Statistics on divorce only prove the lack of commitment and prejudice of people in human relationships. It does not undermine the ideals of a good relationship of husband and wife and its input into family.

...An interesting key-hole to peer through onto the subject matter of gay rights would be attached to the door of Bob Katter. Katter, with a half-brother as camp as a row of army tents, insists against the family odds, Bob refine his views on gay rights. Won’t happen of course, thankfully, because Bob is correct to oppose the new age nonsense of gay marriage currently presented to all as “normal” when what is patiently offensive is the “in your face” attack on community morals and acceptable community standards by a sick group of individuals presenting as oppressed homosexuals, led by the sickest of individuals from the wilds of Tasmania, Bob Brown.

...Bobs Katters half-brother complained recently to a channel ten reporter of the oppression received at the hand of brother Bob voicing contrary opinions to an anti-gay rally in Canberra. (Love ya for that Bob; not in sick ways of a homosexual, but in the path of true love of a brave fellow human, facing off to a challenge of immorality disguising itself as normal). Some of “half -brothers” complaints were directed towards Bob Katters speech at the rally viz., “"Truly this proposition (gay marriage) deserves to be laughed at and ridiculed. It doesn't serve any serious treatment”.

...If gay brother is offended at such honest comment, then I would suggest to him, as to anyone with a similar outlook, get over it, for the main reason that this topic will be politically damaging to whomever supports the stand against community interests, as gay marriage does!

NO! Gay Marriage does NOT prove that Marriage Matters ... it proves that EQUAL RIGHTS matter!

In an egalitarian and fundamentally secular democracy like Australia, we should not have different laws based on gender or sexual predilection.

Australia has always been ahead with equal rights since being one of the first countries in the world (after New Zealand) to grant women the vote. We rule for a common good, not the individual, as with many of our laws.

I am proud to say as a married, straight breeder of three, I am appalled at the hypocrisy and misinformation around this issue. Just amend the Marriage Act and get on with it!

But Randall,
Included in human rights is the right to Religious Freedom.
Where gay marriage has been legalised Christians have lost their right to religious freedom

E.g. In the public sector
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/nyregion/rights-clash-as-town-clerk-rejects-her-role-in-gay-marriages.html

e.g. Christian school kids
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/23/us-gay-student-texas-idUSTRE78M6HC20110923

e.g. Sports
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700133436/Peter-Vidmar-steps-down-as-chief-of-mission-for-2012-US-Olympic-Team.html

If the Australian people want Christians excluded from society why not just say it out loud instead of hiding behind equality legislation?

If the government wants everyone to be happy it would get out of the culture wars and the marriage game altogether and let people follow their conscience.

As Randall points out, the issue is not how many gay people want to get married -- which I suspect will only ever be a tiny proportion of the total -- but the fact that they are legally prevented from doing so while heterosexuals are not.

You can draw a parallel with the situation in Saudi Arabia, where women are prohibited from driving vehicles, not because of their driving abilities or lack thereof, but simply because they are women. Even if you think there are too many drivers on the road already, you can still see that this is a grossly unfair way to keep the numbers from rising.

"If the Australian people want Christians excluded from society why not just say it out loud instead of hiding behind equality legislation?"

Your freedom to be Christian ends at the point where it interferes with my freedom not to be. Nobody is forcing Christians to marry their gay partners, attend gay marriages, celebrate gay marriages or even to stop campaigning against gay marriages. We're simply pointing out that what other informed adults choose do with their bodies is none of your business, just as whatever silly games you play in church is none of ours -- as long as it stays in church and doesn't impact on us.

Sorry Jon J, but the times have changed. Did you not read the links in my post? Christians are being forced to support gay marriage/ rights under threat of job loss, suspension, etc. It's what practising Christians have known would be coming for years and know it's gonna get a lot worse if current trends hold. The era of saying to conservatives that gay marriage won't effect you is over...it's legalisation is obviously beginning to write Christians out of society, according to the evidence.

However, if government involvement in marriage (meaning the govt. would not know or care who is married to whom), abortion and education was removed, I think we'd all be cool with it and go about our business privately.

Dear TRUTHNOW78, if that is your real name ...

Marriage in Australia as governed by the Marriage Act of 1961 is a completely secular act, as it should be. There are plenty of religions in Australia that continue to celebrate their own rituals of marriage ... including Christians ... and will continue to do so, but they must be registered under the Marriage Act to be LEGAL!

