To state my belief system as seems to be demanded I am a Darwinist. Sexuality has been evolved to ensure propagation of th species. Homosexualiy is an aberration and abnormal.
Marriage is an institution designed for heterosexuals. The only reason why homosexuals want it is to be accepted that they are normal.
As homosexuality appears to be genetic, not based on lifestyle choice, there is good reason to oppose lesbians bearing chilldren, although one cannot stop it except by refusing aid to conception.
Nevertheless it should be discouraged until we see any long term studies on on the opinions of children brought up by homosexuals. I would hate to be a secondary school student telling his/her classmates that he/she had two"mummies".

Blaise has every right to publish his opinion, the point in question is his essay is near verbatin of the Australian Christian Lobby and the extreme religous funadmentalists, as well as the rightwing political group of whom he belongs, yet he surreptitiously ommitted his social and political connections and beliefs.
Their policy belief being that homosexuals should have no rights,and be treated as second class Australians, even though they are full paying taxpayers financilally supporting hetrosexual families with their taxes.
In other words the extreme rightwing used a vunerable teenager, to exploit their bigotry and indifference to other Australians, and those of you with your antigay attitude,jumped straight in with your own insecure ignorance and bigotry.

First off, the sources in the article are clearly biased from even a quick glance over, there is no neutrality whatsoever and the authors are unabashed in pushing their conservative agenda. Real studies by actual psychologists rather than lawyers, have shown no difference between homosexual and heterosexual parents. Having a PhD in one area doesn't make you an expert in another, this is a cheap tactic often employed by creationists and other disingenuous individuals in an attempt to garner credibility and does nothing but hurt their argument.

Second, the article fails to illustrate any genuine downsides to redefining marriage. To the contrary, considering the legal partnership benefits it affords along with the fact that IVF allows homosexual couples to have children, there is every reason to update the definition of marriage to include a wider spectrum of the loving couples of the 21st century. IVF-born children and those adopted into homosexual families suffer as a result of their parents being denied these benefits, and we have no reason other than archaic tradition which never took medical science into consideration to deny them these rights. It's certainly true that not all homosexual couples have children, but as the author rightly pointed out neither do all heterosexual couples, nor do we have a problem with one parent not being a biological one such as in the case of step-parents. So if we don't have a particular hangup about people getting married without having kids, we should accommodate other loving couples which science has allowed to also potentially become parents, so that all children in these families are treated the same no matter what the genders of their parents may be.

Outrider,
I can't decide whether to take you to task over your Darwinism or your homophobia since both are ancient, out of date and just plain wrong.
There is no evidence of adaptation or evolution among modern Humans or their near cousins the Neanderthals.
Humans were obviously created out of "Whole cloth" at some point so homosexuality must be part of the blueprint.

The Sanctity of Marriage unfortunately has/is fallen/ing by the wayside.
Blaise, I liked your post, but everything cycles throughout the Centuries, it was unheard of for people to just live together outside of marriage, now it appears to be the norm. A marriage in "the sight of God" is a man made Ceremony, and many couples like to write their own Marriage Vows the way they see things., that way they can make their own promises to their betrothed. Trouble is that these days, marriages just don't last very long. But it is the way things are these days. We cannot turn back the clock, but also remember that things will change again, and again etc.etc.......better get into the kitchen and make my Husband of 37 years get my dinner! :)
NSB

While I don't mind most of your argument, but it all falls apart somewhere.

The institution of marriage has already become an institution based on the self-fulfillment of adults.

BECAUSE it is the norm that children be raised in nuclear families (this is not the norm in many cultures but it is in ours), I would say that most of my friends choosing to have children heterosexual relationships do so for their own self-fulfillment. It is those of my friends who are raising children in gay couples or as single people that are doing so for the benefit of the children.

Unfortunately, most straight people I know who are having children haven't given a thought about their children's impact on the world, the world's impact on the children, and merely have children because it's the thing to do once you've graduated from school, got a job, gotten married, and so on.

Our norm has become an unfavourable norm.

This is precisely the reason why marriages should be allowed for all couples regardless of sexuality. Unless we make people question these norms, unless we make them think about what a child means, then we will be stuck with this unfavourable situations of it being only the cretins cloning and feeding.