexuality. Those marriages are rightly illegal.

Perhaps you could read Jonathan Rauch or Andrew Sullivan, two American and fairly conservative gay men, who argue for same-sex marriage but also address the "anything goes" argument in relation to this question. Again, they stress the point that equality must exist in marriage which, as I said, is absent in adult-child marriage or polygamus marriage. They also make the point that homosexuality is a sexual orientation. A preference for incest is not.

And I would like to ask you a question. What do you think of gay men who hide their sexuality and enter into sham marriages with straight women? I've asked this before but haven't had an answer. But having worked as a volunteer phone counsellor I know the terrible consequences of such a marriage. However, such a marriage is okay as per Commonwealth legislation. Something is seriously wrong here.

David JS

Thanks for your response. My question was not designed to invoke the slippery slope argument, although I can see that it is related. It was more a case of the basis or rationale on which we make such decisions.

To your question, no I do not support such a sham marriage. But I guess at the heart of this issue is really whether homosexuality is a given for some people. And here I confess no expertise whatsoever, but my limited understanding is that the jury is still out on the relationship of genetic and environmental factors. The material I have read, and it may or may not be truly representative of the research, is that there is a reluctance to exclude either from the equation. I also understand that gay activists are moving away from the genetic argument as they want to stress their free choice in the matter. So where does that leave us? I personally know a former gay person (who also had serious phychological issues) who on coming to faith in Jesus was transformed in many ways and is now in a fully functioning heterosexual relationship. Conversely, I know of others who also have come to faith and have not been able to do this. So where I'm at at present is that yes, some people have a homosexual predisposition, just as I have a predisposition to be a sexually promiscuous heterosexual. But given the faith that I hold and the marriage I have, that predisposition needs to be challenged and kept in check. Of course the key is the faith I hold, and as you will righly reply, not all share that faith.

Homosexuality is somewhat different to a predisposition to sexual promiscuity. Men, whether gay or straight, appear to have this disposition. Women, generally speaking, are more inclined to be monogamous. However, this is not the case with every man or every women. On the other hand, every gay man by definition, has a sexual orientation towards his own sex. There are no exceptions. If a gay man had a genuine sexual orientation towards some men and some women he would actually be bisexual.

In terms of people changing their sexuality, I'd say people can change but not consciously in the way you or I might decide to change the way we go to work or our career choices. There is a degree of sexual fluidity in human life as you illustrated with the example of the (former) gay man you know. And it works the other way. The Reverend Dorothy MacCrae-MacMahon came out as a lesbian relatively late in life. Sheila Jefferys, in her work The Lesbian Heresy, cites examples of women who never thought of themselves as gay when they were young coming out in their 40s or 50s.

I also hold my views not only in terms of my sexual orientation but in terms of my moral values as a Quaker. We value gay and lesbian relationships as much as other loving, committed relationship.

David JS, for your sake let’s keep off the topic of promiscuity among gay and straight men. Since statistics have shown time and again that gay men are much more promiscuous than straight men, and are far less likely to have long term relationships. For this reason, I think time will prove that in the couple of countries that have legalized gay ‘marriage’, the gay ‘divorce’ rate will be significantly higher, too. However, we’ve wandered from the original topic, so let’s get back to it.

Back in 1994 the homosexual spokesman Michelangelo Signorile said that homosexuals should “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely…to debunk and radically alter an archaic institution. The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ altogether.”

The claim that marriage is archaic seems to be a recurring theme among homosexuals, but is fundamentally and totally flawed. By definition something is archaic when it has belonged to an earlier time, but is no longer relevant. The family i.e. mum, dad and a few kids, is just as relevant and necessary today as it has always been. If we put all values aside, and look purely from an economic viewpoint – a married man and woman needs to produce at least two kids, so that in their retirement they will have replaced themselves with two people who will pay taxes to fund their parents’ cost to the economy. But in old age, a homosexual ‘couple’ has not produced anyone to replenish the economy. It’s fortunate, from an economic viewpoint therefore, that around 99% of people in our society are heterosexual.

If we take the economy out of the equation, and replace it with a value system or a belief in God, then a homosexual person is of equal value and is equally loved by God as a heterosexual person. However, God (or Mother Nature) does not bless a homosexual union in the same way as a heterosexual union – in fact quite the opposite. The heterosexual union, bonded by marriage, ensures the continuation of human beings. That’s why it is “the predominant form of family life in most cultures throughout history”.

DM, not all gays agree with Signorile. And I'm not entirely sure if Signorile holds the same views today as he did in 1994. Andrew Sullivan, Jonathan Rauch, Larry Kramer are a few of the American gay activists and writers who do not subscribe to the views you are putting. Rodney Croome, Damian Meyer and myself also don't believe that marriage is irrelevant. Which is why we are campaigning for same-sex marriage (we are members of Australian Marriage Equality). If we thought it irrelevant we certainly wouldn't belong to such an organisation.

Nobody, including myself, has argued that heterosexual family forms are the predominant forms throughout human history. I am arguing that homosexual forms also exist, have existed generation after generation, and should be treated equally. We also are taxpayers and, because of the GST, will be taxpayers until we die - even after we retire from paid work.

