Stezza,
The legal documentation merely identifies and protects the cultural and the real. The laws are not themselves the reality. Recognise the reality. The reality is only a man and a woman form the human union which is identified as marriage. This includes de facto relationships. The reason for keeping records is because offspring from the relationship need to be protected and cared for. There does not need to be marriage laws covering same sex relationships as no children are produced from the relationship. Children are then produced by adultery by a their party to the relationship. This then would need laws covering polygamy as three persons are involved in the family that might have responsibility for thr children, or more if several mothers or fathers are involved.

Philo,

"I assumed the meals were produced hot after been eaten 24 hours earlier. However children are not produced from the same oven."

O....kay. Just what sort of psychedelics have you been abusing, Philo?

"This includes de facto relationships."

No it doesn't - otherwise they'd be called marriages and not de facto relationships.

"The reason for keeping records is because offspring from the relationship need to be protected and cared for."

And the all the offspring born out of wedlock should be subject to infanticide? I don't know what weirdo cult you belong to Philo, but where I come from even Christians believe that ALL children should be protected and cared for - even those whose folks don't have a marriage certificate.

Philo,

I will not respond to your mention of children, as it has been repeatedly proven to you that children and marriage are unrelated as far a the law is concerned.

"The legal documentation merely identifies and protects the cultural and the real."

Does this mean the laws are in place to protect your cultural understanding of marriage? No church would be forced to recognize SSM, so this law functions to enforce your cultural understanding onto the rest of society. Is this what you want?

"The reality is only a man and a woman form the human union which is identified as marriage."
Circular argument - Men and women get married, therefore men and men cannot marry, because only men and women get married. Understand?

"This then would need laws covering polygamy as three persons are involved in the family that might have responsibility for thr children, or more if several mothers or fathers are involved."
So if someone's grandparents wish to help look after a child we would need a 4-way marriage allowing incest? See how your children argument does not stand up to even a second of scrutiny?

How about you debate the facts of marriage? See the potential ramifications of same sex marriage on our society:

http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/a_pie_chart_detailing_same-sex_marriage/

The Acolyte Rizla,
You are truly an irrational thinker. For the State de facto relationships are considered equal to marriage especially where children are involved because their relationship in reality is a marriage.

Stezza,
You are a fanatic irrational thinker. Grandparents are not a part of a sexual union within the relationship of marriage. Neither are carers of children a part of the sexual union of the marriage.

If children are born to same sex couples then obviously other persons of opposite sex have been involved in the marriage and the child has a right to know its parents, so would need laws covering polygamy as extra persons are involved in the sexual union of the marriage. MARRIAGE THEN INVOLVES A SEXUAL UNION OF BOTH SEXES.

Philo,

Marriages are defined by the Marriage Act 1961:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/

De facto relationships are defined by Section 4AA of the Family Law Act 1975:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fla1975114/s4aa.html

If you read the links, you'll find that marriage and de facto relationships are not the same thing, even if they do share some common properties. For example, a de facto relationship can exist even if one of the persons is legally married to someone else or in another de facto relationship - but you can't be married to more than one person at a time.

Another big difference is that the Marriage Act 1961 unreasonably discriminates against gay couples, whilst the Family Law Act 1975 does not. The debate is about whether or not the Marriage Act 1961 should discriminate against gay couples. Thus far, you have failed to provide a single persuasive argument as to why it should. Perhaps if you stuck to the topic at hand instead of waffling on with irrelevant nonsense it might help.

Marriage has always been a biological union of a husband and wife that in a healthy union produces a genetic family; in other words it is and can only be a sexual union of a man and a woman and for the children is best served for life.

Any same sexual union is not a marriage of the sexes and does not produce children. Your belief that marriage is merely a legal contract between two persons of adult age does not define a marriage. It is the act of the two genders becoming one human flesh. TWO GENDERS BECOME ONE HUMAN FLESH! They complement each other in completeness.