I'm all for the rights of gay couples in de facto partnerships and count a number, including one couple of 40 plus years, among my oldest and most valued friends. I do not however support gay marriage. Also none of my queer friends has ever spoken out about it.

For me "marriage" is a religious commitment endorsed by the State under Judae-Christian principles on which our legal system is based between a Man & Woman.

Since many heterosexual couples no longer care about the formality or sanctity of marriage vows and the stigma of children being born out of wedlock is largely bygone I fail to see why a segment of the homosexual community is making a fuss. Why not have a 'marriage' ceremony performed by a celebrant and believe in it? The same rights will apply if the couple live the life.

In my lifetime I've seen homosexuality 'evolve' from reviled and concealed to fashionable and flaunted and every stage between. Personally my opinion is that one's sexuality is largely hard wired, not chosen and is only one part of the whole. In any case the only time I ever found another persons preferences fascinating is if I wanted to .... them.

Since the attitude of most Aussies seems to be one of general tolerance I am beginning to think some of our Drama Queens out there should just get a life and try to enjoy it. As for kids - well if you can't get a donor/surrogate or afford to buy a Malawian orphan, a puppy or kitten makes a good substitute (and a lot less trouble and expense) Otherwise borrow some - like nephews or nieces for at least a month or until the urge passes ....

Divine_msn - I think that the operative words in your post were "For me.." and "personally, my opinion". Yes, of course, this is an opinion site and we are all free to post opinions on this subject which will be varied, oppositional and spirited.

But perhaps the importance of having legal marriages between same-sex couples is to take it to the level which invalidates opinion as having any bearing upon the subject?

You, for example see marriage in one way, I in another . If you are a married person or have ever been one, as have I, then those personal opinions, if they had been exchanged, would have had no bearing upon the validity of our seperate relationships. No matter how differently we - or our friends or relations - regarded the reasons for the legal sanctions upon our unions, we were both equally regarded by State and Society.

Perhaps this is what those affected by this question feel so strongly about? They want the same choices as others.

I once lived in a small, reactionary and traditionally religious community in South Africa to which a married gay couple relocated and became very active in a community project. Many people there set out for a meeting held in this couple's house in fear, trepidation and morbid curiosity. Some, like many of those unfamiliar with queer folk, connected homosexuality with pedophilia and refused to go.

But, when settled into an ordinary house, with cooking smells making mouths water,and a life style the same as theirs, they relaxed. When the wedding photos on the mantelshelf prompted a hilarious conversation about Things That Go Wrong at Weddings most didn't even realise till afterwards that there had been anything extraordinary about one of the weddings under discussion.

I guess thats what some people want. Inclusion. Choices. Demystification.

The Marriage Act refers to one man and one woman. It also has other restrictions, for example, minimum age, however the key definition and the purpose of the Act is expressed in that simple phrase referring to a man and a woman. It has nothing to do with equal rights, recognition or anything else, those are just rationalisations of rhetoric.

Gay unions are provided for already but if more regulation is needed it is a case of framing new legislation to deal with those needs whatever they might be.

Equally there is no argument for changing the Marriage Act to provide for multiple partners, although the followers of some religions might feel aggrieved about that as well.

The Australian Government has introduced wide-ranging reforms that recognise all couples, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender of a partner. The reforms also recognises children living in same-sex families.
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/same_sex.htm
No mention of accepting adoption of children from here or overseas nor how they go about procuring a child or children. A news item that got my attention & my heart strings was grandparents in UK, here is their story in brief.

“The five-year-old boy and his sister, four, had been cared for by their grandparents while their mother battled a heroin addiction.
The grandfather, 59, and his wife, 46, were told they were too old and unfit to care for the children however.

The Grandfather said: "It was the worst day of my life when they came to take them away."….Continues, The couple claim social workers told them their access to the children would be restricted if they opposed the gay adoption.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4427191/Grandparents-anguish-at-losing-gay-couple-adoption-children.html

That time of year has come and gone when over 40 years ago the Qld State Government, The Church of England Charity Org. where I went for help only to get told that by staying at their facility I was agreeing to Adopt my Child Out. Yes, it was a story of Discrimination, discrimination for being Single and expecting a Child. My flat mate girl friend had offered to help but Society had made me ashamed of my situation so I went back to my Parents who were 55 and 61 my mother being the elder. Dad, after speaking to the Sire advised me to Adopt, as did the Solicitor my mother and I consulted. So I searched the phone book for help from someone who would and could help. Yes, they helped someone who wanted a Child. Today we are still called Breeders, or Birth Parent.

So, dear gay crowd, just remember when you go to the market to Consult the Traders In Procuring a Human Infant, we are human too. Not like a Cow or Horse you buy at the Markets or Puppy you bring home.

