@ theTruth Same obs, posters with the Truth in their handle are generally far from it.

What is gender how do you define male and female? by the persons genes?

By how they feel or look?

Do marriages that don't result in childern somehow false

Your idea of ontology seems to have more than enough room for a warp drive. You haven't even attempting to locate reality, eg "these arguments are not based on evidence as if we could do a sociological survey or perform psychological experiments but on a deeper understanding of what sex an gender signify." If you want to talk about difference then get to the real biology not cultural emblems and ethnic cliches of difference that are only gross generalisations that do not exist as strict rules of reality - and this includes biological sex - it is fuzzy. Do you remember the bell curve of the normal distribution? The double camel hump for biological sex or for gender with some people in the middle? Your curve for gender looks more like 2 columns and that isn't real and you don't need my PhD in genetics to see that diversity in people all around you. But you might need to take off your religious glasses. Read PubMed.

You ignore bisexuals completely. Your insistence that gays are "different in a radical way" doesn't fit with the reality that many of us are or were heterosexually married, most of us pass unknown and for those of us that don't, the clues are simple cultural aspects like clothing and hair style. In fact I am probably more like you than I am like many other gay men. The idea that changing marriage law will erase some differences is patently silly. It is likely to uncover differences previous hidden from the unobservant. But mostly it will show the normality of relationships collapsing contrived 'differences' like yours.

The same people who try and use science to justify 'gay ' marriage deny the science that shows how terribly unhealthy sodomy is. They obviously never talk to doctors. And to think they want this lifestyle promoted! If the Ashby, Slipper and 15 year old boys saga is not enough to turn your stomach then what is.

@Kenny "What is gender how do you define male and female? by the persons genes? "

We do not have a reliable and conclusive genetic test for biological sex (male/female as different from gender -man/woman). At one stage they used genetic testing for the Olympics but they found too many female atheletes were giving results thought to be male -incorrectly called false positives because they were real and the idea was false. Researchers tried 3 separate tests but many were positive for one or more which might be why they were elite atheletes. People should not be forced into neat boxes they do not fit.

The best test for gender is to ask the person.

@Runner Your opinion is based on stigma which is why you use the word sodomy. Until very recently anal intercourse was deemed much healthier than having another child every year or two. More heterosexual people pactice anal intercourse than men who have sex with men - should they not be allowed to marry and the third of gay men that don't practise penetrative sex be allowed to marry? Should we test for consummation? Should impotent men be denied marriage because they can't penetrate naturally?

You do know that there is nothing in the Marriage Act about having sex? You don't even have to ever live togther to be married or even reside in the same country. In fact you could be married legally for more than 20 yrs even if you have never touched each other.

Marriage used to be a pretty big deal, and still is for some - for bride and groom and their parents, for relatives and friends, and maybe for church and community. Now there seems to be a growing move away from marriage, away from the attendant legal entanglements, from the inferred long term commitment, and from the difficulties and cost involved if the relationship sours.

Some simply can't afford or justify the expense involved, and some may be 'free spirits' or anti-establishment, but others avoid marriage because they don't want the responsibility, and prefer the inherent or notional freedom of just maintaining a 'relationship' (de-facto, open, long- or short-term, committed or casual), and some are 'cads' or 'gold-diggers'.

Marriage used to be genuinely 'through thick and thin' and 'till death do us part' - and not 'for as long as I feel like' or 'until something better comes along'. But of course we are becoming more of a musical beds society, so some want to dispense with the traditional notion of marriage so they can feel better about themselves and their choices and attitudes - to justify moral decadence by simply lowering the bar.

Do some parents want iso-marriage so they can feel better about their progeny's orientation; do some heteros want it to reinforce their anti-homophobic or their 'liberal' attitudes?

Let those who value genuine marital commitment embrace it wholeheartedly - and those who don't, please stop pretending or paying lip service.

If iso-marriage could prevent even one gay suicide, then go for it - responsibly, please, (an attitude shift for me), but I suspect that more extensive support and counseling services may be even more imperative.