Clownfish- I very briefly argued for traditional marriage in the latter stages of my initial post, but my central point, and the main argument I am making is this: The framework of the debate needs to be re-examined. People need to discuss the purpose (if any) of marriage. If we change the definition, then effectively we are changing from the traditional understanding of the purpose of marriage. Talk about "equality", and about "discrimination" is skipping the major issue, as is talk about what is "anyone else's business".

I have learnt from past experience that casting a net too wide in online discussions like this is untenable for many reasons. Therefore I am only interested in making one singular point at a time. I have no interest in specifically discussing the problems of incest and polygamy because I have simply discussed those within the context of my major argument as outlined above.

Kipp:

You made this claim about me:

[Though your postings indicate that life should only be as you want it, that sort of thinking is dicatorial]

But that was straight after you said this:

[Trav, marriage is about the loving committment of two people to each other, wether they are male-male, female-female, male-female or female-male; If they truely love each other then their marriage commitment is absolutly none of your or anyones business.]

Your definition of marriage indicates that you believe life (ie: Marriage) should only be as you want it. Therefore you are being a dictator too. So please quit taking the moral high ground and confront the actual discussions at hand.

Kipp: ie: You are saying that only two people at a time can enjoy the life of marriage together!

Why can't three or four people enjoy the life of marriage together in the form of polygamy? By making a definition of marriage you are necessarily excluding some people and therefore you are dictating your view on others, just as the traditional marriage proponent is doing the same

In Australia most Polygamists have lied to both their partners and children for many years, resulting in profound hurt and distrust, along with deep seated hurt and confusion suffered amongst their children, add to this, small town communities [some adults and their children] enjoying the gossip/news item, inflicting violence and bullying upon those innocent children of polygamous parents and/or unfaithful parents.

Many parents, particularly women I have known growing up around the country, deliberately scammed and rorted C/L via Polygamy [three husbands and the fourth victim a relative of mine] who all paid this woman during separations, while she claimed full C/L payments 30 years ago. It wasnt until I became an adult that I realised why this woman could afford to open up a few businesses with no working background or loans behind her, that now flourish around Australia.

Each to their own deceitful journeys, however, when children are involved and on the hurtful receiving end of Polygamy or unfaithfulness, and where Polygamists are deliberately defrauding the Commonwealth and Taxpayers, I strongly disagree with the way of life.

To those who are claiming polygamists lie to their parents and children etc. - have you actually met someone who is a practising committed polygamist or are you basing your assumptions on sensationalist media reports on very few, who are usually Mormon fundamentalists?
Polygamy is not one person sleeping around hopping from house to house - it is a committed relationship. For example a Muslim must prove he can support any extra wives before the church will allow him to take more wives.
There will always be people who exploit the system - it's just the way it is, and it isn't just Polygamists - you are making a blanket assumption.
I have a suggestion - let's round up all these pesky Polygamists, single mums who rort the system, throw in some of them gays, lesbians and anyone else who may just not fit into societies view of what is "normal" - build a big space ship and pack 'em off to Mars where they will have to fend for themselves. Sure it will cost a lot, but look how much money the taxpayer will save in the long run... and while we are at it let's bring back the White Australia Policy, Conscription, TV licences and take away the vote from indigenous Australians again – then maybe just for good measure we can solve world hunger and peace.

Trav: 'Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found.' (wikipedia)

So, how does same-sex marriage invalidate this definition?