The author writes that the Rudd Government has given Ms Wong a senior posting and then cries wolf.

'We are still victims of the kind of school-yard bullying, workplace discrimination and hate-crime which is motivated by a desire for us to cease to exist.'

Women are victims, queers are victims, aboriginals are victims, migrants are victims, unemployed are victims, muslims are victims, workers are victims and of course the white heterosexual man are the Perpetrators.

You are right that their are many that would much prefer to don't promote a perverse lifestyle.

There is no need to pick on them. What they do to each other is bad enough.

Marriage still involves more than a de facto relationship.

In a marriage, children are assumed to be the product of the relationship, but not necessarily from a couple.

For example, a lesbian couple with children from donors, would not necessarily have any rights over the children of the partner if they were to split, even if having acted as a parent for years.

So until the mainly Catholic ultra conservative Aus majority is able to relinquish its prejudices, equal rights is just a dream.

Shadow Minister

That is no justification for trashing the Marriage Act.

Draft and enact new legislation for homosexual couples. How do you think the new legislation should be worded?

The author looks for ‘the right to have the personal and social value of our relationships affirmed and celebrated’. Why exactly is this important to anyone - heterosexual or homosexual? It seems that homosexual people are clamouring for ‘rights’ that have no value anyway. What is added to a relationship by these things? Wanting rights for no other reason than someone else has them and you do not is very petulant. If there are good reasons for having these rights then these should be articulated. So far there seem to be none.

Unless there are practical disadvantages to not having these rights then what is the point of seeking them? Wanting affirmation, public recognition, symbolic gestures etc are signs of an insecure relationship. There are a great many heterosexual people who do not need any of these things and do not think they are missing out on anything valuable.

Having those rights will not lead to a better acceptance of homosexuality. Those who are aggressive towards homosexuals will continue to be so even if they are ‘married’. Society and governments cannot give absolute protection to any group or individuals. To think that legislation will somehow protect homosexuals shows a very naïve understanding about the nature of aggression.

If there are practical disadvantages then the solution does not lie in being given a ‘status’ by governments – it lies in making sure governments do not interfere in relationships when it is not necessary for them to do so. By ‘institutionalising’ intimate relationships we give up many rights to church and state to control those relationships. We cannot have it both ways.

There must be other ways of tackling the adoption question or the transfer of finances without having to lower oneself into seeking some institutional approval of one’s relationship.

Cornflower:"Shadow Minister

That is no justification for trashing the Marriage Act.

Draft and enact new legislation for homosexual couples. How do you think the new legislation should be worded?"

I suggest they title the act, the "Aberrant Relationships Act". It could also provide for people in polygamist relationships, men who have a relationship with a dog and women who have a relationship with a horse, etc etc. People in these relationships need to have the right to have the personal and social value of their relationships "affirmed and celebrated"

phanto, "If there are practical disadvantages then the solution does not lie in being given a ‘status’ by governments – it lies in making sure governments do not interfere in relationships when it is not necessary for them to do so. By ‘institutionalising’ intimate relationships we give up many rights to church and state to control those relationships. We cannot have it both ways."

Agreed, there is far too much interference and intrusion by the State into people's private affairs and bedrooms as it is.

There is only a small number of homosexuals who want gay marriage, or who even wanted any State recognition of their affairs in the first place. Most of the 'noise' is from self-appointed experts who are not homosexual. but want to give homosexuals what they think is 'good' for them.

New definitions of de facto - that were ushered in without adequate community consultation - will also restrict and diminish the lifestyles of many gays. Sure it was the initiative of a women's movement seeking more wallets and assets to plunder and they will see the effect on gays as necessary and unavoidable collateral damage. In fact it is surprising that the homosexual community has not already reacted strongly against an overbearing State that decides when they are in a de facto relationship and when they are not (the answer being that they often are regarded as being in a de facto relationship when their choice was otherwise.

When there is a deluge of complaints about Centrelink 'discriminating against' gays by calling for people to 'dob' in homosexual couples drawing single pensions and under the new definitions there must be thousands, gays will be sure they have finally 'arrived' and have full acceptance. There is no such thing as State recognition (read as interference) without responsibilities and costs.

Apples and Oranges?

Being gay is having a relationship between a man and a man or (to Queen Victoria's utter amazement) a woman and a woman.

As a heterosexual, I cannot have a gay anything, but, despite the impact on my partner's children and society, I can opt out of marriage, father children left, right and centre, and as long I stay unemployed, pay squiddly dit for this outrageous lifestyle.

Marriage is a religious concept adopted by the State as it has intrinsic value for the protection (economic if nothing else) of the State.

What interest does the State have in de facto relationships (gay or straight)? None, except in relation to children and taxation.

As the Centrelink gay couples are now finding out, a married couple (or de facto pairing) has some very real costs. Welcome to the real world..