Vanna: What a strange post! Ok, to make you happy... homosexual man here - two heterosexual parents, married for 53 years next month, strongly support their union. Brother, heterosexual, married (for the second time) in 2009. Attended both his weddings in an "official" capacity and strongly support his marriage. Godson, parents both heterosexual, married some 25 years. Strongly support their union. (As for your "abomination" comment about IVF, I am sure all the heterosexual, married couples who have been unable to conceive with thank you for your torrent of abuse.)

Philo: I really wish you'd give some context for the bland statements you make. I note that in your defence of "traditional" marriage you do not mention the "traditional" forms of polygamy (as noted frequently and without condemnation in the Bible), nor do you make much of the "tradition" that women are possessions, from birth to marriage the property of the father then at the time of marriage given to a husband. (Hence that line "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?") Marriage has been redefined constantly over the centuries. By adding same gender equality to marriage will do nothing more that including people who are your family, neighbours, friends - or do you wish to keep marriage as an exclusive little club for practicing heterosexuals only?

As for your last remark about infection etc - the rate of sexual transmitted infections is greatest in... guess who - heterosexual liaisons. And, Philo, it might shock you... but heterosexuals have anal sex too.

Perkin Warbeck,
Polygamy was practised because of the shortage of men due to tribal warring and the wives were always virgin or widows. Your claim women were possessions, from birth to marriage the property of the father then at the time of marriage given to a husband is a misrepresentation. The parent was the guardian of the child as girls married in their teenage years. Only women can produce children and marriage envisaged that and consent was given.

By adding same gender equality to marriage will redefine it to mean nothing more that emotional bonding and of those practising anal sex and is not relative to State records. Your claim I wish to keep marriage as an exclusive little club for practicing heterosexuals only, indicates your envy of reality? If you want family marry a woman, who can naturally nurture your child. It has nothing to do with an exclusive Club.

If you had read my position previously posted on anal sex you would realise that it is this practise that causes high levels of gynaclogical infections in women. My wife a senior midwife during the 1970s worked with a gynacologist in Cornell University Hospital; claimed bacteria found in the anal area entering the sterile uterus transmitted much of the diseases to women. However there is one section of society that has high levels of AIDS, hepatitus and ruptured bowel for its % in the population

Philo

Your interpretation of the meaning of marriage is but one of many. In your case it is determined primarily by your religion and some part of western culture. It is not the only definition - your inability to acknowledge that different people have different cultural and religious beliefs undermines your opinions on same sex marriage. You are free to practice your religion and beliefs, you do not hold sway over other people's religion and beliefs.

Just as you free to post your opinion here, so are others. You are free to disagree and so are others. Where you infringe upon the freedoms of other people is by your position banning others from forming the social bond known as marriage.

Perhaps you should read the following:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200505/marriage-history

As I stated at the outset your version of marriage is but one.

Thank you Ammonite for the lucid response to Philo.

Philo: to take a couple of points. Misrepresentation? I'm sorry Philo, but what is misrepresented? Marriage was a contract not a love match. I find it laughable that you a) claim that the reason a female passed from one male to another in ownership was because she was young...what about those females who were not young? They were still the property of the senior male of the family; b) and your claim that polygamy was because of a shortage of men due to tribal warring? Really? Please provide any valid references to support this new theory.

Which brings me to your wife and those figures - was that her opinion, her considered research in her time at Cornell or do you have some peer reviewed and annotated documents that can back up that claim?

Finally, your own words continue to sound ridiculous - you tell me that I should marry a woman to have a family. Again, this shows how narrow and prejudiced your world view is. Let me state this for you - I am a homosexual man, I always have been a homosexual man. I do not have sexual, romantic or physical feelings or attraction for a female. As for fathering children, I believe that we have been able to find ways that can allow me to be a father, should I so wish. Currently, I don't wish it but I do not stop anyone else, male or female, same gender attracted or not, single or in a relationship from proceeding along that path. Provided the child born is nurtured in a loving, accepting and open minded supporting family, I do not care what parenting model is being used.

Your views are yours, but you have no right to state that they are categorically the only views that are valid, because you base them on religious texts and outmoded historical behavioural tenets. Please look beyond the "Thou shalt not" and find the "Thou shalt". Much better place to argue from, isn't it?

As far as I'm aware the George, Anderson, Girgis article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public policy had homo marriage supporting poltical philosophers publicly embarrassing themselves. No decent reply has been forthcoming as of writing full stop- let alone befitting a proposal for the most radical social change in human history. LOL

Carbon taxes are what we make them, marriage is what we make it, we feel kinda groovy about lurve so lets tear down marriage. Hey no one likes pollution right! hey lets tax the coal industry away. LOL

We have adolescents, who wouldn't know self-government in the sexual realm if took human form and danced naked in front of them, in adult bodies screaming for stuff that they want and they want it now damn it! LOL

Eve Tushnet, a same-sex attracted woman has written a piece http://www.staycatholic.com/what_homosexuals_want.htm that hopefully, in addition to the George article 'What Marriage Is' will enlighten. So that we can move on people. Calling people haters, or calling Eve Tushnet a bigot is just Brownshirt stuff and convinces no one.

Can we grow up and start talking marriage renewal rather than redefinition and destruction, can we talk about how we are to preserve it for the next generation and stop pretending it isn't the hyperindividualism and selfish adult desire of heterosexuals predominately, rather than interest in children, that is driving this nonsense.

Crikey the radical liberal Greens recognise stable old growth ecologies everywhere in nature but all of a sudden there is no such thing as a human nature, complimentarity of the sexes or rights of children to a mun and dad when it stands to increase their power as ssm does. When it comes to human nature and the most primitive human government, that primitive society, the male-female sexual relationship all old growth ecology ceases to exist! Watermelons.

And for what its worth some political philosophy read and stop making a nuisance of yourselves http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2011/07/community-and-liberty-or-individualism-and-statism/

Perkin Warbeck,
The concept that IVF is for "married couples who have been unable to conceive" is a farce.

There are IVF clinics now that have a majority of single women as their clients.

To be conceived in a test tube without a father is an abomination of nature, and eventually there will be a backlash.

However, well done for supporting heterosexual marriage.

First time I have ever heard a homosexual supporting heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage.

Maybe, one day, in the not so distant future, on a planet called Earth, a feminist or university academic may also say something positive about the male gender.