Celevia “There are not many women and men who want to go back to the lifestyle of the fifties; today’s families generally exist of dual earners or solo family models.”

The lifestyle of the 1950 would not return. That lifestyle was formed around working for one or maybe two companies for an entire working life. The model has changed, far more self employed far more independent contractors. The relationship of a contract of master and servant (the basis of old employment law) has been broken. Removing the compulsion to provide facile leave entitlements for spurious reasons would not turn back the clock, the 1950 model is gone because of many other reasons than absence of qualifying leave conditions

Jpw2040 “Equality for sexual minorities is on the way”

Does that mean the general population are going to be forced to fund feeding rooms and a supply of undernourished children to “equalize” the needs of “lactating transvestites”?

Minorities do not deserve unconditional equality. They might deserve tolerance but tolerance does not entitle them to any support or subsidy from the majority.

The problem is not merely economic. If I were to marry today, fall sick and die tomorrow, my wife of one day would have the right to hospital visits, decisions on treatment, and after my death, untaxed inheritance rights on superannuation, house, car… everything. She would also have the right to decide on the form of funeral. But none of those rights would be guaranteed to my partner of forty years. He can legally be treated as a stranger in the hospital; inherited superannuation will be taxed; and my family can contest the Will because, although I have been estranged from them for many years, they remain legally ‘family’ and he merely a ‘stranger’ with no rights before the law! This causes some disquiet. We have done our best to ensure a smooth transition when either of us dies, but it is unclear how secure the legal documents are in such cases.
The refusal of governments to acknowledge the validity of our love and commitment, reinforces religion-based homophobia and encourages hate crimes. It is bad enough that the perpetrators of homophobic vilification and discrimination – religions – are above the law, without the state joining in. How can we expect family and friends, or local residents to take our relationship and commitment seriously when the law doesn’t?
Relationships such as ours are not uncommon; Michael Kirby is only a few years behind us, and there are a great many others. An informal U.S.A. survey suggests that gay relationships are now outlasting heterosexual ones, and a UK survey in The New Scientist found that gay men made the best parents. We held very responsible jobs for all our working lives and have contributed more than most through taxation, so I think we should at least have the right to the disposal of our assets, and the mental security of knowing our partner will not be disadvantaged on our death.
Boaz… I'm grateful for your poisoned pen… you are an excellent advocate for atheism.

Two months ago, Col Rouge, you were showing unsettling signs of tolerance towards minorities http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=361#6523

Glad to see that you haven’t drifted too far from your redneck ways – I thought the sky was about to fall for a while there.

I understand that you dislike paying for something from which you don’t receive a direct benefit, but that’s not how things work in modern societies. Your taxes already pay for research into systemic-functional grammar, tunnels for wildlife to get across busy roads and advertising for “WorkChoices”.

The “will we now have to pay for ...” objection sounds like a valid one, but in fact, it’s a furphy. You’re already paying for lots of things that benefit others more than you. Get over it.

Also, what individuals are wearing is not a criterion for determining their eligibility for public services. If a human being is lactating, she deserves all the benefits available to all other lactating human beings, even if she is wearing men’s clothing.

That, after all, is what transvestites do – they wear the clothing of the opposite sex. Transvestites often belong to sexual minorities, but as we regularly see on the Footy Show, putting on a frock doesn’t necessarily make you attracted (or attractive) to members of the same sex.

You say, “Minorities do not deserve unconditional equality.” Human beings deserve unconditional equality, Col Rouge, regardless of what minorities they happen to belong to.

ybgirp,
Must go along with you on what you say about inheritance, there is no earthly (or heavenly) reason why there should not be a way that allows long term same sex partners entering into a legal union.
To call it marriage however raises the hackles of many people who would otherwise be on-side; settle for Legal Union or some other terminology and things will not only go smoother but probably quicker as well.

Is Mise
Absolutely correct! Gays have shot themselves in the foot by demanding marriage. France has had civil unions for years and they are now more popular among heterosexuals than marriage.

Is Mise, ybgirp,

Absolutely incorrect. To “settle for Legal Union” means to settle for inequality. Yes, relationship recognition is about legal rights, but it’s also about the value of our relationships in society. So long as same-sex couples are excluded from relationship forms available to opposite-sex couples, then their relationships will be seen as inferior.

This, as I said above, encourages homophobia by providing the ill-willed with a phoney justification for anti-gay hate.

Just like straight couples, not every gay couple wants to marry. However straight couples have the choice to marry, and this is denied to same-sex couples. This is where the inequality begins. It spreads through both social attitudes and legal rights, and its endpoint is very real discrimination and mistreatment for same-sex couples.

For a great summary of the reasons why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, see Tim Dick’s SMH article from last January: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/01/13/1137118970554.html

ybgirp, your response is particularly disappointing. Descriptions of your relationship here and elsewhere show that you think it the equal of any marriage, yet you’re prepared to go on allowing others to treat it as less. Forty years of mutual love and support have earnt you both all the respect usually shown to a forty-year marriage between a man and a woman. You two haven’t got this respect yet, and it looks to me like you’ve given up fighting for it.

Is Mise, the young people in your family (children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews) are growing up in much better times than ybgirp and I did. Yet, should they turn out to be gay, your attitudes will deny them the chance to celebrate their relationships in the same way as their siblings. Would you really want to disadvantage some of your children in this way?