Everyone who gets married in Australia, be it in a high cathedral, synagogue, temple, on a beach or in a registry office MUST say the same Commonwealth vows and sign Commonwealth documents, solemnized by an authorised Celebrant who recites words from the Marriage Act.

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN MARRIAGE ... get used to it ... it's been law in Australia since 1961. Now, we just have to amend that law to make it fair to all.

Your missing my point, Big Guy. Where gay marriage has been legalised Christians have lost or are losing their religious freedom. If this is the only outcome of legalising SS marriage then the Marriage Act of 1961 needs to be abolished and all goverment involvement in marriage removed.

The Separation of Church and State ethos is mainly to protect the Church from the State. Clearly, SS marriage is going to take the State to the church door and beyond unless adjustments are made

Marriage of the same gender is not a matter of equality or rights as gays claim. It has never been and shall never be. Contractually the marriage vows express their responsibility as husband to his wife and wife to her husband and to their family. Any other configuration, eg same gender is merely a pseudo marriage. Marriage is not culminated by a male inserting his penis into the anus of another male. That merely is a perversion of a biological reality. Family is only born from the union of a man and a woman.

The vows and signing the marriage register are not marriage - marriage is the sexual union of a man and a woman, sanctioned by the public vows and contractual agreement to engage legitametly in sex.

Two persons of the same sex do not form a genetic family. They will never be biologically a family or a complementary unit that will produce children.

*Whool5hit!* (pretending to sneeze) TRUTH NOW ... an oxymoron?

The separation of church and state was just the opposite ... the People got tired of being abused and burned at the stake in the name of Christianity, so they made laws that said the bible thumpers and bead rattlers no longer had a say in government.

I want to vote for my leaders in a democracy, not rely on someone's imaginary friend to tell them what to do. It's Demos Kratos ... People Power, not Deos Kratos ... god Power.

Ironically, the term "faggot" came from the fact that the Church used to truss up homosexuals and cats and put them amongst the kindling to make the fire burn hotter for the main attraction tied to the stake.

Unfortunately, burning the cats caused the Plagues and most of the homosexuals were priests. Maybe this is karma.

So, who's going to use up their 10 letters first today?

Big Guy? That's kind of familiar ..

Thanks for the article Peter. A nice, balanced, summary of the issue that proves not all clergy in this debate are one-eyed ideologues.

I hope Australians are willing to embrace a broader definition of marriage that includes gays. As you suggest, in the case of women's rights, progressive change is possible.

"Those with a conservative point of view believe that marriage is the union of a man and woman which provides the social, biological and moral context for raising children. In other words, gender matters in marriage."

Yes Reverend, it is quite timely that marriage should be re-examined, because until you can provide a compelling reason for why the above should necessarily be the case, then the Greens and others are going to focus in on the best aspects of the concept of marriage - like for example the expression of two people's love and commitment to each other, and their intention to create a stable family unit for as long as it is in all the parties' best interests - and use them, appropriate them if you like for their own ends (and what would be wrong with that?).

And, further, they are going to continue to imagine that your holding to the definition of marriage as being "the union of a man and woman which provides the social, biological and moral context for raising children" is simply a result of your anxiety, your repressed sense of self, and your inability to apply maturity to your thinking - which in any case is demonstrated by your attempt to cast same sex marriage proponents' having brought marriage to prominence as "ironic". I think you'll find, rather, that that's precisely what they wanted - or surely you're not saying you believe that Greens voters and GLBTI people *don't* value loving and committed relationships, and positive environments for their children??

Yet another fringe issue foistered on the general public by the far Left. Most people are disinterested in the topic.

Its not about marriage really, as the Left in Australia have historically seen the instituion of marriage as irrelevant since the 1960's. Its about gaining legal rights to a spouses wealth on separation and all the associated benefits of a heterosexual union.

Lets just give it another name and the appropriate legal rights but not call it marriage and not force Churches to carry out gay unions.

@ Atman, that sounds very fair-minded to me. But when stories like this appear (Tory MP: force churches to marry gays or close them down), it's hard to believe the future will be a rosy one for people of our founding faith.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/british-mp-force-churches-to-perform-same-sex-unions-or-close-them-down-55371/

Sam Jandwich

If you read the article again you’ll see Peter is summarizing both sides of the argument, not just advocating the conservative view. Your ad hominem about anxiety and repression is uncalled for.

