Thanks for your article, David. It's good to see an article that takes some heat out of the debate and presents a rational argument.

In particular, I appreciated the point that the inevitable imperfections of individual marriages - divorce, spousal death, infertility, etc - is not a case to deviate even further from the institutional reality of marriage.

In fact, these imperfections should lead us to strengthen marriage, not radically revise it.

Thanks to all for taking the trouble to comment.

Clownfish says, “We also see here the old canard about marriage being about bearing and raising children. So, what does David have to say about heterosexual marriages that are childless entirely by choice? Not an insignificant number, judging by statistics that suggest as many as 20% of women in some western countries today are childless.”

Well marriage is about bearing and raising children, without this occurring none of us including Clownfish would exist. I think the fact that 20% of women in some western countries today are childless, if it is a fact, is incredibly sad and may also be the reason why those same western countries are now in demographic decline.

I more or less agree with progressive pat’s comments. For the record 5 years ago I wrote in support of Victoria’s relationship register act which allows homosexual and caring couples to register their relationships.

Kipp writes, “When bigotry is used to denigrate gay people, then gay people will respond” – so you read something you don’t like and respond by labelling the writer a bigot. Actually in this matter I wrote as a religious person, a Christian, in support of the status quo on marriage whereas it is the homosexual lobby and fellow travellers trying to impose their (new) understanding of marriage on the rest of us.

Back to Clownfish, you are right that there is no record of Jesus Christ dealing explicitly with homosexuality but there is no record that he spoke about polygamy, husbands doing the washing up or equal pay for women. However, he did say marriage is between a man and a women (Matthew 19:4,5) There was nothing to stop him from saying two men or two women, but he didn’t and in view of other teaching in the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament we know he would never have countenanced saying such a thing.

Well said Lego.

David you misquote me as I was not referring to you, but the nasty comments from another poster. Would you also say that love is only between the opposite sex, as I was brought up to believe that love in any form is beautiful, and should be respected.

Jon J says, “the principle is that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law unless there is some compelling reason not to”.

Exactly my point Jon J. The compelling reason is a) how marriage has always been understood, everywhere; b) marriage extends beyond friendship, companionship, even love by what makes it special, the union of a man and woman who are able through their sexual complementariness to bring children into the world and to nurture them to adulthood.

Jon J adds, “and what you think your Sky Daddy said three thousand years ago is not a compelling reason”. It is true that my “Sky Daddy” or the one whom I would call the mighty Creator God and Judge of all, including the Judge of Jon J and myself said these things consistently over a period of 1500 yrs of recorded history (and repeated ad nauseam by the Church ever since), but actually nowhere in my article did I argue my case on the basis of Christian teaching but rather on the basis of what we all, religious or otherwise, can’t not know, Clownfish, Jon J or myself.

BTW, I am indebted to Jon J, and contra Clownfish for acknowledging the uniform testimony of the Bible, including Jesus (and the Qur’an for that matter) in support of the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman, not two men or two women.

From adamchng, “In particular, I appreciated the point that the inevitable imperfections of individual marriages - divorce, spousal death, infertility, etc - is not a case to deviate even further from the institutional reality of marriage.

In fact, these imperfections should lead us to strengthen marriage, not radically revise it”.

Thank you for spotting this adamchng – too often people think they can undermine an argument by quoting the exception to the rule, a bit like the tail wagging the dog. A big argument deserves a big response, scrapping around the edges won’t do.

I'll pop back tomorrow to see where we have got to.

Kipp, sorry I didn't mean to misquote you. In answer to your question, I don't agree love is only between persons of opposite sex, love of course can be between persons of the same sex, but I argue that such love does not justify a sexual relationship between two of the same sex as I explain in my article. So yes, given that caveat, I'm with you 100%.

David whilst you attempt to impose your antiquated beliefs on others, you and the rest of the religious fundmentalists will be challenged, I do believe even the sky fairies would not pleased with you using them has a battering ram, to impose what you have no right to do, in their name.