Marriage is NOT a social institution: the fact of marriage is one thing and its recognition by society is another.
Not only are these different, but at times society mistakenly recognises other relationships as "marriage", which are not.

However, had marriage, as the author claims, indeed been about reproduction, then this practice must stop because the world is already way overpopulated by humans.

And anyway, why is it important to secure the future of society, especially when we know that regardless of what we do or don't, one day it will end!?

SSM is not equal to traditional marriage or, more correctly, the only marriage there is. As one who rejects SSM, I don't, as has been said here have a “low opinion” of “same-sex love” because loving a person of the same sex is too absurd to contemplate. I regard 'it' in the same way I regard some people's ridiculous 'love' for animals. I have no objection to people feeling they need to 'love' a dog or a cat, and I have no objections to same sex people who think they love each other; what I do object to is the notion that that love is 'equal' to that between a man and a woman. It is not. SSM is not a human right (anyone taking notice will know that this silly idea has been rejected by courts several times).

Neither side of the argument is interested in the reasons why other people feel the way they do, so reasons for what we think are redundant. We will vote no or yes. The whys and wherefores are no longer relevant. The whole thing is purely political and, in due course, one side will win, the other fail. Love, rights, reason have nothing to do with anything.

It's time for the pontificating and right/wrong crap to cease. What will be will be, no matter what any of us think individually.

The marriage act was revised in 2004, by John Howard to change the wording from two people to a man and a woman.

He didn't need a plebiscite nor were they gay community consulted. Moreover, recent studies have reportedly confirmed a gay gene, not just one, but several down near the bottom of the DNA double helix spiral.

Something the brainwashed recalcitrant bigots seemed to have missed?

Remove the word gay from this diatribe and replace it with black, african, negro or lefties, and you might just get a sense of what this ignoramus is trying to argue?

And like all recalcitrant bigots with perfectly reasonable words and historical accuracy? To essentially defend the right of homophobic bigots to be homophobic bigots?

And let's not pretend that's abusive language, but rather just a factual description of this, gay bashing author?

Marriage as a social institution once never included people not racially pure. And as then and as now, justified with a heaping helping of unadulterated hogwash?

He doesn't talk of same sex marriage but rather homosexual love.

In living memory the same disgust was aimed at mixed marriage by the same alleged Christians?

All one can add is this creature is a creature of (palov dog conditioning) habit for whom science and relevant medical research means nought and to be ignored to simply prosecute a homophobic argument?

I rest my case.
Alan B.

Two major problems with the article:

First, the author sets up a strawman (which I don’t even think he does a very good job of knocking down) of addressing “equal love” specifically, without addressing equality in general. Then runs with it, effectively wasting the next 10 minutes of the reader’s life.

Second, the author assumes that marriage is a fixed concept by asserting that marriage is “linked inextricably to reproduction”. Which I suppose doesn’t really matter too much either way, given that gay couples are already having children.

--

AlanB Writes: "Remove the word gay from this diatribe and replace it with black, african, negro or lefties, and you might just get a sense of what this ignoramus is trying to argue?"

Indeed.

A little game I sometimes like to play is to read articles from same-sex marriage opponents by replacing 'homosexuals' with 'interracial couples', and 'gay marriage' with 'interracial marriage'.

We're all so horrified by racism and yet homophobia is no better. Even OLO's profanity filter will allow 'poofter' but insists that the 'N' word be removed.

It seems to be about reproduction and all that but in reality the birthrate is only 1.8 meaning that the population of Australians is getting smaller and smaller from one generation to the next.
So, maybe modern marriage has significant problems that need fixing before worrying about anything else, who knows.

I have strict and defined views on marriage. Male marries female; end of quote.

Through the years I have arrived at this opinion from observation of the world called reality.
My early experience observing two homosexuals screwing each other under the willow in broad daylight at a local swimming hole, was one very very defining moment.

Then as I matured and began moving through life with the boys( who were only ever normal), I attended the odd party where the local, very loose girl would entertain the boys by screwing dogs.

I thought I'd seen everything, but no, following up with research prompted by rumour, I became aware of a number of women who screwed their sons. Life was getting worse!

In later years this sexually misfit society, threw-up local priests who screwed alter boys at will. It became apparent to me that out there in the big world are a lot of very sick F*.

Now. F* gay marriage. These very sick individuals not only wish to marry their boy friends, but want to drag some powerless child into their evil web of sickness…you must be joking as they say!