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..