McReal,
My first statement agrees with your first paragraph above.
Do you mean by your second statement that homosexuality is due primarily to environmental factors? If so, I agree with that also.
In what way do you consider our discussion to be relevant to the same-sex marriage debate?

This whole piece reminds me Mrs Lovejoy's famous "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" If marriage is all about the child, as Mr Wallace assumes, then it would be inconceivable to think of marriage as a sign of union and love between the parties involved, wouldn't it?

There are numerous married couples in the world with no children at all. Single parents with loads of children - my mother raised three of us for the majority of her adult life, alone and unassisted. We all grew up pretty well for children with no father.

As for why there is a problem with marriage equality, I might suggest that it is not for a concern of society, or children, but the fact that gay people are such a minority that it's not something MOST of society is able to stomach. Mr Wallace and the ACL at large need to back up a minute and ask themselves: why is it their business? They make out like they're doing what's best for society, but their ideal society would have no gay people, because their part of a group of people that cling to traditional ideas from times when mankind couldn't stomach the notion that two people of the same sex might actually be in love. We've come a long way since then - unlike societies in 200BC, I have no inclination to stone my brother because he loves a man.

Wallace notes, "But let’s be honest, they are in reality pagan desires, customs rightly long rejected, and now only contemplated by a parliament that is perhaps less esteemed than any in the country’s history. A parliament forced to consider the intolerable due only to the artificial power of the Greens."

And here we get to the truth of it - a religiously-driven power play against pagan desires, but define pagan please, Mr Wallace. To which religion is this deemed pagan? Rejecting customs is something done with regularity when customs are found to be WRONG, not right, so which part of society is still clinging to the idea that it is a "rightly long-rejected" custom to exclude gay people as second-class citizens? I'm glad, though, that you were finally able to admit your intolerance of gays having the same rights as you here. And if the Greens have power, it's because the people give it to them. That should say something to you, Jimmy boy.

Another christian lobbyist who claims to be ever so concerned about the impact on marriage and on children of the concept of same sex marriage (and likewise bothered by the idea of pluralistic marriages).

So just where does the ACL stand on catholic requirements for celibacy in it's clergy and the dreadful outcomes for children that's contributed to?

Where does the ACL stand on aging nominally celibate men providing relationship guidance to couples?

Both those are issues which it would be far easier to trace to harm to children than any risks associeted with same sex couples who can already raise children being allowed to have state recognition of their relationships.

Where does the ACL stand on the divisive nature and implementation of Family Law and so called child support?

Again both very easy to find ties to harm to children from parental conflict and or disadvantage yet I'm not seeing a lot of articles by christian lobbyists seeking better ways of doing that stuff.

I don't think the concern for the concept of marriage or the reality of children has much to do with this otherwise we'd see a lot more effort to address the big area's of concern. Rather both are excuses to attack a move which could give same sex couples a little more recognition in society.

R0bert

IF the word marriage has a common meaning what might it be?

Marriage, according to the law in Australia, is the union of a man
and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered
into for life. (-Standard Marriage Service in the State of Victoria )

Or for the more traditional who perhaps read Jane Austin

DEARELY beloved frendes, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of his congregacion, to joyne together this man and this woman in holy matrimony, which is an honorable state.(- from the book of common prayer)

So this is really not too tricky

Marriage has a longstanding meaning and it involves the union of a man and a woman

Modern society may wish to sanction formal unions based on loving relationships involving; a man and a man, a woman and a woman,or multiple numerical combinations of men and women.

However, by established definition and common usage these alternative formal unions are not ever likely to be recognized as genuine 'marriages'in the traditional sence.

How about calling them 'civil unions'?
Jane Austin, I believe, is silent on such nomenclature

"However, by established definition and common usage these alternative formal unions are not ever likely to be recognized as genuine 'marriages'in the traditional sence."

That'll only matter to people who think tradition matters. Tradition is just the excuse of the ignorant who refuse to accept change.

"Marriage has a longstanding meaning and it involves the union of a man and a woman"

That meaning only applies in a culture where marriage is between a man and a woman, but it excludes those cultures who have a different meaning. For example, for certain single men and women, marriage means being tied to someone inexplicably for life and you'll never be able to experience other people in that same way. The same applies for the Christian moral approach that considers such promiscuity as a bad thing, but that's just because that's what they've been told - they haven't tried it, nor do they acknowledge that many who are doing it lead very happy lives.

Marriage, to me, is as a binding contract between two people, signifying one's love for another, foresaking all others. In other words, I would only get married if I actually had no interest in others at all. If I found one person to live my life with, and lost interest in all others, I would marry. Until then, it's not for me.

The meaning of marriage is not for any one person, religion, author or state to define, and therefore that is what it means, because to many cultures it means something entirely different. Assuming your meaning is the only meaning is arrogant and foolish.