Finally, I sometimes wonder why I write these posts. People like yourself go off into tangents about what other gay people may or may not have said and make erroneous assumptions about what I think. If you want to argue with Signorile go off and do that. However, I hold my on views that can be read on this board if you care to look.

grace pettigrew, that was a rather racist remark, sneering at Bill Muhlenberg as "Herr Muhlenberg". So what if he has a German-sounding name? You also seem to be down on dead white male authors [no shortage of those!] and you also pour cold water on Bill's studentship. Perhaps you should do some study yourself, starting with good manners.

DavisJS on the subject of homosexuality, the fact is that it is an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle. Male homosexuals [less than 2% of the adult male population] account for 85% of AIDS cases. This figure was quoted by the Gay Lobby in the Industrial Relations Commission in 1994, and also corresponds with Commonwealth Health Dept. statistics. Homosexuality is a health hazard and should not be encouraged in any way. Smoking is also a health hazard, but look at the difference in the way we discourage one and not the other.

Correction to my last post: I meant to say that heterosexual forms ARE the predominant forms in history (ie: I am agreeing with DM on this point).

David JS, you must agree with Signorile to a certain extent, since you are attempting to transform the notion of ‘family’ altogether, and fighting for same-sex marriage, just as he asked in the aforementioned quote.

On another point, when you say that ‘homosexual forms’ should be treated equally, by this I presume you mean homosexual unions. That being the case, a homosexual union cannot be treated as being equal to a heterosexual union, because it is not equal! A homosexual union is not productive. It does not, and never will, produce anything to ensure the sustainability of society.

Thanks Bill for an excellent article on the family as most of the World's population understand a family to be. All of those billions of people in the world will need more than the arguments the homosexual males and females are putting forward to convince them that a change is needful AND will work. I feel very sorry for the homosexual lobby groups perhaps especially the high profile men and women of this chosen way of living, as they obviously feel they need to destroy what the world regards as normal to believe they are okay and normal themselves. Could it be that rebellion, hatred and negativity is the real issue here and these people feel they must destroy what the majority believe in to give them a sense of normality?

In response to "Cat", who has leapt to Bill's defence against my alleged "personal attacks", consider this. Bill writes an essay on the family that is composed mostly of quotations from a very select bunch of early twentieth century "cultural anthropologists", most of them very obscure and none of them at all convincing. Bill purports thereby to provide that "the family unit [meaning the nuclear family], cemented by marriage, has been the predominant form of family life in most cultures throughout history". In fact, Bill has proved no such thing. (Most reputable modern scholarship would tell you that for hundreds of thousands of years humans evolved as nomadic gatherers and hunters and most likely lived in small groups of 20-30, not as lonely and isolated "nuclear" family units, and that the so-called nuclear family is a social construct of relatively recent origin, convenient as an economic unit of organisation, and blessed, if not invented by, the major religions as a way of keeping women and children (and gays) in their god-ordained place.) But just in case there are any scoffers out there, Bill tells us that he is a "PhD candidate" and "lecturer", presumably to leave the impression that he really knows what he is talking about. Cat, you should be asking yourself why Bill bothered to mention this in his by-line, and you should be more curious about whether Bill is telling you all there is to know about the subject, in a fair and rational manner, reaching a defensible conclusion, that we can all debate on even ground, or whether Bill is just spinning you a yarn, based on biased and irresponsible "evidence", and having a good chuckle watching you all get your knickers in a knot. When someone publishes an essay which purports to speak with the authority of the academic "elites" (PhD student and lecturer) you should first question whether they actually have a right to that authority. This is not being "personal", this is being sceptical.

In response to "Big Al", who accuses me of being a sneering ill-mannered racist for using the german word "Herr" (Mr) in addressing Bill Meuhlenberg, and "pouring cold water" on Bill's studentship, consider this. Germans are not a "race", any more than Australians are a "race" (although the Aboriginal people can make that claim after more than 40,000 years on this land). To address a man of germanic descent as "Herr" is actually a form of good manners, not sneering ill-mannered racism, Big Al. But I do confess to having a bit of a go at Herr Bill. It is rather teutonic of him to imply that women are only good for "kinde, kirche, and kuche", and that men must rule the family roost, don't you think? Not to mention completely out of touch with reality. And as for "pouring cold water" on Herr Bill's studentship, nowhere did I say that Herr Bill is not really a PhD student, as both you and Cat seem to infer. My question was - what is Herr Bill studying, does this have any relationship to the subject at hand, and why did he bother to mention it in the first place?

