It's interesting to note that the author's bio footnote says, "she does research into marriage and family in Australia," but does not say for whom and under what circumstances. However, a quick Google search shows that the author does "research" for and is funded by the Catholic church. Oddly enough she does not mention this in her essay or her bio.

While she may like to give the impression that she is an an academic, independent and objective researcher, in reality she produces and distributes propaganda on behalf of the Vatican.

If the claimed levels of promiscuity of gays can be believed and such self-reporting must have some basis in fact, it is difficult to see what relevance registering marriages has to any but a tiny percentage of gays (which in turn is a tiny percentage of the general population), apart from the symbolism of legitimising gay sexuality.

"Levels of Promiscuity

Prior to the AIDS epidemic, a 1978 study found that 75 percent of white, gay males claimed to have had more than 100 lifetime male sex partners: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500- 999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. Levels of promiscuity subsequently declined, but some observers are concerned that promiscuity is again approaching the levels of the 1970s. The medical consequence of this promiscuity is that gays have a greatly increased likelihood of contracting HIV/AIDS, syphilis and other STDs.

Similar extremes of promiscuity have not been documented among lesbians. However, an Australian study found that 93 percent of lesbians reported having had sex with men, and lesbians were 4.5 times more likely than heterosexual women to have had more than 50 lifetime male sex partners. Any degree of sexual promiscuity carries the risk of contracting STDs."
The Health Risks of Gay Sex
JOHN R. DIGGS, JR., M.D.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Admittedly the report was quoted by a Catholic site as shown, but the sources seem reliable and the numbers are alarming to say the least.

I am stunned at the lengths and depths some poster will stoop in order to justify an attempt to undermine the whole foundation of society, and destroy marriage.

"Sheep"= the word 'equality'
"Wolf"= the destructive socialist/Fabian amorality underneath.

The Author:

Inherent in the meaning of marriage is, yes, love, but love with particular characteristics; it is the unity of the species, the coming together of the two halves of humanity, man and woman.

Absoulutely..YES a thousand times.

BRIAR ROSE:
So where does this leave the children of unmarried couples? Are we now to revert to the language of illegitimacy for these children?

COMMEN:T No briar.. I happen to HAVE such a child (my granddaughter)
We (the Christian community) approach such a situation with compassion and love, realizing that we are all frail and it could be any one of us our our daughters.(or sons as fathers)

WOULFE: If marriage is all about the children, then it should be about all the children, and not just the children of heterosexuals.

COMMENT: No woulfe, marriage is NOT 'all about the children' it is about a fundamental building block of society and includes children as the natural and neccessary consequence. You are avoiding the correct definitiion of marriage and normality. (Heterosexual)

RIZ: Possession of a marriage certificate will not automatically lead to increased amounts quality time 'twixt child and offspring; it will not lead to disinterested parents becoming more involved in their children's lives;

COMMENT: Remarkable grasp of the obvious. But what that has to do with justifying abnormal and socially destructive marriage patterns, I cannot see.

RIZ (again) It used to be traditional to keep black people as slaves. Tradition alone is an appallingly stupid reason for doing anything.

COMMENT Arabs kept WHITE people as slaves too on the Barbary coast. But alluding to such "traditions" in Riz' argument only raises the question about morality, and homosexual "marriage" is, immoral.

Suzeonline: Your understanding of history, and links to Wikipedia by guys in pajamas is hysterical. Even Professor Camille Paglia, the famous bisexual academic, and atheist, acknowledges that the Abolition movement was dominated by Christians, and everyone knows that the Christian concept of marriage which works, is very different than pagan ceremonies, defined as marriage by know-little left-wingers. Still, I understand that your side is determined to raise a fatherless generation, a new stolen generation.

<<'Discriminating' use to be a term of approval - not all discrimination is bad.>>

Furthermore, homosexual activist judges apparently discriminate against mothers who choose not to raise their children as lesbians.
With dire consequences for their children.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-6037741-504083.html

Apparently giving away the biological children of heterosexual mothers to lesbians is a good form of discrimination according to radical homosexual activist judges.
Do unwitting supporters of same-sex “marriage” comprehend the can of worms that they are helping to open?