Well Suze, the struggle between good and evil is age-old, and harsh penalties were once commonplace, with fear of retribution as prime deterrent. From dark ages into light, religious belief has been an alternative deterrent, through fear of punishment in the hereafter, and the question still remains, whether people are genetically predisposed in one direction or the other, or if environment is the key factor, or a combination of both. It may simply be that societal expectation carries the greatest influence on behaviour, and with reduced, more flexible expectations, and more lenient penalties for transgression, we now have a free-er society, with a concurrent blurring of boundaries, and greater cognisance of extenuation, of excuses, of blame-shifting.

Position and wealth continue to influence treatment and outcomes, and time was when some Wall Street financiers would have been burned at the stake. True equality does not, and may never exist, but we have to ask ourselves what vision we hold for the future - should some social expectations be sacrosanct and immutable, or should the word of law be all that keeps us accountable?

Rizla intimates that the meaning of marriage is simply evolving, and that there should be no hindrance to its continued evolution, as though majority will or usage rather than social implications should be the sole determinent of worth. I would refute this, on the basis that ill usage is insufficent cause to abandon the underlying objectives and principles behind the vows of marriage - as the fundamental foundation of society, of family, and of perpetuation.

Any number of freedoms may be tolerated, and may even become commonplace, as long as they do not undermine societal stability or generate intollerable uncertainty. Gay marriage is a borderline issue, but one which threatens to marginalise and undermine the foundation of marriage as a societal norm, and as such the exception should not make the rule.

Loveless marriages, Suze, were surely entered too lightly or in haste, in the main, and perhaps a squeaky wheel is insufficient cause to abandon the whole waggon?

Philo,

For someone who is not supposed to judge others... you sure seem to do a lot of judging!

When you stated "What Gays do in their relationships is not marry, but pervert a natural sexual act.", have you showed your true colours?

Can you simply ignore, that with their partners they love, respect, are companions to, care for, share the lives of etc. etc. just as heterosexuals do?

You forget all the nice, loving stuff and restrict your comment to their bedrooms.

For an alleged Christian you sure break a lot of your alleged saviour Jesus' teachings.

Do you need to self-assess Philo? Are you showing signs of an ugly bigotry?

I think you have just become irrelevant, again!

Opinionated2,
If you think that shuving penises up bums is not a perversion of a natural sexual act then you are mistaken about nature.

Saltpetre,

I refute that the underlying objectives and principles behind the act of matrimony (the vows are merely words, entirely subject to the will of the people involved) are the fundamental foundation of society, of family and of perpetuation. I contend that the fundamental foundation of any society is the sum total - not merely the married couples - of individuals within it. I contend that marriage is not necessary for the perpetuation of the species, as evidenced by (a) the vast number of children born out of wedlock and (b) the vast number (i.e. all of them) of species aside from Homo sapiens sapiens which don't get married and still, miraculously, somehow manage to perpetuate themselves. And I contend that family is a devilishly tricky bugger to pin down, but one which certainly transcends the boundaries of mere genetic relationship - for who but the most clinical and cold-hearted of men could deny that an adoptive child is truly a member of his adopting family?

How does gay marriage threaten to "undermine foundation of marriage as a societal norm"? I very much doubt heterosexuals will stop getting married if they start letting gays married. I could be wrong, of course, but I'm a betting man - what say we put a wager on it? I'll bet my right cerebral hemisphere that the legalisation of gay marriage will have no statistically significant impact on the incidence of heterosexual marriage. What say you?

I feel I should point out that the exception does not 'make' the rule. The exception proves the rule - but not in the vernacular sense, which is presumably where you've gotten confused. The archaic meaning of 'prove' is to test, e.g. 'to prove one's worth' meant to test one's worth rather than to demonstrate one's worth. The exception does not make the rule, but rather tests the rule (which makes a lot more sense). And in this case, the rule against homosexuals getting married has been found wanting.

TBC

Continued

Philo,

Todgers in the tradesman's entrance is NOT a perversion of a natural sexual act - it IS a natural sexual act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Unless, of course, one chooses to discount current zoological knowledge, or one operates on a very different definition of 'natural' to the rest of the English speaking world. The latter seems most likely, given your previous difficulties with the subtleties of our glorious language.

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

The law is not marriage the same as an exchange of property contract (Law) is not the document of exchange but the exclusive rights to the property as concented 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 is not the action.

If any configuration of a human relationship beased merely on love for each other is merely a human construct, then the term "marriage" does not apply; as 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.