Ummm... isn't that what is under discussion here, Philo?

>>Perciles, Please identify what has constituted a marriage recognised by society other than a union of a man and a woman.<<

I assume that you mean "historically". Implying that we should not consider anything that has not previously been sanctioned by society.

Newsflash: society is ever-changing, and it follows that society's guidelines for peaceful, healthy, tolerant coexistence should change as well. Clearly you don't believe this to be a valid position, so equally clearly we will never agree.

Which is perfectly fine by me.

Still no observations on the Marriage Act, I notice.

Pericles,
The "marriage act" is a piece of paper supposedly defining the reality of marriage. The reality is and always has been that marriage is the lifelong productive union between a man (husband) and a woman (wife) that envisages offspring in their likness.

Any alteration by any society to their view of its meaning homosexuality is biologically meaningless. Ask any person following family tree on who married who to produce the offspring. I repeat for the umpteenth time Marriage is a biological term. Though some want it to mean a different idea, and the act to define it differently.

Philo,

Marriage (between two people) is a sociological term.

Exactly, the biological term for reproduction is 'sex'. We, huamns, put a construct around the union of two people and called it 'marriage'.

Regardless of the history, regardless of what it has meant, we are looking at what it should mean now. The "it's always been this way" it not reason for something to be, it's an excuse to try and avoid change.

Marriage is a committment and union of two people, if you want to belive it has something to do with the creation of children - then great, it might mean that to YOU but to many others it doesn't. At it's core it's about a commitment and union of two people. Denying homosexual people the right to express their commitment in this way in front of friends, family and the state is just so absurd.

As I said before, if you believe homosexuals getting married in some way threatens your marriage or the right to get married then you sir have far more serious issues.

Zapo,
Obviously you guys live in a different biological society where the reality of gender is irrelevant. Humans in a gender union (that is male and female) relate biologically to form a complete human being of X and Y chromosomes.

That females may fertilize themselves is supported by the 5,000 BC Biblical text of Genesis in that the first human contained both X and Y chromosomes. That at the seperation of the sexes, as we recognise, males do not have the capacity to conceive and nurture offspring. By uniting them in marriage it forms the whole human unit. They become one, which what union means and what marriage means.

I've lost the ability to continue this discussion on the grounds that I value my sanity.

Good luck to the next person who wants to 'debate' the issue with Philo.