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.