Zoe

Apologies. I had forgotten about this very rare condition. There was a case in Australia in 1979 that found that inter-sex people (such as hermaphrodites) cannot legally marry because they are not legally regarded as either man or woman but are a combination of both. In many overseas jurisdictions (but not here) impotent males cannot legally marry either.

I don't think that the legal situation for this group came about due to moral concerns. More likely this minority was forgotten about and affected more by accident than by design.

Personally I see no problem with legally recognising committed relationships outside the traditional male/female marriage. What I do have a problem with is people (often hostile to traditional marriage) seeking to redefine "marriage" to simply gain social status for their own relationships. In my opinion referring to same-sex "marriage" is like saying that three people can validly make up a quartet!

Bren

I think Bren's attitude expressed in his/her last post sums up much of the non-religious, non-homophobic attitude against same sex marriage.

Bren sees marriage as a social privilege, or a manner to gain social status, and does not want to lose this exclusive privilege he/she currently has. Even though most people do not answer the question when asked questions such as "Perhaps you can explain why preventing us from marrying anyone is of such vital importance?", I believe this is the real reason

And if society did redefine marriage to a lifelong commitment between two adults, then exactly how would that be detrimental to heterosexual marriages at all?

There is a basic tenet to the discussion on same sex marriage, and that is the “right” to marry the same gender. But what of the practical reasons for same sex marriage?

The automatic transference of assets to a surviving spouse is a big one. The registration of a marriage by the state gives the surviving spouse immediate control of all assets unless a will decrees otherwise.

Homosexual life partners have no legal status and the scenario of a life partner being turned out of their home by a relative ten times removed is not fiction.

Do I believe in homosexual marriage....carrying the connotations of heterosexual marriage.....no. They are not the same and can never be the same because “procreation and social stability“is the base reason for the concept of monogamy and marriage.

But a legal ceremony that brings with it the right to estate, separate from the existing marriage act is an option that could appeases both sides of the fence.

It is about the perceived gold standard of marriage. That is all.

Gay activists have always trashed marriage and 'breeders', as do the 'Progressives' and feminists who push gay marriage. In the same breath as they demand gay marriage they also condemn marriage as a worthless, outmoded institution.

Australia has just voted and one hopes that the time of the Parliament is not going to be wasted again. Of course there are always those who cannot accept the democratic decision.

Sonofgloin, there are many marriages that don't 'procreate' already.
Do we condemn those who are infertile or too old to have children to never being suitable for marriage?

How will society become 'unstable' if gay people are legally able to marry?