Oh yes, I'm sorry.

Congratulations for making a terrible argument. You win the grand prize!
Posted by Stezza, Saturday.

Not so much terrible as invalid, but an argument non the less; however as Government, as the argument goes, shouldn't legislate for marriage then why are some homosexuals and lesbians agitating for Government to legislate for their status when they pair off?

The real push ought to be for partnerships to be registered for legal reasons and for Government to abolish the Marriage Act (but not the marriage act).
This would leave the Government only regulatting the legal aspects.

Chris C wrote:
"One such relationship is that of a man and a woman committed to each other for life to the exclusion of all others. The word that describes this relationship is “marriage”."

The word also describes other relationships. If it didn't, then there would have been no need to amend the Marriage Act in 2004 to restrict it in a Federal Legal sense to that definition alone.

A number of jurisdictions now do not use that definition. One can even argue that ever since divorce was permitted, the clause "committed to each other for life" is more of a pious hope, a consummation devoutly to be wished, than a reality.

Religious groups can feel free to use their own definitions - in Islam, polygamy is explicitly allowed. In Catholicism, only Catholics can marry, and only then if not divorced.

But the law uses its own definition. It always has. In convict days, a so-called Catholic "marriage" was null and void, marriage required the presence of Anglican clergy to perform it. To say that the definition has never changed in thousands of years is an easily disproven falsehood.

"....In Catholicism, only Catholics can marry, and only then if not divorced."

Zoe, where on earth did you get that misinformation?

Catholics may no longer marry heretics - anyone baptised who is not a Catholic. Dispensations may be given of course.

The canon law is at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P41.HTM

"Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church."

1086 §1 is relevant as well

"Can. 1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid."

Because of my own situation, I've had to become rather aware of what marriage law actually is, rather than what many think it is.

Firstly, given same sex couples have the same legal and financial arrangements as heteroseual couples, I wonder what the fuss is all about?
Marriage appears in the Bible in the book of Genesis with Adam and Eve; the concept of marriage is therefore a Judeo-Christian tradition. As the same source text tells us that homosexual practise is a sin, it just seems odd that the gay lobby wants to re-define a tradition which is sourced in the same document that condemns the practise. My gay friends certainly think it's a tempest in a teacup.
Secondly, whether Canberra has the right to merge State and church is another question not dealt with by Rodney Croome or his associates. Separation of church and State corrected a whole lot of problems centuries ago dealing with the legislative power of secular governements in religious/moral matters.
Funny old Canberra!

TAC mate, If you are married or not, same sex couples marrying will have no affect on you; and nowt to do with a book nobody knows who wrote it, even you !!