That first assertion of yours (unlike most) intrigued me though, individual…

"In Malaysia a man & a woman can not marry if one is not muslim." And whilst I haven't had time to get all the way through to the end of the statute a second time I thought I should check that I'm looking in the right place with "LAWS OF MALAYSIA, Act 164, LAW REFORM (MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE) ACT 1976, Incorporating all amendments up to 1 January 2006" because so far I have found nothing to substantiate your claim.

But this did surprise and impress me because its effect could be argued as the reverse of what you said…

“51. (1) Where one party to a marriage has converted to Islam, the other party who has not so converted may petition for divorce: Provided that no petition under this section shall be presented before the expiration of the period of three months from the date of the conversion.
(2) The Court upon dissolving the marriage may make provision for the wife or husband, and for the support, care and custody of the children of the marriage, if any, and may attach any conditions to the decree of the dissolution as it thinks fit.”

Well, looks like humble pie for me today but my friends who have actually gone through that tell me otherwise. Two very close mates had to convert to islam before they were permitted to get married to their Malay muslim ladies.

There was me thinking Aussies who can't find a partner Australia, go to the Phillipines or Thailand.

Kipp,
Sad eh? Unfortunately males & females outnumber men & women here.

David, you have quite the obsession with bodily apertures. Which I think may be quite significant - but more on that later.

You're deliberately obfuscating now. You initially claimed that marriage 'is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together'. Marriages that do not, it would then appear, are by your criteria unfulfilled. The simple fact remains that an infertile couple cannot have children, even if they intend to. Perhaps such a marriage should be annulled post-facto?

Leaving that aside, what of a marriage where one or the other partner knows full well that they cannot ever have children - where the male, perhaps, has had a vasectomy? Should that be forbidden?

On the other hand, what of a transgender person who is legally male, yet able to bear children? Indeed, it is not unfeasible that in the future, medical science may make if possible for a male to bear children. Should such a male homosexual couple be allowed to marry? Or if medical technology makes it possible for a lesbian woman to conceive using the gamete of her female partner?

The reason I am pursuing this line of argument so doggedly is because I suspect it is merely an argument of convenience, used to give a veneer of pseudo-rationality to what is nothing more than irrational dislike of homosexuals.

Which is where I find your lingering ponderances on bodily apertures somewhat suggestive. Flamboyantly homosexual British comedian Julian Clary was once asked why he made so many jokes about anal sex. He replied that it was because it seemed obvious to him that anti-gay hatred was largely motivated by prejudiced disgust at homosexual sex. By making fun of it, he hoped, much of the homophobes' prejudice might be defused.

Thanks, David, for your clarity of thought and a well argued article.

I have a friend who married a twin. We sometimes ask him jokingly how he chose this girl ahead of her identical sister. He answers that he wasn’t too fussed, he would have married either. This gets me wondering that if the lobby group that wants to change our marriage laws gets their way, then would it be possible for my friend to have the laws also changed in his favour so that he could marry both of those girls.

If a man loves two sisters can he marry the two sisters? If not, why not?

I often find when I ask this of atheists or others supporting this push to change the marriage laws, I’m usually met with silence. Maybe I’ll get some reasoned argument coming back at me this time.