I expect you and I are in agreement about supporting gay marriage and the reasons for it. But attacking someone for considering both sides of a debate is not constructive

That men cannot give birth to children is not worthy of debate and is not sexual discrimination or an equal rights issue. Homosexuals are not equal to heterosexuals and never will be, as they of their union cannot create children to form a family.

Dear Philo,

Who told you that homosexuals cannot create children?

Do keep up with the times old chap - ask your GP.
He'll explain the facts of life to you.

Philo
do you believe infertile or impotent couples can be married?

TRUTHNOW78,

I wouldn't worry too much about your religious freedom if I were you. I refer you to Section 56 of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act 1977:

56 Religious bodies

Nothing in this Act affects:

(a) the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of any religious order,
(b) the training or education of persons seeking ordination or appointment as priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order,
(c) the appointment of any other person in any capacity by a body established to propagate religion, or
(d) any other act or practice of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.

See? You're safe. It's there in black and white in the law, and there's nowt any homosexuals can do about it save repealing the Act. And yes, this Act does only apply in NSW (where I live, which is why I pulled it up). But other States and Territories probably have similar exceptions in there anti-discrimination laws.

Acolyte Rizla

You’re quite correct. Churches are already free to put whatever conditions they choose on the people they marry. Some still don’t marry divorcees, others insist that couples are active worshippers, or that they agree to raise their children in the church tradition (though these promises are not always kept!).

No-one in Australia I know of has suggested that churches be compelled to marry gays – though I hope they choose to do so. This is a silly red herring. The issue is whether gays should be permitted by law to marry, whether in a church or a civil ceremony.

Rhian:

No, SS marriage should not prevail. It breaks down mainstream social cohesion by confusing the normal with the abnormal.

do you believe infertile or impotent couples can be married?
Rhian,
that is a pointless comparison.

kids losing out again to selfish adults

Rizla and Rihan ... Thank you. So nice to have calmer heads ... and research! We have similar laws in Victoria which allow churches to discriminate in areas where it conflicts with the practice of their religion and rituals, like hiring particular genders or religions.

We are not the UK or US, so none of those arguments hold any holy water. I assume very few same sex couples want to be married in a church. A majority of weddings now take place outside of churches and even out of doors.

Most couples want a ceremony that focuses on them. They want to face their friends, not turn their backs on them. They want their union witnessed by family and friends, not imaginary friends.

Marriage under the Australian Marriage Act is a binding legal contract. The ceremony to seal that contract should be about the couple, not religious dogma.

Marriage is not about procreation or gender. It is the formation of a small business of love, with two shareholders.

The Australian Marriage Act is quite a good document and has stood for 50 years. It's just that someone tightened the bolts on the definition of "marriage is between a man and a woman" a little too hard ... we need a bit of legislative WD-40!

"Statistics on divorce only prove the lack of commitment and prejudice of people in human relationships. It does not undermine the ideals of a good relationship of husband and wife and its input into family."

Posted by Philo, Thursday, 29 September 2011 10:46:22 AM

40-5% Divorce Rate smashes both your assertions, Philo.

Philo, your post yesterday - Thursday, 29 September 2011 7:04:29pm - used too many negative premises to provide a valid or sound conclusion. Besides, plenty of homosexuals a biological parents.

Thanks for that Rhian, and in some sense I do take your point about being seen to be antagonistic, however I disagree with your interpretation of the article as "balanced". Towards the end you will find Rev Kurti subtly mocking the Greens et al by taking their intentions in bad faith, viz "What is surprising, therefore, is that supporters of gay marriage now tell us that more people actually want to get married. The very institution widely dismissed as irrelevant ("It's just a piece of paper!") and roundly mocked is now top of the 'must-have' list for a significant minority of the Australian people". Trouble is, supporters of gay marriage have never "dismissed" the actual idea of marriage as irrelevant - they were merely saying that marriage is rendered irrelevant if it only applies to heterosexual couples. That is, he's putting words in their mouths.

Unfortunately it seems that conservative commentators in Australia, instead of explaining their positions properly, tend to stick to their "tradition" of conducting their arguments by positioning their own ideas as a priori gospel, and deliberately misinterperting the actions of the "other side". In responding to such arguments, I think it is incumbent on us not to get caught up in their way of doing things, but to call them on what they are doing by pointing out that the only way they could possibly think what they say they think is that it is a result of their "anxiety and repression". It's not an ad hominem - it's simple logical analysis.

