<<this is an excellent opportunity to refute me by advancing
an argument against SSM which does not appeal to:

tradition
or
history.
Oh,
or
Christianity>>

You forgot:

reason
or
logic
or
decency
or
concern for children

[Deleted for grossness.]

Sane, thoughtful and charitable essay thank you Ms Vierboom.

In the comments there is still the confusion about the purpose of marriage. That hearts sometimes fail to pump blood because of defect or intervention doesn't mean hearts no longer have a function. In the same way marriages may be sterile by nature or by intention, yet marriage retains its purpose.

Exceptions don't make good laws remember. It is impracticable to expect the law to extract guarantees that a couple will reproduce or level of fertility. The law sanely assumes in the ordinary course of things couples want to have children. For this reason a union that is manifestly sterile 'by nature' is correctly distinguished in law from naturally fertile ones - the State simply does not have the same interest in both. One perpetuates the nation through time and provides the best conditions for the development of children, the other cannot.

The author rightly reminds us that marriage is pre-political and the state has no authority to abolish a natural institution without abolishing itself and its own claims to being a natural institution.

Asking all the apparatus of the state to be applied to the abolition of marriage by redefinition isn't the conquest of love in my opinion but its antithesis, ideological vandalism and hatred. It's the desire to impose a name on something without any thought for what is being defaced.

The other comments muddle the difference between natural law and Christian revelation and to this confusion are added the silliest of popular prejudices against Christianity as well as the cruder historical distortions. These are not worth answering in here. It takes a particularly ugly kind of bigotry to maintain them in an age of the internet search.

Again, thank you for an elegant and finely argued essay Ms. Vierboom.

Discussion involving the eccentric demands of the homosexual lobby has become a circular argument in these pages; but the outcome will ultimately be ruled over by political expedience of the renowned masters of spin and compromise inside the great halls of parliament in Canberra.

We witness the maturing of the Green cancer and its con-job on the electorate. Masked by a worrying legitimacy of climate change and the global warming debate, ride the homosexual lobby on the "Green Nag". “You can’t have one without the other” (as the song goes)! A situation very sick, dangerous and dishonest.

When will homophobic Christians accept the fact that they don't own the cultural institution of marriage?

If Christians want to bless that minority of marriages that take place in their churches, then they are quite entitled to discriminate against whoever they like. However, they have absolutely no right to demand that the rest of us conform to their religious dictates,even when they're dressed up in biological or sociological sophistry.

Both these comments are wrong.

Firstly, christians do not claim to own marriage; that's simply your opinion. Second, those opposed to the notion of homosexual or lesbian marriage are not necessarily hompohobic- that's villification and libel.

No-one is demanding that others follow what we think is marriage; we are allowed to express our opinion, as you are.

Marriage in ALL societies has been heterosexual, and anything has been considered deviant, whether or not there has been any punishment or opprobium for such behaviour.

Make reasoned rsponses, not rants. The fact that the writer of this article has an affiliation with a Catholic organization does not affect the contents of the article. What affiliations do you have that you are not disclosing?

"I assume you mean Abraham Lincoln and his government abolishing slavery in America?"
-suzeonline

I assumed he meant the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Which was an act of the British Parliament - and I can assure you that they weren't all born-again Christians. As I understand, some of the more notable supporters of the act were prominent Quakers and Baptists - maybe this is what History Buff was trying to get at?

"yeah we see evidence of christian domination everywhere in our laws.

Murder laws etc. Should we abandon them too or are you just being selective?"
-keith

So it's OK to kill people if you're an atheist? Really? I can't believe I missed that memo. I don't suppose anybody knows Kyle Sandilands' home address?

"You forgot:

reason
or
logic
or
decency
or
concern for children"
-Proxy

...
....
.....
Oh, sorry, I was waiting for argument. Anytime you'd care to share would be nice. Although you'd be better served by just appealing to logic and reason; you have quaint (at best) notions of decency, and your faux concern for children is an emotive platitude you drag out every time your reason falls short (which is most of the time).