It's actually kind of sad that I created this account solely to post a response. I wouldn't have, but the slew of posts here that praise the OP are twats.

I am a law student nearing the end of my degree. Author, your understanding of what the marriage act/marriage itself means and what it's based on (insofar as how you've phrased this post) screams pure ignorance. Marriage law has, historically, been centered on rights (property, assets, legal protections etc). Not on love, not on children.

From a purely legal perspective, there is no way I can morally justify the idea that two people who are consenting, autonomous adults in a country that claims to be "free" can be denied basic rights... purely on the basis of them having the same reproductive organs. That is literally what it boils down to. In a society where we're really not concerned with "propegating the human race" (and actually suffer from overpopulation) and childless marriages are very common, denying two people civil rights because they both have penises is actually as insane as denying two people marrying because they both have red hair or because they come from two different races.

Oh wait. I'm sorry, did the latter example exist? Wait, we call people in support of that racists now?

The idea of an Aborigine and a white Australian marrying was seen as utterly reprehensible. Yes, it's not the same, gay isn't a "race", but the same principles apply: you are born gay. It's not something anyone can change. At the end of the day, everyone in a democratic nation deserves basic legal protections and the right to feel regarded and safe in a country that they pay tax to.

The point is, "tradition" is not always right. Stop appealing to "tradition" as though it is the holy grail of morality. I know it's comfortable, but recognize that the earth being regarded as flat was once "tradition". The seperation of races was "tradition". Treating women as subservient and incapable was "tradition".

Laws evolve as society progresses and it is pure ignorance to think otherwise.

Goodness me, will there ever be a single argument against gay marriage that doesn't distort fact, that doesn't misrepresent research, that doesn't commit numerable logical and historical errors?

The research paper that Blaise uses to substantiate his claim that gay married couples are inferior parents to straight married couples actually has ZERO data to support that conclusion, Blaise completely misrepresents the paper.

The paper doesn't examine homosexual parents - at all. What Blaise did was infer that a broken, divorced heterosexual parent with a new spouse, is an identical family structure to a married homosexual couple.

Which you should immediately realise the faulty reasoning. If not:

Blaise took the emotional and psychological damage that divorce inflicts on a child, and concluded that that damage is also inflicted on a married, whole, committed family if the parents happen to be of the same gender.

What do the actual facts say about households with same-sex parents? Because they do exist, we don't have to rely on distorting and misrepresenting divorce statistics like Blaise has done.

The actual research on same-sex parenting uniformly concludes that children reared by married, committed same-sex parents do not incur any disadvantages to their wellbeing, health or development. In fact, in one study, children raised by lesbian couples actually faired BETTER (in terms of social responsibility and EQ).

There are zero.. absolutely zero... scientific reasons to oppose gay marriage. The fact that in 100% of cases bigots have to distort fact to try and justify excluding homosexuals from marriage.... Is simple proof there is no rational argument to oppose it.

The example of not being considered next of kin at hospital bed is a falsehood. If the patient has listed the person as next of kin then they have every right to be contacted and be present.

That marriage is about economics and property is because a pregnant wife and new mum who is not free to work has need of a responsible carer and naturally it is the father of the child who the law makes responsible.

Gay lobbiests of same sex marriage grossly distort fact, and wish to change its definition, merely to define an emotional attachment. Marriage is an exclusive and biological (evolved) designed union between a man and a woman. It is never fertile sperm being pushed into anal feaces, or a viobrator being inserted. Fact only a man and a woman can produce human species in their likness. Fact is until two men can give birth to their child evolution will discriminate against them. That is what marriage is, it will never be anything else.

Jon J and Kipp - why should it matter what the authors affiliations are? I don't know Blaise Joseph from a bar of soap but it seems that he can present a logical argument that is not based on any religious or political affiliation. Just logic and reasoning. This is an opinion piece after all, and he clearly states the reason for his opinion.

From both of your comments, it seems like there is discrimination of another kind going on here - if anyone should be "religious" or "conservative", they are not allowed to express an opinion. Blaise has not identified himself as either - and yet, because he opposes the "politically correct" view, he is shouted down.

Examine yourselves and your behaviour. You should be ashamed of your treatment of this young man.

"The example of not being considered next of kin at hospital bed is a falsehood. If the patient has listed the person as next of kin then they have every right to be contacted and be present.

That marriage is about economics and property is because a pregnant wife and new mum who is not free to work has need of a responsible carer and naturally it is the father of the child who the law makes responsible.

Gay lobbiests of same sex marriage grossly distort fact, and wish to change its definition, merely to define an emotional attachment. Marriage is an exclusive and biological (evolved) designed union between a man and a woman. It is never fertile sperm being pushed into anal feaces, or a viobrator being inserted. Fact only a man and a woman can produce human species in their likness. Fact is until two men can give birth to their child evolution will discriminate against them. That is what marriage is, it will never be anything else."

Well said, Philo.

There's a lot of woolly thinking on this topic, even from a lawyer!
To all those who cite the divorce rate, bear in mind that as bad as it is, the rate is worse for de facto relationships, and worse still for same sex relationships. If same sex marriage was ever legalised, there would then be a flood of same sex divorces.
A child learns how to behave from its same sex parent, and how to interact with the opposite sex from its opposite sex parent. That's why it needs both a father and a mother.