"Gay" marriage is a very thick, thin edge of the wedge and goes to prove that Government should get out of it. An age old tradition has power because it is age old. Fiddle with it and it burns.

It is no use defining it as you will oppress someone. The Government can set up an adequate contractual environment and let the parties themselves sort out the ceremony. I can see Traditional marriage, Gay marriages, Group marriages (polyandrous, polygyny, poly androus/gyny), varieties with rubber dolls, animals and whatever. Why care.

Yet more bigotry on display, you can't hide it, Christian religious world view is on display here nothing else. Even the hate of love is displayed, which is the main driver for fundies.

Many societies in the world have very different marriage rules then us. Many have very different family values then us. Those societies function pretty well, certainly to the point were we can in no way wage our moral finger at them. Not that that would stop your average foam at the mouth Christian.

All we have to do is look at our closest relative in the animals kingdom to get an idea of how we lived for the majority of time we have been around. Marriage is a modern construct that can be what ever we want it to be.

The Gay can do what they like, except play with the word marriage. If the gay win that word they will be the only ones holding the title.

The usual control freaks posting here really do need to get a life! One of their own!

Those who would compel another (who gave you the right) to live an endlessly unhappy lonely life; or worse, cause them to prematurely end it, purely out of misguided misconceptions of pulpit pounding moralists; and or, a stone age belief system, are the real villains here; and need to get out more; and focus on living life as their conscience or the man or woman in the mirror dictates!

That's how you live a moral life!

What other folks do is not up to you!

Even if someone appointed you a moral arbiter in the house of Lords, Your worship!

No one is asking anyone else to go against their fundamental nature; or belief system, except perhaps the author and those who agree with him or her?

If you want to have a plebiscite to decide this issue for once and all time?

BRING IT ON!
Rhrosty.

This is a fine article, well argued.

The author’s case takes some convoluted twists, but is essentially a rehash of the familiar circular argument, that gays should not marry because marriage is between a man and a woman. Eric is at least honest in recognising that marriage in modern western societies no longer works as it used to:

- It is possible to have sex without having kids. It is even possible to have kids without having sex.

- It is possible to raise children successfully without being married, and it is possible to have a successful marriage without raising children.

- Divorce and single parenthood are no longer necessarily causes of social stigmatisation and poverty.

- Gay families are already raising children. Allowing gay couples to marry will not alter this.

Eric may lament changes in the nature of marriage and families, and the “cult of love”, but that horse has well and truly bolted. And paradoxically, if he’s right then there can be no remaining reason for excluding gays from modern marriage, even if there was a case for the paradigm of marriage that Eric laments.

Hi Cobber

Please don’t assume that Christians are automatically against same-sex marriage. Recent surveys show a majority of Christians favour it, though not by as large a majority as the rest of the population:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/even-among-christians-there-is-strong-support-for-samesex-marriage-20150604-ghh2v