Unbelievable!
Do you realise that because your partner is treated as a single parent (instead of being part of a married couple), that you come out ahead? So what if Centrelink don't recognise you as a family - you get to reap the rewards.

Don't underestimate the importance of a male role model for children. To often fathers are considered unnecessary - but you just have to look at the results to see the sort of influence they have on children. Young boys especially need a father figure - especially if you want them to respect and value women! Although in some cases the father isn't worth having around.

I'd suggest you stop complaining, before governments wake up and start treating single-sex families the same way they treat other families.

I don't care if Kay and her partner have 100 kids. As long as couples (or single women for that matter) who have genuine fertility problems don't have to get in line behind them at the IVF clinics.

My wife and I both work. I don't get home until 8.30pm at night and I work Saturdays as well.Our children have to go to day care during the week. I accept that this is not best scenario for my children even though I get them ready in the morning and take them to day care and spend every Sunday with them. I wonder why people like Kay can't just admit the fact that it is not the best thing for their child to be raised without a father. I know that there's not a chance of her admitting this, but wouldn't it be refreshing?

Far from the fact that John Howards' "Utopia" of mum, dad and the kids not returning, it has never gone away. The traditional family unit has always been, still is, and will always be the foundation of society no matter how much the social engineers wring their hands and gnash their teeth.

Like Craig says, I wonder what the next article will be when governments recognise same-sex families and the Austudy allowance is pulled. Stop looking to the government to solve all of societies conundrums. Society should develop as society will without it being moulded and prodded by either the left or right of governments.

Onya Kay! A few years back I wrote a letter to the West Australian in reply to someone just like Craig, who was complaining about a particular woman claiming Centrelink benefits while her same-sex partner worked full time.

My reply was that, as a homosexual I would gladly take such benefits as small compensation for the inequality and bigotry. Since then WA has had massive law reform and we can enjoy the rights that others take for granted, like being at the bedside of my partner while he is in hospital.

I am constantly campaigning for the Federal government to end the loophole that allows same-sex couples to receive benefits not accessible by straight couples. Of course, the only way they can do that is to recognise same-sex couples as de-facto or co-dependants :-)

Speaking for my family, those of my siblings, and most of my friends (90-95%), I'd say that the nuclear family is alive and well in the 21st century.

The government does not have to re-define "family" out of existence to satisfy less than half a percent of the population who live in same-sex relationships. Howard seems to make practical decisions for the good of the Australian public, not "anything-goes" pandering to minority groups. The nuclear family, biologically defined as male, female and their offspring, is the basic unit of society. It is also scientifically proven to be the best environment in which to raise children.

Also it's sad to see that you and your partner have deliberately deprived a child of his/her father.

Ruby

What scientific evidence do you refer to? Please provide a reference for this extraordinary claim. I was very happy to deprive my children of their father because of his violence. Do you think that this sort of family is scientifically better for children? Do you know the rates of domestic violence in nuclear families?

The "traditional nuclear family" is a relatively recent, socially engineered construct, not a scientific construct. In human evolutionary terms, for hundreds of thousands of years we were organised in small tribal associations, not nuclear families. To put it simply, when our biological ancestors "went to work", it meant that mums and daughters collected 80% of the vegetable food to feed everyone, while dads and sons were out there hunting for animal protein, or fighting over boundaries, or exploring new territories. The youngest kids were generally looked after in "creches" supervised by mums and grandparents who did much of the early teaching. Our ancestors did not come "home" each day to sit around separate campfires in little groups of one mum, one dad and two kids. For hundreds of thousands of years, a human "family" was the collection of perhaps 20-30 blood relatives that hunted, gathered, raised children, and moved camp together. Sometimes these smaller groups joined up in larger tribal groupings so young people of reproductive age could meet, and for festivals, funerals, trading, and suchlike. A bit like when the extended family comes together at a typical Aussie Xmas BBQ. Those who wish to see the "nuclear family" entrenched in law to the exclusion of all other alternatives are doing so in defiance of our biological heritage, and the natural way in which many people prefer to think of themselves as extended families, with grandparents, aunts, uncles etc included. But then such people probably also believe that god created adam and then eve...

It must be difficult for male children to grow up with two mothers.If I was gay and lived with another male,how could we be good role models to a female child?Any child in these situations would feel the stress and possibly become mal-adjusted.It is just all too experimental.We are fighting millions of years of evolution.

You certainly raised some interest there, Kay. Unfortunately most of it has come from people with little awareness of the society in which they live. How can one ignore the fact that a vast proportion of our population lives in single-parent families whether as a result of death, divorce, or accident?

Until the rights of same-sex families are recognised by the federal government (as they have been to some extent in Queensland) the situation of two unemployed women with children living together will continue to cost our country double pensions - whether they are lesbians or not.

Congrats on your baby. It will certainly be raised with a balance of both male and female role models through your extended family.

I really appricate this aricle and understand the writers own situation, it was fantastic the blended family worked for her. However it is quiet unfortnant that it doesnt work for many. i have many many friends that have been perminantly abused and scared from this type of family life and although i do understand that the nuclear family have their problems it is quiet clear there are far less problems related with the nuclear family. Over half of my year 6 class live in a single parent/blended family and often spent large amounts of time in afternoon care and other simalar organisations this is very unfornunate, on both the parent and childs behalf. I truly believe John Howards ideal family is fantasic because i understand the value of having two possible income earners, nuturers, comforters, supporter with same values for the future.

Finally! Thank you Diddit for being the light at the end of the tunnel. I was reading through all of these posts and beginning to wonder if all of Australia had its head in the sand.

Thank you Kay for such an enlightening article. Whilst I consider myself to be open minded, it can be difficult to see things from other peoples perspectives without articles like yours.

The people who have commented here seem to have focused on the same sex family and ignored that you came from a very extended family. John Howard's idealistic definition of a family may suit some but not everyone. People, particularly children, don't always have a say in how their family evolves - what if a parent dies and the child or children are then raised by a single parent with or without the extended family? Aren't they still a family? What if children who live with their same sex partnered parents still have access to their loving biological parents - as would a child of a divorced couple?

Their are a miriad of situations families can find themselves in. Who are we to box people and decide whether they fit a definition of a family or not. I come from a long line of nuclear families - but that doesn't mean that it was always a stable, caring and nurturing environment or that it is the only way to be raised.

By the way, if you want to refer to history and evolution because it suits this argument then lets get out of the dark ages and evolve into a society that accepts loving, nurturing families of all types whether they are a nuclear family, single parents, couples with no children, foster families, step families, same sex families, grandparent families etc, etc.

PS. Who says that children raised by a same sex couple will become gay or not have excellent role models as children with heterosexual parents? Where is the evidence of this? Do all homosexual people come from homosexual parent families? Hardly!