Who are the registered parents of a child born of one lesbian or homosexual parent? The child needs to know his genetic history, someone who has not contributed to his / her genetics cannot be considered as the birth father or mother. Fatherhood or motherhood is not an emotional attachment but a biological fact. As of children born of an Indian surrogate mother to a Caucasian father is obviously not Caucasian.

Contrary to Don Edgar's article the family rights of such a child is denied for their adult pleasure. They continually talk about gay rights without consideration for genetic heritage of a child. They trade cash for children for their sentimental pleasure.

He states, "There is no reason why this should not hold with homosexual couples, but the law currently does not recognize the rights of gay partners, or the rights of children, who may be born of one natural partner, with a donor parent, or even a surrogate parent".

Excellent article. If only all contributions to this debate were so well written and argued - with actual evidence rather than assertions with no basis in fact.

Don Edgar's appeal to some historical tribal cultures for multiple sexual practises on a wife as evidence for marriage change in our society; he does not think very highly of women and their equal rights of choice, but rather as useable commodies for having his children. Obviously a very selish and self absorbed person.
What is going to be his attitude to a girl brought up in his two men home not having a natural live in mother?

Marriage is more than the love between two people.
Marriage is a public statement not a private action.
Marriage is more than what people do behind closed doors.
Marriage is more than a union.

If marriage is more than these things then what is it that differentiates it?

Marriage, like we see the same understanding as used by the property market (see international valuation standards for confirmation - marriage value), it is the potential that a union can bring. We see this potential in real and de facto marriages.

Same sex unions can involve love, but it will never have the potential that a male and female union can have in either a de facto (in fact) or real marriage

Marriage is a word that speaks of potential, whether that potential is realised is another thing.

Unions don’t necessarily give any extra potential or synergy greater than the sum of the two. A union of two people of the same gender has no potential to create anything greater than themselves, from within the union.

Marriage is not just a legal union but something “more” than a union.

Marriage has always acknowledged the difference in sexes that make up a couple. Extremely rare exceptions to this may be found in history, but again should exceptions make the rule?

The exception should not be the rule.

If a person wants to be able to have their partner recognised in their will, great! If a person wants their partner to be at their bedside in hospital, great! You don’t need to redefine marriage to make these changes.

What people do in the privacy of their homes is their business. This again is not marriage and can’t be used to support a change in legislation.

These and other issues are separate to legislating to redefine the current and historical view of marriage

"The Churches (and Australia's Labor Government) have to accept that marriage serves secular needs, not spiritual goals."

No they don't. They don't have to accept anything. They can go on denying the obvious, making ridiculous and inconsistent claims, and disappearing rapidly into ineffectual obscurity as more and more of their supporters give up on them and take refuge in the real world. In fact that loud sucking sound you hear is the churches (and the Labor Government) going down the gurgler, clutching their cherished ideologies.

It can't be over soon enough.