As for my personal take on Herr Bill's nuclear family thesis - it is nothing but self-serving tosh. For the past 5000 years or so, human history has been written about men, for men, and by men. Men have a real problem in understanding where they belong in the universe, as it is women who give birth and provide the children who are the true vessels of our immortality as human beings. Until very recently, men had no way of knowing whether the children they supported were actually their own, making real problems for the handing on of their wealth and the securing of their estates (not a problem in our evolutionary nomadic past). Hence the rise of organised patriarchal religions, marriage and the "nuclear family", man-made constructs designed to ensure that women only gave birth to children that "belonged" to one man, and that they never questioned their subservient position in the grand scheme of things. It is this male notion of "ownership" of women that continues to give us all such grief. And what about gays, who have no investment in childbirth? Once they might have been our historians and shamans, our musicians and artists, and our brothers and sisters who helped with teaching and child-rearing. In other words, friends of women, and the enemy of the kind of men who want to live in Herr Bill's sad and narrow little world.

DavidJS,

Apologies for not replying sooner.
While I wouldn't try to contend with your statement about gay (or at least homosexual) relationships being with us throughout history I would argue that such an observation still doesn't make your case. There are many things which have been around for just as long that I'm sure you would not like to see widely accepted in our society. While I'm not particularly familiar with AFA policy regarding homosexuality I for one would not like to see your right to have to your say taken away. By that regard however, we should all have the right to voice our point of view in a mature and respectful manner in the public square. Unfortunately that's not always the case these days, with more and more legislation popping up seemingly aimed at stopping the 'Christian' POV.

However while I dont wish to speak for Bill Muehlenburg I can see that while you want him to 'stop campaigning against the legal recognition of same sex relatiships' this is merely his response to the gay attempt to force their will in the matter on the wider population. As you guys have brought it out into the public why should the rest of us not comment about it? If we feel that such a recognition is a threat in some way to society in general then we would be remiss in remaining silent. Personally though, while I dont have any problem with people who want to enter into same-sex partnerships I am concerned when such things are promoted as 'good' and 'right' and 'normal' because in my opinion they aren't (no offense).
The other point that comes to mind is the simple mechanics of the whole situation, the term 'marriage' has always meant somthing in particular. In this case the union of a man and a woman recognised by the community in which they live. This is not exclusivley Christian or western but has always been recognised as somthing special in the life of a society. The other point that seems obvious to me is that marriage is not somthing that is defined by society but rather it is something that is 'recognised' by it. I see it as a case of marriage (as the basis of the natural family unit) defining society and not the other way around. So even if your relationship did get awarded the title of 'marriage' I'm afraid it wouldn't make it so. If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck but barks like a dog....it's probably not a duck. :-)

I'm glad you had a 'happy' upbringing as you implied but it was not my intention (as stated) to bring up the question of 'causes' as it seems irrelevant to the conversation at hand. However I have noted that until the whole 'gay movement' became political it was almost unanamously held by proffesionals working in the field that homosexuality was pathological in the emotional development of the person in question. But we cant mention that in our enlightened times now can we?

Oh dear, it does seem this argument will go on forever. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to counter all the ridiculous assertions about homosexuality. My personal favourite was the claim that male homosexuals have hundreds of sexual partners each year - I wish! It seems that Christian fundamentalists make the lives of gays out to be much more interesting than they really are. And please, if we are only 1% of the population stop worrying about us.

It's been fun debating but I don't have time to undermine civilisation as we know it (first point on my copy of the Gay Agenda) and answer these postings so I'll have to leave it at that. But do take a lesson from Mr Muehlenberg - cite your references.

Whew! Just been thru this list of posts and wondered when DavidJS would run outr of steam/time/patience. Possibly being unkind to DrGreg, David and Bill seem to be the only participants with their heads screwed on.

A quick summary of my views:
Is heterosexual marriage a constant in human cultures? Almost definitely yes.
Is homosexuality a constant in human cultures? Almost definitely yes.
Is heterosexual union necessary for the continuity of human cultures? Of course it bloody is!
Do homosexual pseudo-parents make worse parents in terms of the stability of their children? Too early to tell.
Leaving kids aside, is there moral/ethical justification to deny homosexual partners the legal and "entitlement" rights associated with marriage? Can't see how there can be in a society based on "Christian" ethics.
See y'all :-)

David JS, leaving us so soon in the debate!

The whole idea of marriage is that you desire to enter into a lifelong relationship exclusively with one person, and you publicly state it. However, by your own words (above) you admit to wishing you had hundreds of sexual partners each year – ( “…. hundreds of sexual partners each year – I wish!” )
If you do not have the desire to enter into a monogamous relationship for life, then I can only assume that your efforts to gain equal rights for gays in marriage is purely a political stunt!

You ask me to cite references…

In the Journal of the American Medical Assoc., an article entitled “San Francisco Men’s Health Study”, stated that homosexuals have significantly more partners on average than heterosexuals do. (vol 3 no. 257, Jan 16 1987, p 323).

In 1978 a huge study of homosexual men by the Kinsey Institute found that 28% had sexual encounters with 1,000 or more males. 79% said more than half their sexual partners were strangers. 1% said they had fewer than 5 partners in a lifetime. (Charles Silverstein and Edmund White, “Joy of Gay Sex”, New York: Crown Pub., 1977, cited in Cal Thomas, “Behaviour Does Not Deserve Special Protection,” The Los Angeles Times, Feb 4, 1993).

