Philo your constant interest in sexual activity, indicates a need for counselling!!

If "Laws were made for society by its leaders as determined by nature and social order"

Does this mean that laws should stay constant throughout time, or change with the social order? Who decides what natures laws say (evolution?) or even what social order is? What exactly is that by the way?

Stezza,
Obviously you are a lawless and undisciplined porson, as any behaviour is acceptable in your eyes.

Lol Stezza :)
Philo, I think you have met your match!

I really enjoyed reading this well written article. It made some very important arguments for allowing homosexual marriages.

If we are already allowing marriages to be performed by non-religious celebrants in non-religious settings, then I don't see why Homosexual marriage should be so pilloried by some religious people taking the high moral ground.

Homosexuality is not a crime, whereas bigamy, bestiality and paedophilia is a crime, so I don't see why we should even be discussing how allowing gays to marry will lead to these other groups of people being allowed to marry.

Don Edgar <"Finally, it must be noted that in those countries that have already recognized gay marriage, the evidence is clear: it does not undermine social morality or lead to undesirable effects."

Enough said...

Fact: It takes two to three "biological" parents to create a baby - being ovum and sperm "donors" plus possible third party "incubator". (At least until we get into artificially providing these components.) To these we may have to add one, two, or possibly more, "adoptee" parents, plus godparents and extended family members having some responsibility for care of the child.

Now, in law, from the article, there appears to be recognition of the role and responsibilities of only one or two of these parties - the "parent(s)". This appears somewhat unfair, and possibly unjust.

In our complex and dynamic "society" there appears to be need to provide for up to five names as "parents" on a birth certificate - being male and female contributors and female incubator plus one or two (adoptee or consignee) "parents" - with allowance for up to four of these to be left blank - in the case of anonymous sperm and ovum donors, anonymous incubator, and only a single "parent").

(One day we may even get into DNA proving of biological origin.)

"Marriage" does not seem to play much of a part in this, and current law appears to be deficient in providing adequate guarantee for the care and upbringing of the child, or for the rights of the "parents" - irrespective of whether the child is going into a traditional, de-facto, gay or single parent "family" unit.

My contention therefore, is that all procreation would have to be covered by a legal contract to ensure adequate guarantees of care for the child and the rights of "parents" and other parties involved.

Gets complicated, doesn't it. No wonder then that there is so much support for traditional hetero "marriage" - and IMHO rightly so, and I doubt that a referendum or plebiscite would find otherwise.

Marriage is a state of mind more than anything else.

Gay "marriage"? Get yourself a contract, and stop whinging.

There is no need for any regulation more than the law of contract provides. Women with children to multiple fathers? Law of contract. But if you can't be bothered obtaining agreement about your own reproductive responsibilities, why should everyone else in the population be forced into a one-size-fits-all monogamous heterosexual straitjacket?