Stezza,
So now you are telling me an artificial transplant of test tube generated female sperm is equivalent to natural human sexual intercourse (marriage).

Where are the human experiments of this proceedure? Oviously breeding more gays and sexless beings, who despise men. Where are the homosexual men able to breed? Obviously this proceedure denies them your equivalent marriage of the sexes. Total discrimination against homosexual men and their equal rights to breed. Perhaps they can use the bowel?

Philo,

So now you are telling me that natural human sexual intercourse is equivalent to marriage. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I've had natural human sexual intercourse 5 times in the past week. Not once have I married the girl, nor do I have any intention of doing so. If men married every woman they shagged and vice-versa, polygamy would be rife in this country. But it's not, so I guess you're wrong (again).

Now I know we've already been over this point before, but I'm willing to repeat myself for the hard-of-thinking (it's not as if you can help being intellectually disabled): everything you wrote in your last post is NOT RELEVANT. And arguments which are NOT RELEVANT are NEVER PERSUASIVE. Bearing that in mind, do you think you can now answer my question about the importance (or lack thereof) of the Marriage Act 1961, without meandering off on some irrelevant tangent?

Please note that I don't care which way you decide. I just want you to display some consistency and courage in your convictions, and not radically shift ground every time somebody points out that the particular argument you're advancing is unsound.

The Acolyte Rizla,
I'll say one word, "UNION" understand what it means. Any dumb plumber knows what it means.

Philo,

I already know what it means.

Union: the action of joining together or the fact of being joined together, especially in a political context.

I'm still at a bit of a loss as to what it has to with plumbing outside of the Plumbing Trades Employees Union (PTEU).

And you're still being irrelevant and avoiding my question. I rather suspect that you're being irrelevant deliberately to avoid answering my question, because you can't adequately answer my question.

The Acolyte Rizla,
No! you are absolutely ignorant of the facts of marriage. Marriage is the excluive union of one man and a woman for life, it always has been always will be.

Philo,

"Marriage is the excluive union of one man and a woman for life, it always has been always will be."

In that case, it doesn't matter what the Marriage Act 1961 says - marriage has always been and always will be the exclusive union of one and one woman for life, regardless of what the law may say.

So why do you argue so vehemently against changes to the law?