Bell and Weinberg found that the average white homosexual male has 550 different sexual partners. (“Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women”, 1978)

The Journal of Sex Research found that homosexual men had a mean lifetime number 251 partners ((Paul Van de Ven, et al., “A Comparative demographic and sexual profile of older homosexually active men”, Journal of Sex Research, 34, 1997, p354.)

In May 2003, a study of homosexual men in Amsterdam found that the length of steady partnerships was 1.5 years (Maria Xiridou et al, “The Contribution of steady and casual partnerships in the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam”, AIDS, vol. 17, no. 7, May 2003, pp 1029-1038, p. 1031)

“Sydney Men and Sexual Health” report (a joint research project between depts within Macquarie Uni, Uni of NSW and the AIDS Council of NSW) found that 26% of homosexual men had 21-100 partners in a lifetime; nearly 41% had 101-1000 partners; 17% had over 1000 partners. (Garrett Prestage, et. Al., “Sydney Men and Sexual Health”, Sydney: HIC AIDS & Society Publications, 1995 Report C.2, p. 34.)

Numerous surveys have proven that heterosexual spouses are much more faithful and monogamous compared to homosexual couples. E.g. In “Sex in America: A Definitive Survey” 75% of husbands and 90% of wives claim never to have had extramarital sex. 83% of heterosexual couples were monogamous, but less than 2% of homosexual couples were monogamous. (Robert Michael, et. al., “Sex in America: A Definitive Survey” Boston: Brown, Little & Company, 1994, pp 101-107)

An extensive survey in the Journal of Sex Research cited that 77% of married men and 88% of married women had been faithful to their spouses. (Michael Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey”, Journal of Sex Research, 34, 1997, p170.)

…to cite but a few. That is why the natural family is the most healthy and stable environment in which to bring up kids!!

I just wanted to ask a question, if anyone would be so kind as to answer it...

I am not being a smart-alec, I am seriously wondering... what is the point of a homosexual marriage??? Lets put aside for a moment most of societies views, put aside the Christian heritage of this country, put aside any religious beliefs, put it all aside for a moment. What is the point in any marriage? Obviously there is the element of love and commitment, then you have that people get lonely, they need companionship the list goes on and on. But if we forget how we have all been taught in our society for a moment and think of us like just humans on this earth. Isnt marriage foundationally for the reproduction of life? Is not the point of marriage primarily that we will 'go forth and multiply'? So then what is the point of a marriage that cannot reproduce life? Obviously there is a lot more to marriage than what I have mentioned, I am not that naieve, but if you take off your hat and all your beliefs and prejudices, etc and look at it logically in relation to the world around us, it doesnt make sense to me. I understand that a homosexual person may love another homosexual person, whether that is 'right', 'wrong', 'normal', or 'abnormal', is not the topic here. But when we consider the future of this planet and the population here, what would be the point in us teaming off people who will stop the produce line? I dont mean to sound rude at all and I dont mean to make it sound so 'blah' but do you get what I mean?

Hey Grace, Sorry it took so long for my reply. May I say you write really well, I say that in sincerity. I love english and literature.

Anyway, you appear to be more educated than me... so I dont want to argue with you. You seem to be older than me so I wish to respect you as my elder (I am not saying your old ok, dont get offended) but you do come accross very strong in your posts, that is why I "jumped to Bill's defense". I understand what it is to be skeptical however, in your post it came accross as personal, thats why I said that. Thanks for clarifying.

I have read and considered your arguement. I dont know why Bill noted about the PhD thingy in his article. I am not close with him, and would not know why he would write that. But I dont see the big deal. I mean why did I write in my first post my age? Was that because I had some secret agenda? Was it because I wanted to try and show that I know what I am on about because I am resonably young? Or was it simply because I wanted the people reading my post to know a little about me while they read my opinion? Maybe I just wrote it. Maybe there was no hidden agenda or manipulative spin. Maybe that is the same with Bill. In the end does it matter? Knowing someone's position etc to me does not matter... but one still can mention it...I know many people who never finished high school and yet have more wisdom, common sense, knowledge and life experience than some others who have studied many years. Some people are lawyers, Pastors, lecturers, etc... but in the end everyone has an opinion and whether Bill mentioned what he does or not, and whatever he studies I think it's not really relevant?!? I dont know why you have made it such an issue when it is not really the topic at hand? His mentioning it was his perogative, as was everyone else's who has posted things here... Can I just ask - Would my opinion become void if you knew I was on drugs when I was younger? Would my opinion become more accepted if you knew I was a lawyer or a doctor? What about Bill? Does your opinion change if you know where or what he specifically teaches? What if he taught art? Would that cause his standing and research to become nullified? Why is that so important, why is it an issue?

Bill brings a good case, I would listen even if he were a homeless hobo (no offence Bill...just an example) regardless of your opinion on his research, he has done his research.

Status, like race or sexuality does not make you any less of a person or better a person, nor make your opinion count more or less.

I am a 30 year old female and I would like to lend all my support to Bill. Congratulations on speaking up and defending the family. Keep up the good work. Oh and grace, why not just address Bill as 'Mr' instead of 'Herr'??

