Rightly or wrongly, the organised churches see the issue of gay marriage as a chance to assert and test their political power. If they win they will go on to try and block and roll back other humanitarian reforms: if they lose they will play the sympathy card, demand 'compensations' and loudly proclaim how 'persecuted' they are. As long as there is anyone around who takes them seriously, there will always be opposition to sensible, compassionate, progress.

I'm a bit concerned OLO hasn't really covered the same sex marriage debate adequately. Such a dearth of articles.

It is entirely possible that articles will continue to be presented until posters demonstrate they understand the distinction between the words disinterested and uninterested.

Some won't be happy until we can restore traditional marriage to its 'rightful' place, and of course the most traditional for which we still have evidence is the code of Hammurabi from c.1800BCE.

I await with bemusement to see the reinstatement of such gems as Code 141: "If the wife of a man who is living in his house, set her face to go out and play the part of a fool, neglect her house, belittle her husband, they shall call her to account; if her husband say "I have put her away," he shall let her go. On her departure nothing shall be given to her for her divorce. If her husband say: "I have not put her away," her husband may take another woman. The first woman shall dwell in the house of her husband as a maid servant."

Can't wait for the chorus of… "Not that there's anything wrong with that."

...Your amazing WmTrevor: Your knowledge is astounding; why were we not aware of this earlier? (did you keep this a secret)? I just wish that I’d been aware of the code of Hammurabi, and its code 141 before the divorce.

...And in addition, the Hammurabi code makes immensely more logic than gay marriage ever did or will, and proves once more to me, as more evidence of the backward trajectory of humanity as it moves forward in time.

Judaism/Christianity is clear marriage is the union of a man and woman. God is held to have set the standard.

The argument for same sex marriage sees marriage as a human construct created from the accumulated impact of choices as well as via legislation. Marriage is therefore a construct of society shaped however society wishes.

Is the debate really about marriage?

The debate is there is no God or there are so many Gods none are relevant and therefore marriage can be shaped by convenience. Whatever is allowed is a matter of how society thinks and acts at a point in time (same sex marriage is but one argument in this debate).

It is therefore held God either does not exist, does not care or is incapable of acting and therefore we are free to do as we choose. What is permitted is an expression of current opinion and opinion alone; standards (if such a thing exists) are temporary and afford no protection.

The argument that in history a range of positions has been taken on same sex marriage is ‘dangerous’ (to use a forceful term). The notion that because something was allowed in the past it should therefore be permitted now is being applied by convenience to support this position.

That something happened in the past does not justify it occurring now; stop to consider past practices that may reappear (human sacrifice is an extreme example). One needs external standards that are durable in order to decide what to do. As we have no God and standards are an expression of current sentiment we are left with no standards – as Janis Joplin sang ‘freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose’.

‘The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”’ To argue marriage as a union of a man and woman as being a construct of Jewish/Christian heritage (but not ignoring Islam’s opposition) foisted on society ignores those religions do now own that position. God owns the position not the followers. Is there a God and will God act?

I just told my wife (a female) after reading this article that, "Sorry Love but, according to Clarrie, I should be married to another man. The evidence he presented shows that heteros like us are misguided, on the wrong track!"

"Whatever do you mean?" she asked, her face full of suspicion.

"He presented evidence that, since time began, every man and his dog have had same-sex relationships. And here's me, and us, all the time thinking that what we do every Saturday night was hunky-dory, that it was how things are meant to be!"

"You think your five seconds of huffing and puffing is alright, do you?" she said with a hint of a smile.

"Perhaps it's because I'm in the wrong place."

"Well, dear, why don't you go out and give it a try. Your mate, Algie, he seems as though he'd be up for it!"

"Algie? Struth. If that's my only option, I'll join a monastery."

"They wouldn't have you, you blaspheme too much. Better stick with me, lover. All this talk has...made me feel a bit sexy!"

"Sorry, love, the football is just about to start on tellie. Besides, I've got a headache!"