Hey, hey, Philo,

Marriage is a mechanism for the legitimisation or formalisation of a "social" union. It's not a sexual (biological) union.

I agree, you don't need to be a Christian or even agnostic to disagree with same sex marriage, you just need to want to deny what would be a fundamental human right, Raymond Gaita said it best:

"What they (gay people) want is a recognition of the dignity of their sexuality and that is being denied to them. Given how fundamental sexuality is to our sense of what it is to be human, it is not an exaggeration to say, I think, that it's a denial of their full humanity"

By denying gay people access to such a traditional social mechanism as marriage you are sending a terrible message to gay people - and reaffirming the people who believe homosexuality is abhorrent and that opens up to sooo many social issues, bullying at schools, discrimination, psychical violence etc.

Zapo,
All the school bullies, discrimination, psychical violence etc are not going to cease just because gays get the law changed to "two persons of 18 years of age" as their definition of marriage.

What defines a marriage?
“Cleave to thee only, till death do us part” is the essential clause in the marriage vows. Violation of that vow by sexual unfaithfulness breaks the trust and loyalty to the partner to whom it is made.

The reason being if children result from the relationship they all share in the demonstration of love, loyalty and affection lost for each other in that unfaithful act. How is the marriage violated? It is violated by a casual adulterous relationship. It is a sexual act that violates the vow. From what I know of gays they are happy to have casual sexual relationships even if in long term relationships with one partner because no loyalty is broken and pregnancy resultant; this may not be so in heterosexual casual relationships.

Philo

As per my comments to you on a previous post, of course bullying, and discrimination are not going to stop by this and this alone - this is no magic bullet. Instead it's going to be stopped by a number of social reforms and updated thinking.

I think trust and caring are integral to a relationship and by extension to marriage, so I have no arugment there.

Philo, oh dear Philo. I find your overwhelmingly generalist and baseless comments about gay relationships offensive, bigoted and backwards. This is absolute rubbish.

Given the divorce rate is so high perhaps this is happening in heterosexual relationships as well?? You elevate them oh so high, yet like anything HUMAN they can be flawe. I don't have the authority, nor would I wnat it to defend ANY group of people heterosexuals or homosexuals alike and say that neither group cheat and lie, but it's absurd to think that there aren't gay couples who would get married and who would take the vows and commitment seriously. Also, perhaps by not allowing homosexual marriage you are just pushing homosexuals into relationships where there isn't that sense of commitment because the government sees their relationships as less valid?? I'm confused.

Philo,

You STILL haven't answered my question: if the Marriage Act 1961 doesn't matter, why do changes to said Act matter? This is the 3rd time I've raised this question, and still you refuse to answer. Frankly, that's just pathetic. And the only conclusions I can draw from your silence are that you are either too soft in the cock or too soft in the head to answer a very simple question. Maybe if you attempted some sort of answer I could form different conclusions, but for the time being you're just making yourself even more contemptible.

'Henceforth all creatures have no standing be they of the same or opposite gender and if a legal union is sort it has no legal status as the Legislation of The Marriage Act exists'.OMG just where did the scribe get his mind from please?
Yes we all use English however look at the root of it/open your minds.
Legal intent is one thing,however application and exact human issues are not the same nor couched in that context even though it applies to humanity.
Divorce/marraige/birth/death.All reqiure legal frameworks under our laws.Gender-specificity is being used as a political arguement of fear and not as rights for all.Gender orientation comes with birth, so this scribe trolls along the male+female=homosexuality due to their procreation methods?What crap logic is that?
If the law grants equal rights;so be it. It is not couched from general humanity,but patriarcial past persons who ruled with fear & brainwashing.Not so now.Do permit same gender to marry.What right do you the scribe have to say. 'No'?