What are you talking about; you play the moral high-ground but you must know that one in every three marriages end in divorce and about half of these divorces involve children.
Partner abuse rates are high and last year there were about 46,000 substantiated reports of harm from child maltreatment.
What a laugh heterosexual marriage has become!
Married heterosexual couples got into this mess all by themselves.
How dare the authors tell homosexual couples that they both need to be natural parents and that getting married and having children harms the children.

In brief: get a life -focus on your own mess and stop interfering in the lives of same-sex couples who want to get married! It's none of your business!

My maternal Grandmother, her normal natural libido very much alive and well, and my paternal Grandfather, a Casanova extraordinaire, have found each other and a mutual highly physical attraction!

That includes dusk to dawn (many a good tune played on an old fiddle) love making?

Nobody has had the heart to tell these lively, active (let's get physical) adults, that they cannot produce kids! At least not without medical intervention!

So, should these two old people having, disgusting, ancient, creaking, unprotected, yuk sex! Be allowed to marry?

On the basis of both love and unbridled sexual attraction? That seems to make onlookers part of the routinely ignored furniture?

Or should we just wait for the inevitable cardiac arrest to solve this heirloom conundrum for us?

None of the above is actually factual, just homespun homily to underline a (Poynter's complaint) point!
Alan B.

The issue of divorce is a great topic for another article, as is the reasonableness of public recognition of the marriages of older Australians. Here the point centres around an inevitable sense of public moral expectation that will be born in the hearts of some people who hand the public their signed commitment to be married until death - is it reasonable for the public to get involved?
For heterosexual unions?
For homosexual unions?
This could be solved by formally removing the 'forever' aspect of the public definition of marriage, but of course that would formally change marriage into not-marriage.

Is this article effectively arguing against all divorce? No.

But the article is saying that it is reasonable for people who are publicly married, and who are considering divorce, to feel a public moral expectation that they must have weighty reasons to divorce and that they are to rebuild their relationship if they can, because of the heterosexual marriage-children-public interest link.

But the public interest justification is missing in the case of people in homosexual unions.

Some one thinks that heterosexual marriage has become a "laugh". Obviously somebody who has never been married or picked a dud to marry. But, putting their ignorance aside, why on earth would homosexuals want something so bad, if this person is correct!

True enough, but it feels like ssm, abortion, and euthanasia are just distractions from the real problem - modernism, or what Pope Pius X called,'the synthesis of all heresies'.