But it doesn't have to be that way - and I actually think it's quite important to have an intelligent, informed debate between advocates of all persuasions on issues such as this. Oliver Hartwich for example often has some very sensible things to say, And you only need go to one of the CIS seminars and observe his discomfiture and embarrassment when wrapping up after a presentation from one of his colleagues to realise that he wishes they would be more sensible too.

For all of you good folk posting on this discussion, is it really any skin off your noses that gay people have as much right to have a legal life long partner? Would it not be better for all of us to mind our own business?, it is all very well to be smug and comfortable in a so-called conventional marriage, but why would you oppose people of the same sex wanting to spend their lives together. It should matter more that two people, whatever their sexual persuasion, are happy to legally spend their lives together, besides which it is none of anybody's business. So when you are sitting there, all fat and happy that your union of marriage is legal, spare a thought for those of the same sex are being discriminated against, just because they want a legal marriage with legal rights...to hell with Churches and there narrow minded conventions.
NSB

Individual
The question of infertile couples is not pointless to those who argue that the “point” of marriage is to raise children. There are Christians who believe that married couples who choose not to have children are not fulfilling their duty.

Diver Dan
How do you define “normal”? Homosexuality has existed in every culture and every age of human history, so far as we can tell. It may be less common than heterosexuality, but it is no more abnormal than left-handedness or shortness. In my view healthy social cohesion is undermined, not promoted, by discriminating against minorities in the interests of conformity and uniformity.

Sam Jandwich
Yes, there is a bit of a dig at the Greens in the article, and trying to summarise both sides of a debate can seem like putting words in other people’s mouths. I suspect none of us is capable of complete balance and impartiality, but I think Peter makes a reasonable effort at summarising the underlying sources of the disagreements between the two sides.

Dear Noisy Scrub Bird.

Most postings here have been in support. Also, I think it's not a question of supporting gays getting married so much as removing impediments to total marriage equality.

Bear in mind, marriage in Australia is a binding legal contract between two parties. You will also now have the right to a bitter and acrimonious divorce! Welcome to our world.

married couples who choose not to have children are not fulfilling their duty.
Rhian,
then they're not good Christians are they ? There is a hell of a difference between choosing not to have children & not being able to reproduce. Gays can't have children between themselves on biological grounds & that's fairly well known.
If a childless couple adopts a child & raises it is a normal family situation. There's nothing normal about two daddies or Mommies. Some might think it alright but we have yet to see some evidence of the result of such an upbringing not on an individual basis but on the basis of a whole society.

LOL, Individual ... you crack me up.

There is also nothing normal about a Christian man and a woman having children simply because their imaginary friend tells them too, either!

"Go forth and multiply!" As if there aren't enough unwanted children and uncontrolled population already! Are you just trying to beat the Muslims, Jews or Mormons at their own game? I have a few gay male friends who had children naturally with women as far back as the 70s! Just because you prefer a male partner doesn't mean the equipment doesn't work! Lots of lesbian couples have been having children by natural and artificial insemination for decades!

I would believe a child wanted and loved by a gay couple is much preferable to a number of children in a heterosexual who are just tolerated in the name of a god.

LOL, Individual ... you crack me up.
Randall,
not my fault if you don't understand.

McReal,
Your 40 - 5 % only verifies my point about poor and immature choices in human relationships.

Noisy Scrub Bird
Said "To hell with Churches and there narrow minded conventions".
NSB marriage is not exclusive to Christian Churches otherwise Homosexuals would not want to identify with such. Marriage has always been recognised as between a man and a woman in every society and religion.

To persons who want to live together as lovers are free to do so in our society and none are denying of their rights. However it is not worthy of a Government registration; unless from that union they may produce children.

That Homosexuals have children is a denial that their lover is the maternal parent (mother) of the child. It is evidence they are fertile and have had a hetrosexual relationship.

Well, if gays and lesbians can't have children because of biological reasons, do we deny hetero couples access to IVF or adoption to fulfill a basic human need?

Having children is not about sexual preference. It's also not about religion.

I wish the church and government would just leave our vaginas and penises alone.

And how do you account for a lot of gay men being interfered with as boys by priests and religions pedos? Some say their decision stems from there. Are you recruiting?

Equality for all Australians. For Everything

Randall,
When two men or two women in an exclusive union can give birth to children then and only then will they have equality and rights. Rights to produce ovum or male sperm is not the responsibility of Church or Government. Get informed to natural reality! Recognise the difference that nature has designed and it includes wombs and vaginas, no Church or Government designed such natural accruements for the procreation of the species.

