Alan Austin,
I care not what the ancient meaning of the word marriage was. The current meaning is it is a union of a man and a woman and has been that for some time.

I do not care what homosexuals do and if they want a legal union, so be it, but find another word/s to mean a same sex union.

The only reason they want the word marriage is because it suggests respectability. Respect has to be earned.

We have already allowed them to hyjack the word gay, which properly has a different meaning.

You gotta laugh.....

It's fascinating reading the offended sensibilities of heterosexual opponents of gay marriage......in the end it seems it all boils down to semantics.

"This is "our" word - go and find your own" (lol)

Humans are endlessly fascinating in their ability to hastily confect artificial citadels in which to preserve the status quo.

[Deleted. Abuse.]

Laugh? Sure… Couldn't hurt. But I do have some sympathy for those who think 'their' word is fixed in meaning and subject to hijack.

But… It's so fixed in meaning that it requires a legal definition in Australian statute? Why? And as for the word marriage being subject to 'someone using force to take control of an aircraft or other vehicle' – that makes even less sense.

Where is the Mock Turtle when you're trying to decide whether you say what you mean or mean what you say?

But I remain optimistic – indeed, runner may be on to something – if 90% of incarceration in the US is caused by fatherlessness, then it follows that one father would be good. And that two fathers would be twice as good.

And for the religiously inclined, if we include their Father in heaven that would make three – sort of game, set and match.

I do find some amusement in recalling that all the failed marriages I've ever read about at OLO have been heterosexual.

Pericles,

Marriage is a contract that some people break. That does not change the meaning of the contract when it was agreed.

Alan Austin,

I understand that definitions are different in different places and at different times. The definition I gave is the one in our time and in our society and also implicit in the federal parliament’s constitutional power over marriage. If the gay marriage argument was put as an argument for changing the meaning of a word, we might discuss it, but it is put as some great human rights infringement that some people are not allowed to do what they are in fact allowed to do.

poirot,
Some may be opposed to same sex unions, for whatever reason, but I am not. I am simply opposed to the use of the word marriage to describe same sex unions.

Same sex unions are different and should require a different word/s for that type of union. I do not see any reason why we should alter the meaning of an existing word that now has a definate meaning.

Surely wordsmiths can come up with suitable words, some may even have an historical origin. I am cynical of the reasons for wanting the word marriage and believe it to promote better public image.

Like I said, I am also opposed to the use of the word gay to describe homosexuals, and refuse to use it. Am also appalled at the common use of the US word guys that is in usage today. Such is the influence of the US entertainment industry. Our language is part of our culture and is worth preserving.