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.