Cat, let me try to say what I mean just once more. If you read Peter Baume's essay called "Families: a mix of good and bad", posted online on 13 December, you will see that his by-line tells us that he is a professor of community medecine at the University of New South Wales and Chancellor of the Australian National University. His essay is worth your attention because he has spent a lifetime studying the subject, dealing with troubled families as a medical professional, legislating for improvements in accordance with his own experience, and having his conclusions openly questioned and argued over by his peers. His academic qualifications are transparent, verifiable, and unassailable, and give weight to his authority to speak on the subject. (And yes, I agree with his point of view on families, that they are a "mixed grill", and we should be tolerant of diversity. This fits with my philosophy that diversity makes us strong. But that is beside the point.)

The point is Peter's essay is based on respectable research and broad experience, and his standing in the wider commmunity is recognised by his status as professor and chancellor. That is, you can be reasonably confident he is not spinning you some yarn for propaganda purposes, and if you disagree with him, then you can have a sensible argument on the evidence.

On the other hand, Bill's essay is a biased and irresponsible presentation of shoddy "evidence" in support of a pre-existing and irrational prejudice against homosexuals. This does not amount to "research" or a "good case" in any sense, and would probably result in a big fat F at any decent university, at the very least for not canvassing contrary points of view, not to mention quoting extensively from very obscure (but revealing) sources. And yet, Bill tells us that he is an academic of sorts (student and lecturer), presumably to persuade you Cat, that has the authority of the university community behind him, and that his "research" is worth your consideration.

This does matter Cat, in a forum like this where the educated and the uneducated, as well as bigots and frauds, compete for your attention. We should know who is talking at us, and be ever vigilant. Question everything, including the authority of the authors. And no, I do not think your comments on Bill's essay are unimportant just because you are young etc. I congratulate you for being so up-front and honest, I just want Bill to do the same.

I am a 28-year old professional female. I also would like to express my support for Bill's article. Women in my generation have seen too much divorce, dysfunction and lonely, damaged children to believe that there's no ideal family structure. Or to believe that marriage is simply some social construct. Or to think that relationships exist solely for the sake of the happiness of the two involved. Or that discrimination is always bad (sometimes we have to discriminate to support good things).

It's a shame that some have used this forum as one for personal vitriolic attacks and name-calling. Not so for David JS, who has been a perfect gentleman, although I disagree fundamentally with him.

The gay community clearly has a very different concept of marriage from that which has been held by the rest of the population, throughout time and across cultures. E.g. A psychologist in LA who counsels gay men said this…”With all the talk of legalizing marriage for gays, there’s an assumption in the minds of most people (read gays) I talk to, that only rarely does that legalization include monogamy” (Lambda Report, July 1994, p.11). An extensive study of homosexual male couples in San Diego showed that every couple who had been together more than five years had outside sexual partners as a ‘normal’ part of their relationship (“The Homosexualisation of America”, p.187). The homosexual press reflects this attitude very strongly.

So if the gay community wishes to seek recognition for their ‘pairing’, in a democratic country they have a right to do so. But please, don’t call it ‘marriage’. For, as one contributor above said “If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck but barks like a dog....it's probably not a duck.”

This is getting really silly with all this talk about ducks. So what if some male homosexual couples are promiscuous, so are some married male heterosexuals, probably in roughly similar numbers if you are prepared to face up to reality. And lets be honest, every heterosexual male who breaks his marriage vows is in many cases doing it with a heterosexual female who is also breaking her marriage vows. The “problem” in heterosexual marriages is that when a child results, the cuckolded husband may not be any the wiser.

The institution of heterosexual marriage has one primary social purpose, to keep women from having sex with men other than their husbands, so as to minimise the number of extra-marital children born. This is so that men don’t “waste” their time and money raising other men’s children, and to preserve their estates within their own hereditary line. In pre-historical evolutionary times, when we lived in consanguinous groups and shared the common wealth of the land, this was not an issue. Women probably had much the same freedoms and powers as men, and children were a shared responsibility.

Life-long monogamy is not a human biological imperative. It might be what you mostly see around you now, on the surface, but that is not because it is genetically imprinted. Logic would suggest (it takes two to tango) that women are probably as promiscuous as men, despite the otherwise fond imaginings of many men. Its just that women are better at keeping it a secret, mostly for fear of the brutal consequences.

That gays want to enjoy the ties that bind in marriage might seem a bit illogical in this scheme of things, because they generally have no genetic investment in children. However, where conservative governments insist on discriminating economically against gay couples, and religious groups insist on deriding their love and commitment to each other, then gays will continue to insist on joining the mainstream in marriage. More power to them. When the day comes as it surely will (despite Bills’ best efforts), when gay marriage is not a political issue, then perhaps we can move on to the more important things in life.

