Philo,

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

Under your logic and system, infertile couples shouldn't be married. They fail your criteria as I have explained to you before.

Using some of the logic already divined on this topic:

Divorced people should not be allowed to marry. Marriage is supposed to be a life commitment and they had their chance and failed. Under the conditions set by the terms of marriage they have negated their contract and thus should be deemed as a bankrupt and unable to pursue similar contracts again.

Couples who are infertile or who choose not to have children should be banned from marriage.

:)

"a fanatic irrational thinker"

Great! that gave me a good chuckle, thanks!

Just to stir the pot a bit more, just say at some point in the future same sex couples (say 2 women) decide to have a baby using the ovum from one woman and sperm from the other. We can even throw in a bit of monogamous sex just for fun. Well we now have 2 parents, each contributing DNA to produce a child in a monogamous relationship. I know that you will not understand any of this, perhaps yelling BLASPHEMY at you computer screen, but try and learn something new today.

Integration-Free iPS Cells Engineered Using Human Artificial Chromosome Vectors.
Hiratsuka M, Uno N, Ueda K, Kurosaki H, Imaoka N, Kazuki K, Ueno E, Akakura Y, Katoh M, Osaki M, Kazuki Y, Nakagawa M, Yamanaka S, Oshimura M.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21998730

Spontaneous differentiation of germ cells from human embryonic stem cells in vitro. Hum. Mol. Genet. (2004) 13 (7): 727-739.
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/7/727.short

Oh and if this is too difficult, perhaps you could try addressing the massive holes in your 'children is marriage' argument. btw, do children get to decide if they want to be a part of this marriage, or is it classed under 'forced marriage'?

Stezza,
To demonstrate the irrational thinker you are, read again what you have said, "(say 2 women) decide to have a baby using the ovum from one woman and sperm from the other". Obviously you have no idea of human reproduction. Since when have women produced sperm? That is naturally.

Philo,

So if the Marriage Act 1961 is of no importance when it comes to defining marriage, why does it bother you so much if it is changed? If the Marriage Act 1961 is, as you argue it to be, of no consequence; how on earth can any changes to said Act be of any consequence?

The Marriage Act 1961 either matters, or it does not matter - it cannot simultaneously both matter and not matter; that's a logical impossibility. So which is it to be?

Philo,

I though I might confuse you. Anyway, the answer to your question is....since 1994.

Did you read the papers I referenced? To break it down for you...

Induced pluripotent stem (IPS) cells are similar to embryonic stem cells in that they can generate any cell type in the adult body, including sperm. Unlike embryonic stem cells IPS cells can be generated from a skin sample of any person. Therefore, women can generate sperm.

I know I shouldn't bother, you are having enough trouble adjusting to reality without me pointing out all of the 'scary' events you haven't even thought about yet.

Hoe about you just try and refute my argument from my first post, and then go from there?

BTW, what sort of rational thinker believes in a magic invisible friend in the sky anyway?