Stezza,
It is pointless claiming natural human gender has changed by divine design or evolution in the last 60 years. Until you can demonstrate the facts of that evolutionary change that two males can produce a child from their union you are merely spouting vain and deceptive words.

Marriage has always been the physical union of a man and woman sexually bonding to produce their child. The State required registration for censis records. Jesus birth was caught in a censis during the Roman occupation of Israel about 004BC. The Christian Church later took responsibility for record keeping of births, marriages and deaths for the Roman Empire as it saw the responsibility for family care and welfare.

Marriage has never been merely a sentimental bonding between two persons. There has never been any reguirement by the State that such a bond be recorded; and as some have earlier stated the State should not be involved in relationships defined on those terms.

Aime only you can answer the way you feel and the way you are today,
and my response was to your question and you now use it as emotional blackmail.
I think my oroginal point was made.

It is wonderful to read John Murphy's balanced and sensible article. It is less wonderful to read some of the 30 or more comments that follow, particularly those written by Philo.

Bit by bit we learn more and more about Philo which, sadly, proves more and more why Philo is bigoted and ignorant. First clue, the playing of the religious fundamentalist card, next clue the "in my day when I was at school" mantra. It is sad that people who claim to have a fundamental, "Bible-based" Christian faith coupled with great age/wisdom aren't usually more compassionate, accepting and open-minded.

I cannot agree with anything Philo has listed as "fact" why marriage equality for same-sex attracted people should not be permitted. One by one Philo's "facts" are confronted - marriage is for procreation only (several respondents have taken Philo to task over that one but to no avail, Philo keeps on about it), marriage is defined by heterosexual activity (no, marriage is traditionally about property not sex), children cannot be properly raised except in a male-female marriage (not even going to start deconstructing that one).

Philo, you are certainly entitled to your views, however you cannot claim that they are a) correct, when there is ample evidence to show they are not and b)accepted by everyone, when again they are clearly not.

Granting full marriage equality will not devalue anyone's current marriage, any future marriage and it won't cause society to descend into a molten pit of excessive depravity. Time and again opponents of marriage equality are asked to provide reasons why marriage equality will damage the fabric of society. Time and again they cannot.

Each of the countries listed at the top of this article have not had unmitigated disasters befall them, life has carried on, people have been married, children have been born and raised and will go on to be married should they wish it. Nothing will happen in Australia when marriage equality is granted except that people of the same gender both consenting will be able to be married to each other. Let that day be soon!

Marriage always constitutes a bride (female gender) giving herself to her husband (male gender). Initially she was a virgin giving herself in sexual union to her husband and it was this act that was celebrated in the ceremony and the blessing of fertility and children resulting was what was envisaged in the union. It was because of this possibility that the union was registered with the State, because it affected population, education, national security and welfare etc.

Please tell me what purpose is served by the State registering homosexual relationships? Two men cannot both be father and mother of a child. The child has the right to bonding with its birth mother. That children can be brought from suggorate women reduces the sacred value and rights of a child, and treats the child as a traded comody.

Philo: sorry to inform you that we do not live in theocracy, we never have lived in a theocracy. Constantine the Great when he issued his Edict of Milan in CE 313 tolerating Christianity began the process of folding the church into the State and, rather like your view of marriage, the two became one. Marriage is registered by the State to provide a mechanism for taxation, welfare and social planning.

As for children... please... there is no "right" anywhere on this planet that states a child has the "right" to bond with their birth mother. By dragging this debate about the establishment of legal, recognized same gender marriage equal to that of established opposite gender marriage through some by-ways about the rightness of child rearing is both scurrilous and disingenuous.

No Kip. I'm truly sorry if you took at my post as emotional blackmail. That was never my intention and if you knew me on a personal level, you'd quickly come to realise that I don't work that way.

Unfortunately, posts written haphazardly or in hast sometimes come across with a different slant on the meaning. I've read back over my post and I suppose it's the last line you'd be referring as emotional blackmail, and yes, I'm afraid I didn't stop to consider your vulnerabilities before hitting the send key.

All I was trying to say in answer to your post was that there have been times when I wished I'd been born gay for at least then I'd have some chance of forming a sincere relationship unlike the way things are.

So Kip (and Baz), all I can do is offer my apologies and wish you both all the very best for a long and happy life.