"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.