Well first, it’s not my JOB to be answering these questions, I am not the one paid ten million dollars a year to advocate on behalf of those who will be disadvantaged.

However, an estimated 16,692 people were living with HIV in Australia at the end of 2007. Centrelink claims 11,000 people in same-sex relationships will be disadvantaged by these ‘reforms’, the majority of whom are HIV+ gay men. NAPWA has made a submission to the review panel for urgent action to be taken on the rate of pensions and concession entitlements as they affect people with HIV using data from the HIV Futures 5 survey of HIV-positive people in Australia which reveals that, of those on a government benefit, 58% are living below the recognised Henderson Poverty lines. The costs of living with a chronic illness are significant, with extra costs for pharmaceuticals (including some non-PBS items), complementary medicines, dietary supplements and services like counselling, etc., etc.

Maree O’Halloran from the National Welfare Rights network says, “We’re asking Centrelink to pay special consideration to the very vulnerable people.”

Michael Raper, President on the National Welfare Rights Network said, -œThe fundamental problem is that Centrelink is not looking closely enough at all the factors that indicate that no relationship exists. It makes judgements based on moral, not legal, grounds and often makes decisions based on flimsy information and prejudicial attitudes. We are representing a record number of clients in appeals against decisions to cancel or reduce their payments because of an alleged marriage-like relationship…The increased number of cases involving older people and carers who share rent and provide companionship and support, is extremely alarming. Add the HIV+ to the ‘older people and carers’ Rob and you might begin to see the real cost in human terms of what you call “a loop-hole.”

Under the ‘old’ laws, same-sex couples gained a benefit that was not available to heterosexual couples – that is, same-sex couples could receive benefits as if they were both single because their relationship was not recognised. This ‘loop hole’ has now been closed, and a same-sex couple will be treated equally as a heterosexual couple in terms of calculating benefits.

If you consider losing access to a legal loop-hole that allowed same-sex couples an unfair financial advantage over a hetero-couple, then perhaps your priorities are wrong.

Why should same-sex couples be singled out for ‘special’ treatement just because of their sexuality? If the need for addiitonal financial support is for medical, mental health or disabilities then they should be funded on that basis – the same as heterosexuals.

What is the basis for seeking equality if the moment you achieve it (or at least some semblance of it) you turn around and claim that you want to be treated differently because you are special?

Just because you are homosexual should not entitle you to special treatment.

I don’t mean to say that there aren’t a range of different kinds of relationships. And the law looks at a whole lot of factors. But at the end of the day, you have to either have to come down on the side of saying “yes we’re a couple” or “no we’re not”.

To me, it’s highly disingenuous to try being on a different side of that line depending on whether it suits you or not. Is this only for legal purposes? Or do you want to do this socially as well – you’ve got a partner who you acknowledge sometimes when you want to, and don’t when you want to be single? How does the partner feel?

I don’t see how this has anything remotely to do with traditional masculinity or feminity, or indeed anything to do with marriage. Nor does it have anything to do with all the myriad examples of where homosexuals DO get treated differently and need help because of it.

You’ve completely misread what I’m saying a number of times and jumped to conclusions about what I think on all sorts of issues that you’re throwing in. Yes, gays are still discriminated against. Yes, gays have particular needs and differences. I agree with all of that.

But, you still, despite spilling a lot of ink here, haven’t said anything that convinces me the appropriate solution is to throw extra money at people with a nod and a wink that says “yes, we know you’re not really single”.

If people have extra needs because of HIV, link the assistance to HIV. If people are persecuted, do things that bring an end to homophobia. If people have mental health needs, put money into mental health. If the disability pension is too low for a couple to live on, raise the disability pension.

The new laws amend the Acts Interpretation Act.

As to the rest of what you’ve written… I’m sorry, you’ve completely lost me. Two people are either a couple or they’re not.

You forget that an awful lot of glbqti’s DON’T WANT to be married. They have argued for a queer politic that celebrates DIFFERENCE and sees the ‘gay marriage’ in all it’s intellectually vacuous versions imported uncritically from the United States, as assimilation and accord with a heterosexual hegemony. But now they have no choice, like it or not, now they have to fight to be ‘unmarried’ – a hopeless task. Then there are disadvantaged couples that need to share accommodation for all sorts of reasons and support, who will also be up the creek.

The ‘gay marriage’ camp hijacked the campaign for our human rights when surely our existence as human beings should have been enough to entitle us to human rights. The argument that homosexuals are ‘just the same’ as heterosexuals is profoundly dishonest because there are differences between straights and queers. While some lesbians and gay men mindlessly ape heterosexual values, queer relationships, aesthetics, and lifestyles are unique, we transgress the boundaries of traditional masculinity and femininity. The right to be different is also a fundamental human right. I believe we should have transcended heterosexual mores, we don’t need a marriage certificate to validate ourselves or our partnerships.

In an intrinsically homophobic culture where an Olympic record breaker can’t get one dollar of sponsorship because he’s out, and our media doesn’t carry one out role model because that would end their career, and gay men still get their head kicked in just for holding their partner’s hand in public…I think this “why should gays get any special treatment’ attitude is really pretty piss poor.

you’re really not listening to me, are you?

Take the hint that I’ve given several times, and fight the right battle.

No, I wouldn’t say any such thing. But you have to consider carefully what the disadvantage is, and how you are addressing it.

I have no problem with a subsidy available to HIV sufferers, if it’s given to them because the cost of HIV treatment puts them in a worse financial situation.

I would, however, have a serious problem with a benefit given to homosexual HIV patients that is not given to heterosexual HIV patients. Unless you can show that being homosexual, in and of itself, somehow puts people at a financial disadvantage compared to a heterosexual person in the same situation, then I don’t see how sexuality is a good basis for positive discrimination in this context.

Positive discrimination is a tool for achieving real equality when formal equality doesn’t do the job. You have yet to say anything that persuades me that the extra benefits a homosexual person gets in some situations by being regarded as single, when they’re not in fact, are somehow compensating them for an additional need they have over and above a heterosexual person. How is the homosexual cost of living any higher than the heterosexual cost?

If homosexual couples are worried about how to cope with their loss of benefits, they really should get together with heterosexual couples in similar situations who already face living on the lower rate and find out how they cope. If the answer is that the heterosexual couples struggle and live below the poverty line, that is a reason to raise the rate for everyone – not a reason to perpetuate unequal treatment.

If you don’t want to get married why not do what many heterosexuals who don’t believe in marriage do now and simply stay defacto and have a commitment ceremony?