As cited previously...
Numerous surveys have proven that heterosexual spouses are much more faithful and monogamous compared to homosexual couples. E.g. In “Sex in America: A Definitive Survey” 75% of husbands and 90% of wives claim never to have had extramarital sex. 83% of heterosexual couples were monogamous, but less than 2% of homosexual couples were monogamous. (Robert Michael, et. al., “Sex in America: A Definitive Survey” Boston: Brown, Little & Company, 1994, pp 101-107)

Oh dear DM, get a grip. Another way of looking at this data is that homosexuals are simply more honest about their sexual behaviour. As for married heterosexuals, if someone asked you whether you had been unfaithful to your spouse, and you had been, would you really tell the truth, and expect everyone else to do the same? Statistics based on what heterosexual spouses "claim" to do, instead of what they actually do, in the dark when you are not looking, are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Grace, my dear woman...there is none so blind as those who will not see! Your argument is becoming less believable with each posting.
Read the stats, Grace, read 'em and weep!

Have you been unfaithful to your spouse DM?

Unequivocally and categorically – No! By referring to another debate, you’ve wandered from the topic at hand, and let's not waste people's time.

You have missed my point DM. It was you who quoted dodgy statistics on homosexual and heterosexual promiscuity, presumably to lend support to Bill's thesis on the "nuclear family", and your argument against homosexual marriage.

In responding to my question as you have, you have made my point, as outlined above. Your denial of extramarital infidelity is very emphatic, and entirely predictable, thank you. Why should we believe you are telling the truth? The question therefore remains, why should anyone believe the 83% of heterosexual couples, quoted in your statistics, who also claim to be monogamous.

But moving right along, today in the "Australian" you have published your letter in response to another online opinion ("Denying Christmas is political correctness gone mad!"), and we now know that you are Donna Murphy of Petrie Queensland. Hello Donna, take a bow.

grace pettigrew, what is your motivation for claiming to divulge the name and address of a fellow contibutor? Is this an attempt at intimidation? Whatever it is, it does you no credit. Nobody else amongst your many opponents has questioned whether "grace pettigrew" is your real name, and nobody cares. It's the arguments you present which are of interest to us. I hope DM will not be intimidated from contributing in future. Change your nom-de-plume if necessary, but keep writing DM. I find that I agree with your comments 100%. My Father said our family motto is "Fight On". I commend it to you DM

Further to the above grace pettigrew, how dare you ask another contributor whether they have been unfaithful to their spouse! What ignorance and gall!! And when DM emphatically denies such conduct, you dismiss the reply as though it had no credibility. You have told us a lot about yourself by such petty low-down tactics. They are utterly devoid of "grace" but are disgracefully "petti".

You have missed the point too, angry Big Al, but keep on shouting, you never know, someone might still be listening....

Oh, and by the way, what does the "big" in "Big Al" stand for?

Big Al, thanks for your contribution. I am in no way intimidated!!
I am sure most of us read and contribute to this list because we enjoy intelligent, academic debates. Grace Pettigrew’s last few contributions were so petty and un-academic, that I didn’t want to bore people by continuing the tone she had created.

Perhaps these are the tactics one uses, when one doesn't have a proverbial leg to stand on. That being said, if 'Grace Pettigrew' lifted the tone of her contributions, who knows, one day she may even become an asset to her side of debate!

If her reason for ‘flushing me out’ was to encourage ‘hate mail’ or the like, well she’s wasting her time. Because anyone who read my letter in ‘The Australian’ would know that I’m in the throes of moving anyway.

Big Al 30, I hope you don't dignify Grace's last comment to you with a reply. Does it have anything to do with this debate????

missantar,

Regrettably, the answer to your question is "no".

Furthermore, Grace has demonstrated conclusively with her infantile behaviour in her last few posts that she has nothing worthwhile to contribute to this debate.

I'd have been prepared to bet that whichever way DM answered Grace's earlier question regarding faithfulness, Grace would have triumphantly claimed she had just proven a point. Sadly, her entire argument seems to be centred around elegant diversions designed to side-step the facts. Pity her bogus claims appear to fly in the face of statistical evidence.

Interestingly enough, in the United States (I think Utah to be exact) a group of polygamists are fighting for the right to 'marriage'. Their argument is that if gays can argue for 'marriage', why can't they.

Hello,

I honestly don't think it would make any difference to heterosexual marriages if gay people were to get married.

Yes - heterosexual relationships are generally great things that ensure the 'survival of the species'. But gay relationships can also be wonderful relationships based on love, trust, honesty etc. all the great things.

The two are not mutually exclusive. We need to stop creating an 'us' and 'them' type of argument with this marriage/family debate. I can't help but think the Australian Family Association don't actually have any policies on dealing with the real problems confronting families - instead they scapegoat gay people. I think its really sad that with all the lessons of the 21st century such as the apartheid and the holocaust, that people still think its just and right to attack a group of people in society based simply on who they are.

I recommend anyone interested in this topic check out the '2001 moral majority' Morgan Poll. The poll found 59% of Australians disagreed when asked if 'homosexuality is immoral' and 36% agreed. The demographics of this are fascinating.

Men (45% said yes it was immoral)
Women (only 27% said it was immoral)
We all know men have anxieties about homosexuality because its an imagined threat to their masculinity.

63% of city people do not think homosexuality is immoral
54% of country people do not think homosexuality is immoral
I guess because country people are not as exposed to gay people and therefore do not see how normal/nice/human they really are.