Love alone is not the basis of procreation, or are homosexuals ignorant of sexual reality. Marriage is the basis of a biological reality of family - mother and father.

Bulls hit, Phil ... How many single mothers have there been in history? Are they illegitimate as well as their children? Does a woman have to have a husband to procreate? I know many women who would rather have a turkey baster than a snoring, farting, selfish husband.

The church and government have been meddling in wombs forever. Do women really believe they have rights over their own bodies? Some women in some countries aren't even HUMAN! They can't even travel unless in the company of a man!

Do men and women who have had children in a monogamous heterosexual marriage have to give them up if choosing to join an exclusively homosexual partner? Where on Gulag Australia do you and your mates plan to keep these children?

Biology/physiology is almost as silly a subject to introduce to the Marriage Equality debate as religion. It is purely a question of Australian legal and equal rights.

Philo,

If 'marriage is the basis of a biological reality of family', does that mean the children of my unmarried friends don't really exist?

The Acolyte Rizla,
As I have stated previously Marriage is the exclusive sexual UNION of a man and a woman - it is the act that has been consented to and committed to exclusively for whole of life.

That some prefer not to publicly formalise or register that exclusive union does not change the fact of their union. Children are born of that union is obvious and is now considered as equal to those who formalise and register that exclusive union.

However many have children merely after a one night union without undertaking any contractual arrangement. This is the problem in modern society. Many do not name the father of the child, is a break down in social responsibility to the child.

That some homosexuals have children means one parent is not considered in the union that has produced that child, if the other same sex partner is now called mum or dad.

Philo,

Marriage need not necessarily be a sexual union. If you take the time to examine the Marriage Act (I have), you'll find that sexual intimacy is not a requirement of a valid marriage. For example, two asexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality) individuals could marry for financial reasons, without ever having a sexual relationship - and as long as they were of different sexes and above 18 their marriage would be entirely valid.

So we have established:

(1) Marriage is not sexual intercourse or reproduction, nor is marriage dependent on sexual intercourse or reproduction.

(2) Sexual intercourse and reproduction are not marriage, nor are they dependent on marriage.

Given (1) & (2), is it really reasonable to insist that the capacity for unassisted sexual reproduction should be a defining feature of marriage?

As for your argument about the children of homosexual couples being raised sans one biological parent: firstly, homosexuals already enjoy the same parenting rights as heterosexuals, so this argument isn't relevant to a debate about their right to get married. And not all homosexual couples will choose to become parents - why should those with no intention of having kids be denied the right to marry because of how they will raise their non-existent children? It just doesn't make sense. And secondly, given the vast number of individuals raised without one or both biological parents (from divorce, adoption or the death of a parent) without any adverse impacts, I would argue strongly that what matters most in a parent-child relationship is not shared DNA, but rather the quality of the parenting. If shared DNA is what matters, then surely children raised without access to either biological parent would fare the worst of all. But the only one I know is a lovely chap who runs his own business and has raised three fine sons. I can only assume that this is because his unrelated parents raised him with the same devotion that they would give to a biological son. I see no reason why unrelated homosexual parents would not do the same for their children.

The Acolyte Rizla,
How does an infant boy raised by two men relate intimately with a mother in times of emotional need? How does his intimate relationship with women develop? if they are just casual friends? Such childhood distorts the reality of what is a natural relationship with a mother.

How do girls going through pubity relate to men if they are just casual relationships and not intimate fatherly affection?

There is only one ideal and it is not single parenting of two of the same gender raising children. Children need two parents of opposite gender to be able to relate to both sexes naturally.

Philo,

If 'children need two parents of opposite gender to be able to relate to both sexes naturally', why is it that I (raised by both my happily married biological parents) have a much harder time relating to women than my friends raised in single parent households? If the gender of the parents was what was important, I would do fine and they would struggle, so clearly this cannot be the issue. I put it to you that children learn to relate from the opposite sex from so many different sources that a lack of instruction from one parent will not significantly impact on their ability to do so.

Post script:

What does any of the above have to do with gay marriage? As I said previously, many gay couples will choose not to have children. How can arguments about parenting abilities be considered applicable to people who aren't even going to have kids? Why should these couples be prevented from getting married?

