Dear Cornflower,

Rhiahnon Kennedy in her article,
"Equal love: same-sex marriage rights..."
says:

"The federal ALP government is resisting calls
to end its discrimination against same-sex
relationships. It has tried to deflect criticism
for its failure to overturn the marriage ban by
pointing to new laws passed in November 2008 that
ended some forms of discrimination against same-sex
de facto couples."

"The changes came about through years of serious
campaigning by the gay community and its allies.
The new laws mean that same-sex de facto couples
now have many of the same legal financial and
work-related rights as straight couples. Things
previously not available to same-sex couples,
such as child support and bereavement benefits,
are now available. This is an advance and has sparked
renewed confidence and hope in the gay rights
movement. However, the changes have also highlighted
the lack of full equality for same-sex couples."

"The recognition of same-sex relationships by Centrelink,
(as you mentioned), for example, means newly recognised
couples are now subject to joint income assessments.
For many, this has led to significant cuts in Centrelink
payments."

"Same-sex couples are equal enough to be screwed out of
Centrelink payments like anyone else, but not equal
enough to marry. Therefore for most same-sex couples,
the government's limited changes appear hypocritical
and have simply rubbed salt in the wound.
Nothing but full equality will do."

I hope this answers your question.

As the previous website that I gave in my earlier
post tells us:

"The fact that homosexuality is wrong is a religious
argument and this is where it should stay, in
religion. However as a religious argument it cannot and
should not be used to justify discrimination against
gay couples in the political sphere. If we are a
country governed by a secular democracy, than we should
both support this, and start acting like it."

People who argue that same-sex marriage is a form of
perversion - should take another look at our so
called "moral" society today, and male-female
relationships as they really exist instead of judging
couples who want to make a commitment and marry.

HermanYutic <"There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that children raised in homosexual households are much likelier to engage in homosexual behaviour."

Where is that evidence Herman? Show us some reputable sites that demonstrate this outrageous statement. I don't want to see any statistics provided to us by any church group or other biased group either.

Bringing up the subject of pedophilia as a consequence of homosexuality is also very wrong. There are no official statistics that show any link here at all.

All these tired, continually trotted out lies by religious fanatics and homophobes are so boring they are laughable.

RObert, "If it's about an objection to the idea that people can find themselves in a relationship with many of the same legal consequences as marriage without explicitly choosing the change in status of the relationship then I agree."

As you may have seen, a major bone of contention I have with changes that have been foisted upon heterosexual 'couples' (I use the inverted commas because not all see themselves as couples which is the problem). Unintentional bigamy is a complication that can arise, resulting in the married partner losing the normal rights of marriage. However I discussed that earlier in my replies.

As I see it and I am sure most of the electorate would agree, the regulation of personal relationships has moved in directions that are not supported nor wanted and are the opposite of what people want.

Now the change has been foisted on homosexuals as well and again without the direct consultation that should occur in a democracy where such serious change is contemplated.

Foxy
None of that addresses the issues I have raised.

suzeonline,
Why do men pick on young boys for sex? Is'nt it to committ homosexual acts? They are homosexuals! Homosexuality is not the person but the act of anal intercourse. It is this act that is condemned by society because of its disease causes and the person who continually performs the act of anal sex is a homosexual. Every day in the news we have charges being laid against men having molested young boys for sex. Do not tell me that peadophiles are not homosexuals! If not; what is the act they perform on young males?

suzeonline,

The problem here, of course, is that you
"don't want to see any statistics provided...
by any church group or other biased group either."
Biased meaning anybody you don't agree with, presumably.

Nevertheless....

homosexualising children
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_notinthebest.html

homosexuality and paedophilia
http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html

You describe my claim that SSM homosexualises children as an "outrageous statement".

It's curious that you should consider it "outrageous" when I would have thought that the homosexualisation of children
would be no better or worse than the heterosexualisation of children in your worldview.

Dear Cornflower,

I did answer your issue of why same-sex couples
did not rush into Centrelink to register.
Kindly read my previous post again.