You might like to think about the fact that not everyone shares your narrow view on the purpose of marriage. You might like to actually look at the history of marriage which had nothing to do with love. You might like to reflect on the fact that countries as diverse as Catholic Spain and secular Denmark have changed their law in the same way as NZ. The 13 countries to date will shortly be joined by Germany and France.

You might like to check the opinion poll data that shows support for a change in the marriage law to be a majority in all four main political parties.

In short you need to argue more logically than is evident in your desperate defence of the indefensible.

"Obviously, there are other important aspects of marriage, but the link to children is the only logical reason for government to remain involved in the institution. The point is no logical alternative view has been offered, other than to deregulate marriage altogether."

If you truly believed this, Blaise, you would be arguing for the criminalisation of divorce and separation or the antisocial behaviour of 'bad' mothering and fathering.

Is that a logical alternative view?

The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that the author is obviously a member of Opus Dei which is to say that before anyone takes the opinions proffered by such a person they should check out this web-page first: http://www.odan.org/corporal_mortification.htm

Would any sane person send their children to a school run by people who advocate and practice such mortifications?

Meanwhile I quite like the essay on this topic published in the Saturday by Germaine Greer. It is titled Gay or Not Nuptials Are Now Divorced From Sense

So what's next in New Zealand. Sheep? We all know how fond Kiwi's are of sheep.

I suggest that there is support for a referendum on the Subject of Gay Marriage at the next election. Though, it seems strange to me that the Lobby group is against this idea. Why is that?

The Question should be kept a simple as possible.

"Should Australia introduce Gay Marriage?" "Yes" or "No" Tick a box.

With New Zealand now sanctioning gay marriage, and gays in Australia saying it could be a cash bonanza for Australia to follow suit, it would be a good idea to actually get a definition of gay love, to have it aired.

Where is love's place in the equation, when a lesbian who wants to marry another woman feels that she should confiscate, nay, degrade, her own womanhood and take to wearing jackets and trousers, lop off her locks and adopt a "mannish" haircut, and de-emphasisize her breasts?.Aren't these the very considerations that have attracted her to a same sex partner?

Conversely, where's the equality in the "marriage" of two males where one is referred to as a "wife", denied his manhood and perhaps even required to offer anal intercourse in lieu of his inability to offer vaginal sex? (To say nothing of the lethal risks of HIV infection)

Why are homosexuals so openly self-serving, dominatingly demanding in their approaches to same -sex partnerships.? Where's the love in that?

Sexually degrading one's partner's for one's personal pleasure is simply selfishness personified.

I support civil unions for same sex couples, but the word marriage was never accepted as a means for one human being to sexually degrade or suborn another.
What do you think

Congratulations, Sydney! There are many who agree with you. The idea of a man introducing his partner as his 'wife' is ludicrous, laughable. It is almost as silly as a women introducing her partner as her 'husband'!

Humans really are stupid creatures. You can sell them anything. Trying to dress up sexual deviation in robes of pure white is infantile.

Let's call homosexuality what it is: abnormal behaviour and allow civil unions to take place for those who engage in it.