The problem in Australia is that women aren't producing enough babies of their own accord* (hence initiatives such as the federal govt's baby bonus) to ensure enough workers and taxpayers in the decades to come when the population is going to become oldie-heavy. The prime miniature and cronies are petrified that if they don't up the birth rate through the obvious means, the only solution will be MORE immigration.

(*Excepting the peasantry which of course is producing far more than the average and sometimes just to get the extra $300 a year per kid.)

Eta; I should point out that this post is heavily laced with sarcasm.

I know a lot of same sex marriages that won't be producing children, including my own. does that make my marriage any less legit?

If "not contributing to the survival of the species" were really the standard, couples would not be allowed to marry until -- oh, let's be generous and allow the wedding during pregnancy. The marriage, of course, would be dissolved as soon as all children reached maturity. Same sex couples with full (or, at the same level of generosity, joint) physical custody of children would be allowed to marry under the same terms and conditions.

And maybe things have changed since I was a kid, but I seem to remember something about caring for elderly/infirm relatives, including in-laws.

And they're still against immigration? That is completely insane! I can't believe this. I guess the lesson here is to never underestimate the stupidity-potential of a government.

ps Megan, either you made a typo, or you and B have been hiding something from me.

I have nothing to add to the discussion of nasty homophobic politics, except to say that I'm endlessly amused by the term "Prime Miniature".

Looking forward to a Victorian Buffistas F2F!

OK, I read this after all the celibacy/non-procreation talk, and though he meant Victorian Era, and was like "There's going to be hooking up whilst thinking of England? What?"

I may be expecting that if I get married, it will be to another female, but thanks to the wonders of sperm donation, that needn't stop me from procreating...heck, with two women, we could, in theory, pop out babies TWICE as fast as a straight couple! HAH! Lesbianism for all!

Edited my post to make other people look crazy rather than me.

OK, I read this after all the celibacy/non-procreation talk, and though he meant Victorian Era, and was like "There's going to be hooking up whilst thinking of England? What?"

Hum... standing around in elegant clothes making jokes about bad poetry and using words like effulgent... you might not be able to tell the difference.

Edit: not that I've ever been to a Buffista F2F *or* a Victorian party. But I've read stories!

As far as I'm aware, the survival of the species is not actually under threat in any case. Well, not from lack of procreation in any case.

Totally. You'd think from a public policy perspective, leaders should be encouraging gay marriage as a small step to check overpopulation.

The problem, Susan, is that the 'important' countries, ie the industrialized west, already have near zero growth rates. Several European countries would have negative growth rates if it wasn't for immigration. Which just makes them all twitchy.

It's all the 'unimportant' countries that have unchecked growth rates (in Africa, Asia, and to a lesser extent Latin America). But not to worry, with some sub-saharan African countries with AIDs infection rates up to 20% of their population, that problem won't be for much longer...

I know, and I was basically being tongue-in-cheek. But while I can understand being concerned about the demographics of a specific country or region, because an aging population puts a strain on national resources, expressing concern about the survival of the species is just laughable. If humans ever go extinct, it won't be for lack of fecundity.