"If you really believe that children are central to the concept of marriage then you should be opposing marriages between people who are sterile, or too old to have children ..."

Jon J, you obviously have no clue about simple logic. The article argues that children belong ONLY in marriage. What you're rebutting is something he didn't say or even imply, viz., that all marriages must have children. You really need to learn how to distinguish between a premise and a conclusion, between an implication and its converse, before (and hopefully instead of) making such ridiculous comments as quoted above.

"Blaise it is interesting that you have not identified where your affilliations are.
This throws a very much different light on your essay."

Kipp, allow me to throw some light on your comment.

Did you ever learn the art of comprehension? Did you ever learn to critically assess an argument in terms of its logical flow (you know, premises, conclusions, that kind of thing)? Did you ever learn how to debate ad rem? Or, when you hear something you don't like, are you utterly incapable of articulating any kind of rational response, instead resorting to the first ad hominem comment that occurs to you? I admit it's a lot easier to do that kind of thing than actually write something coherent and intelligent but heck, if Blaise can do it, you might be able to pick up the skill yourself. It's worth a try, anyway.

In the meantime, on the assumption that you adhere with absolute consistency to the approach you've taken to Blaise's article, I presume that you reject comments on anything from anyone with any kind of religious or political affiliation, even if they agree with you. Otherwise you'd be an intellectual hypocrite, and I'm sure you're not that.

In jurisdictions where homosexual unions are recognised the numbers of couples formalising their relationships are very low, in the thousands.
I've lost the link I posted in another comment but it gave figures of around 1.5% of Gay and 4% of Lesbian couples taking advantage of new laws in places like Spain and the Netherlands.

This article contains the same flaws as the arguments in favour of gay "marriage".

It assumes, wrongly, that marriage is something the government does to the parties. It isn't, and not even the government has ever claimed that.

It assumes that gays can't marry - exchange explicit commitments for life - now. They can. They just can't get governmental registration of it.

It gives no reason why government should be in the business of registering sexual relationships in the first place, without which the entire discussion is redundant.

And it conjures arbitrary reasons for why some groups rather than others should receive benefits from government on the ground of their sexual relationships.

The article also contains all the usual collectivist fallacies that people use when arguing either for or against gay marriage. Marriage is not something invented by government. Government indeed has had had on overwhelmingly negative effect on the institution. There is not the slightest reason why we should be looking to government, of all people, to tell everyone else what their personal relationships mean.

The author's argument depends on his idea of heterosexual relationships "as a whole". What's that supposed to mean? Heterosexuals don't get married "as a whole" with all other heterosexuals. They get married as two people at time, although Dan Leahy - of New Guinea fame - was sensible enough to marry two sisters at the same time.

‘Laws evolve as society progresses and it is pure ignorance to think otherwise.’
Posted by Irate Goldfish

Quite so. And a deliciously ironic demolition of Goldfish’s own argument.

All social institutions have evolved. Marriage has taken many forms over millennia; it’s adaptable. Under most circumstances -- including our present social environment -- monogamy is favoured by humans, though polygamy’s found a niche now and again. Marriage forms are species-specific, and optimised. What works for ducks doesn’t work for bears; what works in forests fails in desert. Animals and plants have have genetically mediated tendencies, but a fair bit of wiggle room. Marriage, too, can evolve, and will -- albeit very slowly. It’s optimised to our social environment.

And that’s the problem. These days, we don’t have to wait for environment to optimise our genetic tendencies. We can modify genes at will: introduce new ones into wheat for resistance to pests, into cows to make them grow fatter, into viruses so they’ll attack cancer cells. We don’t do these things lightly or haphazardly, of course: the possibility of creating dangerous monstrosities is ever-present. Some people think we shouldn’t modify genes at all. I don’t agree, but I certainly recognise the dangers; wise people don’t just ‘create’ something and turn it loose in the hope it’ll be beneficial.

That’s what Irate Goldfish proposes, though, for the institution of marriage. We needn’t wait for society to ‘progress’ when young lawyers with a ‘rights-based’ agenda can accelerate the evolution of marriage. How long before the court is asked to recognise all nine of a Saudi immigrant’s wives, including the one who’s just turned ten? If two women who love one another can ‘marry’, why not three? Goldfish has the process exactly backwards: evolve first, optimise later. If at all.

I’m not trivialising the issue. Same-sex couples richly deserve the recognition and security which heterosexual couples enjoy. That goal won’t be achieved by subjecting the existing institution of marriage to a forced evolution at the hands of ambitious lawyers eager to set a precedent. There’s a better, safer way. Let’s find it.

Kipp, you really seem hell bent on driving home your message, too. Three posts in less than 24 hours on one article.

How about we take a look in the mirror before we start throwing stones? Who says you aren't driving your own agenda? What makes your agenda more right than Blaise's?

He is speaking on behalf of himself and himself only, and as a 19-year-old voting citizen of Australia I say he has a right to express an opinion as much as you do.