75% of people with no religion do not think homosexuality is immoral.
60% of Anglicans, 57% of Catholics and 56% of Methodists do not think homosexuality is immoral.

on the other hand the majority of Baptists and Presbyterians do think it is immoral.

There was a direct correlative found between the amount of education you have and your tendency to think homosexuality is immoral.

Primary School Level Only (56% think it is)
High School Level Only (finished year 12 - 37% think it is)
Tertiary Educated (only 26% think it is)

Also, people who vote for One Nation or The National Party are more likely to think homosexuality is immoral.

So the basic profile for someone to think homosexuality is

OVER 65, MALE, ONE NATION VOTER, FINISHED SCHOOL IN PRIMARY SCHOOL.

Thank goodness more and more people are going to university!!!!!!!! Or we would all be confused bigots.

Most Australians probably do not agree that gay people should be able to get married - but this will change. But it is clear the majority do not question the moral legitimacy of same-sex relationships. Groups like the AFA want to wind back the clock to a time when homosexuality was illegal. They do not simply want to maintain the current definitions of family - they want gay people wiped off the face of the planet. THAT IS TERRIFYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OFhust

The Morgan Gallop Poll and many others like it also found that Labour was going to win the last election convincingly.

Well I guess that is good reason to keep discriminating against a group in society then?????????

Nobody is discriminating against gays by merely pointing out facts. The gay community, as a lobby group, reminds me of a caricature drawing. They are a very small body of people, with a very large voice. And yet they continually cry 'persecution'.

You have very good representation in the media and in the legal profession. Why do I mention the legal profession? Because I know for a fact that in actuarial studies, the profession that has the highest risk of aids is the legal profession.

The contributors here have not discriminated against gays. In a nutshell, they have merely said that if gays want recognition for their 'pairing', in a democratic country they can do so. But don't call it 'marriage', because marriage it ain't!

Words and their meanings are of critical importance. The community spends millions of dollars each year paying lawyers to determine the meaning of words. The outcome of which determines the fortunes of people.

That is why the gay community is working so hard to change the meaning of the words 'marriage' and 'family'. You wish to change people's perception of 'marriage' and 'family', in order to give homosexual unions respectability and power. The population has already voted that, in the best interests of society and future generations, they do not wish to give this respectability to homosexual unions.

There is really no reason not to give homosexual unions respectability. I agree that many homosexual unions are not monogamous, but this obviously does not count for all of them. I don't understand what people find so threatening about gay relationships being considered on the same par as heterosexual relationships. If a homosexual relationship is monogamous and based on love - what makes this inferior to other types of relationships???

Its highly reductionistic to measure the worth of a relationship from its reproductive value. So a couple with 10 kids are more valuable than a couple with 2???? Or is it a simply a case of any old excuse to maintain your own power??????

Most people respect homosexual unions, even though they would not be willing to grant them the same status as heterosexual unions. We are living in a time of social conservatism - of course people would not want something marriage changed in such a plural, confusing world.

I would also be interested to know about you DM. I take it you are a male, but are you a Christians - if so, what church?, how old are you, what level of education have you reached?? What are your general attitudes to homosexuality??? Do you believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong, or do you just think they should not be allowed to get married.

I really don't think the 'gay community' is a polar extreme from the heterosexual world as you would think. There are people attracted to the same-sex right throughout the community who have nothing to do with the gay community (which I take it you imagine as a group of flowery, lispy, drug-taking polygamists somewhere in the inner-city). They are normal, everyday people who are part of our workplaces, our sporting teams and our churches. I guess its only natural that they would want full-citizenship and don't see how this would send their married next-door neighbours into crisis. The other thing that you should be aware of - NOT ALL GAY PEOPLE HAVE AIDS. I don't mean to be patronising, but your thoughts on this issue would advance considerably if you thought as gay people as something other than some early 1990s gay mardi-gras stereotype. Gay people and society have moved on, you can too!!!!!! I actually think gay and straight people could live well together without these invented categories if gay people were given full-rights and therefore didn't have to huddle together in ghettos.

I might be wrong, but I kind of get the impression you have never really met any gay people or had any friends who are gay people. Could you look a friend in the eye and tell them they were a second-class citizen??

May I ask that you spend some time actually considering your own motives on the issue. And please do not make this a consipiracy issue about how 'gay people with AIDS dominate the media and the law professions'. Lets face it, you are discriminating against people - you are just using what you consider to be 'facts' to justify this. By saying one group in society can have one set of privledges and another cannot, based simply on who they are, is discrimination - not matter how you justify this.

I am sad that as a society we are still so unenlightened on this issue.

'Cat' and 'YngNLuvnIt' - I should make one clarification for you both- when I say that many of my friends are not interested in marriage I do not mean my male friends solely. I meant both my male and female friends are largely disinterested in or apathetic towards marriage.

Additionally, please don't patronise me (or other young twenty-something males) by equating my hesitation about marriage with "wanting to have my cake and eat it too." We're not sex-crazed, rutting drones preoccupied with 'Ralph Magazine' pin-ups who will eventually grow up and quietly shuffle away to the nuptial bed. We are not part of any primordial "age old" battle for commitment, many of us are not even remotely scared of commitment; we simply have deeply considered and profound problems with the institution of marriage.

