Mary dear are you saying the medical professional organisations I quoted are wrong! And who are these fathers for life group and what professional study and train have they had to spew such vile towards other persons.
Me thinks your "bigot" comment is directed in the wrong direction my dear!!

Formersnag,
Great link, thanks. I feel I should point out that posting links to absurd conspiracy theories invented by anti-communist American members of the religious right at the height of the Cold War doesn't actually advance your case at all, and actually damages your credibility. But it is freakin' hilarious, so don't stop.

What is not so funny is your ad hominem attack on supporters of gay marriage as 'promoting the neglect & abuse'. I have yet to see a single supporter of gay marriage promoting child abuse, and there is no causal connection between gay marriage and child abuse. And you accuse the left of 'demonising normal people'? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

I think you should apologise for your offensive remarks and/or butt out of the debate. If not, don't start whingeing if folk make unfounded ad hominem attacks against you (and especially don't whinge about the ones which are well founded).

The law and State registrations merely formalize a natural ancient relationship between a man and a woman - that natural biological bond is marriage. The Jews kept written record of genealogies of someone begat a son, begat a son etc, for the last 6,000 years. It was a record of children from the sexual union (marriage).

Marriage is an exclusive bond between the two genders to form family since man lived in caves, prior there was no State registrations. It was the Romans who recorded persons by family to determine its citizens. Get the facts correct! Registrations by the State have only been recorded in recent years, the Church kept the records of who was legally and sexually bonded to who prior to that. Today the Church marriage certificate is not considered a legal document by the State.

It is a sexual union, it has always been a sexual union. That is why exclusive vows are taken for life because the wife was to give birth to their children, and only their children; and the husband is fully responsible to his wife and children. That society today is an emotional mess is because the commitments to love and be pure for life are not worked at or revered.

The fact is marriage has only ever been as a union between a man and a woman and has been recognised since man socialized. State Registrations of that exclusive bond have been a recent requirement. Marriage has only ever been recognised as a union between a man and a woman and that union was respected by other members of the community.

To change the meaning of the term does not give defined rights to the term for those who choose to raise their family, but merely mean a State registration of two persons who on the basis of love for each other are married. The Churches, Mosques and Synagogues that are true to the natural biological fact will never define it otherwise. Otherwise it demeans the lifelong union of the sexes and the purpose of the union.

The Churches, Mosques and Synagogues that are true to the natural biological fact are cosidering another term if the meaning of "marriage" is diluted to be meaningless to include any sexual perversion to be marriage.

Philo,

I find it interesting that despite all this talk of natural procreation being an essential component of marriage, not a single opponent of gay marriage has shown consistency in their arguments and come out in public condemnation of heterosexual marriages which do not produce issue. Why is that?

I fail to see how legalising homosexual marriage "demeans the lifelong union of the sexes". To demean something means to lessen respect for it, but I'll still have the same respect for people who make a lifelong commitment to each other, and respect for that commitment, if gay marriage is legalised. Frankly I'm surprised that you won't, but I think that says more about you than it does about gay marriage.

I think the point in your last post is a capital idea! We can have marriage available to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation; and then, if they want to, various churches etc. can create their own terms for formally recognising the romantic unions they consider appropriate. I imagine that more liberal churches like the Uniting Church would probably just stick with marriages, whilst more conservative churches like the Catholics would opt for a system which excluded homosexuals, non-Catholics etc. (actually, I reckon this idea would suit the Catholics very well - under Catholic doctrine you may not remarry after divorce, but the Marriage Act contains no such provision. With their own system in place, the Catholic Church could exclude divorcees. Similarly, Muslims and fundamentalist Mormons could create systems allowing polygamy, and so on - faiths wouldn't have to rely on the State's one-size-fits-all marriage, but create systems which truly adhered to their teachings). This idea keeps the religious folk happy doing their own thing, whilst not unreasonably depriving anybody else of their liberty. Everybody wins. Nice one, Philo - now get out there and spread the word.

To Acolyte, I think you're being a bit unfair and flippant towards Formersnag when you condemn his link, writing, "absurd conspiracy theories invented by anti-communist American members..."

There is reasonable evidence to assert that communist and homophile movements did indeed share some common ground at that time. Although, the two movements haven't been (and still aren't) synonymous, there are some mutual connections and goals to this date. See this link (scroll down to the subheading "The homophile movement") -

Wikipedia
Socialism and LGBT rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights

It's also understandable that many people may see a common purpose between communists and homophiles who call for same sex marriage. That being the communist goal of the abolition of the (traditional) family. See this link (scroll down to the subheading "II -- PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS") -

Aust National Uni
Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html#c1r2

However, it is not correct to evaluate that communism and homosexuality are the same cause. Historically, there has been some deep division between the two, and it remains within the ALP today. Frederick Engels himself found homosexuality not to his liking. The following is a quote from the first link above -

"Engels responded with disgust to Marx in a private letter, lashing out at 'pederasts' who are 'extremely against nature', and described Ulrichs' platform of homosexual rights as 'turning smut into theory'."

So there are justifiable reasons for those who hold traditional and conservative values of marriage and family to be highly suspicious of both communists and homophiles. For both their intent and their purpose.

Lastly, a final link for those who may be interested. It's Engels' own work on the subject of family. Even if it is written from a communist perspective, I believe it has much interest for everyone and relates to a great deal of what has been discussed in this thread above.

Caution - it's a big read.

Marxists.org
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State
Frederick Engels 1884
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/index.htm