The Acolyte Rizla,
At every celebration of marriage of a young couple there is always the expectation they will have from their sexual union - children. That is what being husband and wife means. "I take thee to be my lawfully wedded husband / wife." What is unlawful is to be having sex with someone else any other form of relationship is not unlawful. Symbolic signs of fertility from the union are showered upon them by the guests. The couples I know who do not have children demonstrate unfulfilled human instincts, and insular seflfishness.

Sorry ... this is just getting too seriously weird for me. Deal me out

Philo,

YOU might expect married couples to have children when they tie the knot, but most people do not. Most of us are blessed with sufficient sense of propriety to realise that it's not our business how other people conduct their lives (unless they engage in criminal behaviour, and not having children isn't criminal behaviour - it's not even immoral).

You obviously haven't been to a wedding in a while, because the tradition of throwing rice is long dead. There is a belief that the rice kills birds (supposedly it swells up in their stomach and makes them explode), but it sounds like an urban myth to me. However, it is an indisputable fact that both rice and confetti are right buggers to clean up, so a lot of churches and wedding venues ban them. These days the tradition is to blow soap bubbles at the newlyweds, which are symbolic of precisely bugger all but which look nice and don't need to be vacuumed up after the ceremony.

You're fond of generalisations, aren't you? You do realise that they're frequently inaccurate and best avoided, don't you? Not all humans have an instinct to have children. I certainly don't. It follows that if a couple choose not to have children, they're not necessarily demonstrating 'unfulfilled human instincts' - they may not have the child-rearing instinct which you erroneously ascribe to all of mankind. I put it to you that they simply not fulfilling YOUR instinct to have children - which is fair enough, considering that they are not you. And your narrow-minded and insulting description of such couples as 'selfish' merely serves to demonstrate your intolerance and outright contempt for anybody who does not agree with your beliefs, indicating a level of arrogance bordering on the narcissistic.

And all of this has nowt to do with gay marriage. Do try to stick to the debate at hand - surely it can't be that difficult?

Gays have nought to do with marriage as they are incapable of natural reproductive sex. Their sexual relationships have never in any society been considered marriage.

My wife and I operated a large Function Centre on behalf of our Church that could cater for 350 guests, for the last five years where at least 60 weddings took place. We have attended several weddings of family members, young people at Church and friends recently. All anticipated family or married because they expected family. Most were blessed with prayers for fertility. At least four young marrieds from the Church have had assistance with IVF and one actually works in an IVF laboritory.

Philo,

We have already (8 posts previously) established that:

(1) Marriage is not sexual intercourse or reproduction, nor is marriage dependent on sexual intercourse or reproduction.

(2) Sexual intercourse and reproduction are not marriage, nor are they dependent on marriage.

In short, natural reproductive sex has nowt to do with marriage and vice-versa. So why drag it into the debate?

As for their sexual relationships never having been considered marriage before: so what? Things change, and the argument that 'but this is how we've always done things' is unsound - just because one way of doing things is traditional, it doesn't make it better. I am sure when they outlawed slavery, gave women the vote, ended capital punishment etc., there'd have been people arguing that they shouldn't because nobody had ever done so before. But those people were wrong, because appeals to tradition don't make for sound arguments.

Just because you know some couples who marry with the intention of having children, it does not follow that all couples do. And of course, members of any given Christian denomination do not constitute a representative sample of married couples. I suspect if you examined a more representative sample of newlyweds, you'd find that only some of them (quite possibly a minority) married with the intention of raising a family. There are a plethora of reasons for marrying, and reproduction is only one of them. And it should be noted that any reproduction taking place with IVF assistance is an unnatural form sexual reproduction, and that it is equally unnatural whether it is undergone by heterosexual women or lesbians. Of course, the fact that it is unnatural doesn't make it a bad thing.

The Acolyte Rizla,
Marriage is neither a tradition nor a ceremony. Marriage has always been seen as the exclusive santioned sexual act between a man and a woman committed for life, and from which legitimate children are born into family. Never anything else. Adultery (or any other male female sex) can produce children but they are not part of the legitimate family. It has never been seen merely as a contract to love by persons of the same gender, except by the gay community.

Philo,

Is a "legitimate" person biologically different to an "illegitimate" person?

Marriage is not a sexual (biological) act - it is a social act.

Legitimacy is a social construct.

End

Poirot,
Is a "legitimate" person biologically different to an "illegitimate" person?

NO!

The difference is they are not part of that genetic family. An established scientific fact.

