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.