Now you can, if you wish, shake your heads and intone that "nature will kick in" at some point in 5-10 years but let me tell you this: 'nature' has got nothing to do with 'marriage.' 'Nature' tells us to have kids, not walk down an aisle. It's possible to be in a loving, committed relationship (with kids, if you want) without ever marrying or feeling the need to do so- I'm in precisely that situation now. In fact the absence of ceremony can be a wonderfully affirmative, because your relationship rests solely on its own strengths.

Of course, many friends of mine (male and female) don't want a life-long partner at all, and it is nonsensical to accuse the men, at least, of simply wanting to "settle down into a de-facto relationship with a girl until somebody better comes along, and thus never have to commit to one sexual partner for life."

This is a cardboard cut-out caricature of men that's offensive and unfair.

1) It ignores the natural fragility and complexity of all long-term relationships.
2) It presumes that we are hard-wired for a life-long partnership and that deviation from this is somehow immediately selfish. In fact life-long partnerships are always difficult and often painful (look at the divorce rates.) Of course, some work hard at it and are happy. But the high failure rate and work required for success imply we’re smothering a few hard-wire urges while we’re at it, and I don’t just mean sex.
3) If “someone better comes along” (not just ‘better looking/younger’ but someone who is better suited to you) then should the urge to move on be automatically smothered? If you’re a male or a female in a loveless marriage (particularly if the kids have moved out/ are yet to come) should a more happy partnership be automatically discounted?

Sex, like the relationships we form, are ultimately what we make them. Some will enjoy one blissfully happy marriage, others will bail out from a destructive and painful marriage for another loving long-term partner, some will have three or four long-term partners. Some will have countless affairs and never settle down, happily free of the "deep lonliness" that Cat insists must exist in them. I know one or two people like this.

Cat demands that "we want husbands (not boyfriends), we want commitment." Fair enough, noble sentiment. But many do not, and falling back on accusations of selfishness to make these views fit your world view does not, I'm afraid, cut the mustard.

Ofhust, in your last post you say that you would be interested to know more about DM. If you scroll upwards, past the personal abuse from Big Al and his mates, you will find that DM is Donna Murphy from Petrie Queensland – the heartland of Hansonism. DM was so pleased with one of her own postings on this website that she sent it to the Australian newspaper and it was published last Saturday. I happened to notice. I then googled Donna Murphy and discovered that she has also published under her own name on the subject of abortion. Apparently Donna wants to force women seeking abortions to look at ultrascans, a particularly nasty form of fundamentalist fear-mongering that was visited on the good citizens of Canberra for a while until they sensibly voted out the god-botherer responsible for the legislation. (Now Big Al etc, before you angrily burst onto my screen again accusing me of intimidating DM by “outing” her, try to remember that Donna had already outed herself.) I remain as curious as Ofhust to know where your anti-homosexuality comes from Donna. Enlighten us please, answer Ofhust’s questions.

Thanks Grace. I am just not sure if Donna is self-aware enough to work out exactly why it is that she has a problem with gay people. I suspect its simply a case of thats what she was taught about homosexuality in church and all her arguments spring from there.

Like Donna Murphy aka DM, Big Al 30 has outed himself by publishing his online opinion comment ("Denying Christmas is political correctness gone mad") through the letters columns of the newspapers. In the Canberra Times letters of 23 December we discover that Big Al is in fact Alan A Hoysted of Thomastown Vic. Hello Alan, take a bow...

Bill's commitment to his own ideal family structure and values may be an admirable trait. Where he gets scarily totalitarian is in his theocratic insistence everyone share the same family structure and values or get locked out of society (criminalised, left in a legal limbo or simply ostracised).

In the AFA world view there appears to be an underlying paranoia that human society is so fragile that any tolerance of minority values and experience will make the whole edifice crumble. Even stranger, it's as if they believe homosexuality is so faaaaabulous the whole world will turn gay unless official disapproval is enshrined in law. In the 21st century we know enough about human sexuality to know that is not going to happen.

There's also an underlying hyprocrisy in the AFA's insistence only heterosexuals should marry. For years they've been telling us marriage is the ideal institution in which to promote cohension and stability in families and in the larger society. But if that's really true why deny gays and lesbians access to that stability? Is it because the AFA needs gays and lesbians to live promiscuous and unstable lives in order to ensure reality fits their reading of scripture?

Contrary to the claims made by some here, there is no credible evidence to show children raised by same sex couples are in any way disadvantaged by the experience. Those studies that claim to show disadvantage have all emanated from conservative religious 'think tanks' whose agenda is to bend science in order to make reality fit a right wing reading of scripture. These studies are not supported by independent academic studies and do not stand up under peer review.

But no matter how determined conservatives are to lock same sex families out of the law, a percentage of same sex couples will continue to raise children and form families.

The real question is whether conservatives have any place deliberately disadvantaging those kids by insisting they have fewer rights than their peers.