Ammonite,

Do I take it you have a problem with what I posted? If so, I would dearly like to hear the basis of your objection.

Ammonite thinks some posters to this site could cause it to become just another 'wing-nut blog', if not for rational posters like Lexi.
I second that notion. Lol :)
Whatever could have made you think she was talking about you Saltpetre?

Saltpetre<"...to recognise any other union as "marriage" is ridiculous, stupid, a blasphemy and a deviation which threatens to demean and diminish all genuine marriages."

You could answer one question for me though, following your little rant above:
Exactly HOW would legalizing gay marriage demean or diminish heterosexual marriage?
The very few Gay marriages that would be performed if legal, as opposed to the usual much larger numbers of heterosexual marriages performed, would hardly matter at all.

Remember, not every heterosexual marriage wants or ends up having children, and anal sex is practiced within marriage - especially in those strict Catholic marriages where contraception is not allowed, and they already have more than enough children!

suzeonline,

You misrepresent my post, and fail to acknowledge my conviction that gays can have any legal name for recognition of their legal union, other than "marriage". Instead you select a portion and call it a "rant". I don't care much for your rendering a numeric value to marriage, and I care just so very much less for your education in sexual behaviour. There is already a legal understanding of marriage. Surely the intricacies of gay union deserve their own, and separate, legal foundation?

Marriage is marriage, and gay union is not. Simple, and never the twain shall meet. Get it! (And, I don't really care if you do or not - it's a free world.)

Saltpetre I was brought up in a loving environment, and was aware that love in any form is beautiful. You deny the right of same sex marriage, and support only opposite sex marriage, though never mention love in support of your argument

Having ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Australian governments are obliged to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman.

According to the UN Human Rights Committee:

"Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is the only substantive provision in the Covenant which defines a right by using the term 'men and women', rather than 'every human being', 'everyone' and 'all persons'. Use of the term 'men and women'...has been consistently and uniformly understood as indicating that the treaty obligation of States parties stemming from article 23, paragraph 2, of the Covenant is to recognize as marriage only the union between a man and a woman wishing to marry each other."

In the International Journal of Human Rights 14.7 (2010), Jakob Cornides, enunciates the incompatibilities that prevent 'same-sex marriage' from serious consideration as an issue of 'equality'.

Cornides has pointed out that "the institution of 'marriage' does not have the purpose of 'rewarding' people for loving each other; for this reason, the argument that homosexually oriented people, too, are capable of 'loving'...is of no relevance."

Cornides can find no legitimacy in human rights law for changing the meaning of 'marriage'.

"...if 'family' is no more to be defined by descent or marriage between persons of the opposite sex, by which other criteria shall it then be defined? Created as a pre-requisite for same-sex 'marriage', the adoption of children by same-sex couples, etc., this new concept turns 'family' into something of an artificial construct, removed from biological reality: the arbitrary invention of a legislator, which at any time could be replaced through another arbitrary invention of another legislator as mores once again change. If this is accepted, a legislator's imagination is limitless: every constellation of two or more persons could be styled a 'marriage' or 'family', and the traditional meaning of both terms would be undermined or even disappear altogether. Labeling all and sundry as 'marriage' and 'family' could be an efficient way of destroying the traditional and logical meaning – perhaps more efficient than abolishing it directly'."

Dear Saltpetre,

Times change. People's entire way of thinking about marriage has changed: it is now viewed less as an economic arrangement or a kinship alliance, and more as a companiosnhip based on the emotional commitment of two individuals. Traditional family and marriage forms have given way to others that are better adapted to the changed conditions of social and economic life. People today are more concerned with self-fulfillment as a personal goal. Individual desires become more important than traditional obligations, and people expect personal freedom in their choice of mate.

You seem worried that same-sex marriages will adversely affect the institution of marriage. You are entitled to your opinion. However, the percentage of predominantly homosexual people in the population is relatively small and the great majority of gay men and lesbian women form stable, long-lasting relationships with a person of the same sex at some time in their lives. How this can be detrimental I frankly can't see especially when you consider the high divorce rate and the decay of family amongst heterosexual couples. The single-parent families, serial monogamy, (marrying more than once), open marriages, communes, and so on. Same-sex mariages may well turn out to be a stabilizing force in our society compared to what's currently on offer.