I'm in complete agreement with Peter Hume. I have also never seen anyone even attempt to refute this line of reasoning. Anyone here want to try?

Marriage was originally an agreement between two families, like a form of contract.
When the State assumed responsibility to enforce it under Law, the Church was also given the "franchise" by adding the fear of God into the agreement in the hope it would strengthen it.

It's only real purpose is to strengthen individual rights - property and otherwise - and could probably be redefined into another form.

Meanwhile, why do all those heterosexual couples keep giving birth to gay children?

Is Peter Hume expounding the virtues of uncontrolled sex as one night stands with any willing partner, no responsibility accepted?

Where does this leave mums with several children from different untraceable fathers?

Sounds like social anarchy based on primitives law of the jungle.

An educated society needs formal structures to function within to allocate responsibility and care of the vunerable.

I'm with Peter Hume on the issue of polygamy. I totally enjoyed the SBS series "Big Love' and can see that this type of marriage could be functional.

But child sex is different; the problem being to determine at what point a child becomes competent to participate equally in a sexual relationship with an adult. Perhaps this depends on the community and in a simple primitive community, like in the South of the USA, where Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cussin a few decades ago, puberty may be the appropriate age.

If it was only sex that was the issue, puberty would be fine but when there is property at stake a child would need some protection. And it is the protection of property and power, and the desire to keep these things in the family that has historically been an important influence in our assumptions about what marriage is and what it is for.

Not sure about sexual relationships with animals. I'd want Peter Singer's opinion about this. But I heard on the internet, that some bogan married his dog in a park somewhere in Qld a while ago.

Philo,

Does society make laws based on the values of the majority or do the majority act based on the word of the law?

If it wasn't for government regulation of sexual activity then would be you be having sex with children? animals?

People will continue to act how they wish to act, so don't pretend that the government can do anything about it. Relationships between consenting adults are none of their business.

Stezza,

Laws were made for society by its leaders as determined by nature and social order. Where principles are established i.e. 'girls do not fall pregnant before pubity', such should not be married before or have sex. Marriage is for procreation, love and security.

Q, "If it wasn't for government regulation of sexual activity then would be you be having sex with children? animals?" This question is from a perverted mind vindicating as acceptable adultry and promiscurity.