Well then I say again, bother to do some research, a suspicion consistently applied must needs be suspicious of itself. You don't indicate that you know the 'what' of latter-day political liberalism.

The individualism is found most fundamentally in its nominalism; in its primacy of the will, a will that denies that things have natures. A will that is believed is possessed of a power to redefine a thing with an essence as if it had no essence, no nature that can be grasped by the human intellect.

Natures do things; they have purposes; hearts pump blood, eyes see, cats do catlike things and pursue the fulfillment of their catness- they do not pursue the purposes characteristic of plants or hippos, and so can't develop into these creatures. Marriage is some THING. It performs a function. It is in the grasping of this purpose that the state quite rightly recognises its natural interest in its promotion and preservation - the continuity of the nation through time, development of children, complementarity of male and female nature. People may choose marriage utterly ignorant of these dimensions but those who propose fundamental changes at the level of public policy MAY NOT BE.

If you can't see how gay culture has effected dramatic changes in the last twenty years and so can't see how gay marriage might have dramatic effects on marriage norms then, I say, you are willfully blind. The same willful blindness cannot see how legalising gay marriage logically implies the legalisation of all kinds of polyamorous/polygamous/intergenerational unions when erotic love is considered to be marriage's essence.

The renewal of marriage begins with heterosexuals indeed, and for this reason they absolutely duty bound to refuse putting a final nail it's coffin by redefining and abolishing an institution they have already profoundly corroded. The work of marriage renewal, and therefore defence of marriage against redefinition has been courageously enjoined by many ss attracted people already - read their blogs and websites and follow them.

I think love is (hopefully) considered to be the essence of marriage, and the erotic is but one of the many expressions of that love, both within and without marriage.

There is no doubt that gay culture has brought about changes in the last twenty years. And this is a problem because?

A society must be prepared to change, otherwise it will stagnate. Fear of change often manifests as a moral objection.

It's not clear just what changes you think same sex marriage will make inevitable in marriage generally.

For example, there are heterosexual marriages where the parties don't want children. Does this mean they don't have "real" marriages?

The conflation of same sex marriage with polygamy is a common one, but it makes no sense. Same sex couples aren't struggling for the right to marry several partners. I'm not aware of any campaign by polygamists, same sex or otherwise, to be included in the Marriage Act.

<<In our culture, marriage is still an extremely powerful public and legal acknowledgment of love and commitment.>>

"In our culture, marriage is still"> between a man and a woman.
How can you talk about "our culture" when you are hell-bent on radically changing a fundamental tenet of our culture.
It won't be our culture anymore, it will be "gay culture".

<<This acknowledgement ought to be available to anyone who wants it.>>
Incestuous couples want it. Why do you exclude them?

<<anyone who wants it>>
Polyamorous couples want it. Why do you exclude them?

<<very similar arguments were made...against marriage between blacks and whites.>>

Here is a valid analogy:
"Very similar arguments" to yours are currently being employed in Canada with the aim of legalising polygamous marriage.
"Very similar arguments" to yours would support incestuous marriage.

Yours in an invalid analogy.
Race is immutable.
Sexual behaviour is mutable.
Just check the ex-gay web-sites.

<<there is not one amongst us who has the right to judge which loving way is right, and which loving way is wrong.>>

So you do support incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage.

Why won't you publicly make a stand for these "ways of loving"?

As for domestic violence:
"Nearly 4 Million Californians Report Sexual or Physical Violence from a Spouse or Companion
UCLA Study Find that Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals Are at Particularly High Risk"
http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/NewsReleaseDetails.aspx?id=51

Normal marriage may be disorderly but, unlike homosexual "marriage", it is not intrinsically disordered.

Proxy - As far as I'm aware there aren't currently any campaigns in this country to legalise polygamous or incestuous marriage, so I don't feel a necessity to publicly speak about either of them one way or the other. Both these situations are very different from same sex marriage, and each situation needs to be addressed separately.

I hope that answers your question.

I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that "our" culture won't be "our" culture anymore it will be "gay" culture, if ssm is legal. That's your personal catastrophic expectation, not a reasonable argument against ssm.

Gays and lesbians are part of "our" culture. They play football, work in hospitals, teach, join the police force, become judges, drive racing cars, win swimming medals, produce tv shows, run businesses - have you been living under a rock?

There can be no reasonable discussion on ssm when one party adopts such an illogical and unsubstantiated position.

Good grief... Ebenezer Cooke is channeling CJ MORGAN... word for word.

Could not be a sock puppet by any chance?

MAREELORRAINE you say:

"Does the realization dawn on anyone that by changing the marriage laws, we will be changing the face of society."

I stronggggly encourage you to listen to the link I provided before.
It covers the change in British law and the social impact which coincided with those changes over a couple of decades.
http://www.christianheritageuk.org.uk/Media/Player.aspx?media_id=41713&file_id=44708

Then you say:

Allowing gay marriages to be legal will not make gay or heterosexual marriages perfect. Society is not perfect. In my opinion legislating for gay marriages will not make gay people any happier,

Indeed! But the thing is....this is not, and has never been about 'making gays happier' other than in a political sense. This is the fulfilment of an ideology which found it's genesis (for western academia) in this essay from the 60s. (Herber Marcuse-'Progressive/New-Marxist'

REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

//THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for INTOLERANCE toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.//

BRIAR ROSE.....

//Proxy - As far as I'm aware there aren't currently any campaigns in this country to legalise polygamous or incestuous marriage,//

You need to broaden your outlook as to what is happening elsewhere.

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2010/09/legalized_child.html

"Booklets from a subsidiary of the German government's Ministry for Family Affairs encourage parents to sexually massage their children as young as 1 to 3 years of age. Two 40-page booklets entitled "Love, Body and Playing Doctor" by the German Federal Health Education Center (Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung - BZgA) are aimed at parents - the first addressing children from 1-3 and the other children from 4-6 years of age."

If you listen to that link I provided, you will find references to the following:

-Intergenerational sex (Adult child)
-Incest

as they pertain to sex education and government policy.

It might open your eyes a tad.

"This country" does not mean squat I'm afraid.. but there IS a campaign for Polygamy.... good old Keyser Trad (you do read the papers don't you?)

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-should-polygamy-be-a-crime-20091002-gfdg.html