It is not a marriage without a sexual union. The vows are taken to express their marriage union is an exclusive sexual (biological) act. That exclusivity recognised by society as legitimate.

Look, Phil ...

All marriage, weddings, civil unions or ritual bonding in this country ... whatever you want to call it ... is under Australian Law as covered by the Marriage Act of 1961.

This is a Commonwealth decree which makes marriage a legal binding contract between two people. That is all. There is no mention of sex beyond the definition of gender ... a man and a woman ... that is what is going to be changed to simply read "Two People."

So long at the couple are over 18 and in this country legally, file a notice that they intend to marry at least 32 days prior, they may be married. It has nothing to do with sexual acts or genetics!

It is about the law of the Australian Commonwealth and The States, not the law of nature, god, jehovah, moronai, buddah, Mendle or Darwin.

I don't know what church you belong to, buy I don't know how you can worship with your head so far up your own asss! Get a grip, Phil ... you are a lone voice ... persistent, but alone.

The Commonwealth "marriage act" is not marriage nor the ceremony or vows that brings marriage into force. Marriage is the agreed exclusive human sexual relationship between a man and a woman; the contract is to protect the union and each other and their offspring.

The law is not the marriage nor the exchange of agreement, the same as in exchange of property, the contract (Law) or the document of exchange is not the posession but the exclusive rights to the property as consented and agreed by both parties. The Law covers an act and the documentation merely covers the actual act. The term "Marriage Act" in Commonwealth law covers the action; it of itself is not the marriage. The marriage is the lifelong relationship invisaged in the exclusive sexual union. Love relationships without sexual union can be lifelong and committed but they are not marriage. Marriage is union of male and female bodies to form one completed human (X and Y factor) that being a sexual relationships to each other.

Any configuration of a human relationship based merely on love for each other is merely a human construct, then the term "marriage" does not apply. Some societies within Australia allow marriage to 9 and 10 year old girle to older men. That is merely a human construct, but not fully concentual by the child and made by the mature mind of a child and she is not natural of childbearing age.

Marriage is more than a human construct it is a divine principle that a responsible society does for the protection, security and harmony of the society.

LOL ... you see if your exclusive sexual union stands up in court as opposed to a legal marriage under the Marriage Act, Phil ... you really must have come down in the last shower.

The contract covers the act the same as possesion of property is covered by an agreement. The contract is not the act of posession, similarly with marriage the contract is not the marriage, but merely a symbolic written definition of the actual marriage.

You are obsessed with laws and not the reality that the laws cover. Typical immature law student - Reality is not laws. Laws merely cover a reality.

Typical response of a myopic fundamentalist. I am neither young nor a student of law. I am a 58 year old pragmatist, a Humanist and married for 34 years with 3 almost adult children.

You, on the other hand, believe the world is only 4,500 years old, evolution is the work of Satan, everyone was killed in a flood 3,500 years ago (actually a tidal effect caused by the Minoan eruption) and that in the Rapture (or whatever you call it), the faithful will physically rise to Heaven. Alas, Babylon!

Please, Phil ... you may be on some mission for some god, but the self-righteousness is killing us!

Good luck to you ... and your poor, long suffering female sexual union partner.

Randall,
I am a 71 year old Grandfather of four almost adult children. Married to a committed wife.

Sorry mate!
I am not a fundamentalist as you imagine.
I do not believe in a Young Earth theory.
I do not believe in a being of Satan. In fact I have written volumes against the current Catholic concept of such, all defended by scriptural text.
I DO believe in a widespread flood in the Indus Valley 3,500 years ago.
I do not believe in a restoration of Eden or a physical bodily resurrection.

You said "Please, Phil ... you may be on some mission for some god, but the self-righteousness is killing us!"

Is that a flag of SURRENDER?

By the way I am not the author Phil!

Philo,

If it is only the action that matters and the law is of so little consequence, why are you so threatened by the possibility of a minor change to a law which you freely acknowledge has no meaning or importance?

The Acolyte Rizla,
You want to redefine the term of the act of marriage between a man and a woman to mean the same as any sexual relationship of person over the age of 18 to include homosexuality.

Marriage is the only term to define an exclusive lifelong sexual relationship between a man and a woman. Homosexuality does not define that term, nor is homosexuality defined by the term marriage.

The law defines and identifies terms for the protection of the parties involved.

Philo,

So the law does matter after all? Can you do me a favour, and make up your bloody mind?