IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, FREDOM IS SLAVERY.
Lego,
You're plagiarizing the ALP doctrine.

individual, Ian Thorpe won medals for his skill as a swimmer.
His personality and any of its elements are irrelevant.

Should his preference for white or wholemeal bread also be considered?
What about beer versus spirits?
Which is more "manly"?

The sexuality of athletes is irrelevant.
They win medals because they're the fastest, strongest, most skilled, not the straightest.

I believe the Chinese swimmers got in trouble for using banned substances, not for being too butch.

Are we going to stop at sexual preference (not that you would know if they don't reveal it)?

Do we also ban heterosexual sissies and tomboys, for not being sufficiently gender-role compliant?

Women who don't remove their body hair?
Men with long hair or earrings?
Celibate or infertile athletes?

In case you haven't heard, there is an event called the Gay Games, an Olympics equivalent.

I'm sure it's fun, but gay athletes should also be able to enter the Olympics, Commonwealth Games or any other competition.

What does sporting prowess have to do with what you do with your rude bits on Saturday night?

Is Mise
Yes, the State always had a role in enforcing marriage contracts. But the question of who was allowed to marry, or what constituted a marriage, was determined either by the church or by private agreements. From the article you quote:

“Clandestine marriage led to all sorts of abuses, from the kidnapping, drugging, forced marriage and rape of heiresses by fortune hunters to under-age, same-sex, incestuous or bigamous unions. Bigamy was common in a society where divorce was denied.”

From the book I link I to (p.66):

“Secular marriage – the idea that marriage was a state-sanctioned rather than church-sanctioned institution - is a relatively new phenomenon.”

LEGO
What constitutes a “marriage” has varied over time and between cultures. In the past it has included same-sex marriage. Your argument is essentially circular – same-sex marriage is not permissible because marriage is between a man and a woman. But this begs the question of WHY marriage is only between a man and a woman

What is interesting is that 'marriage' for many decades was sold as a symbol of patriarchal oppression of females forcing women into unequal domestic slavery.

So how can same sex marriage be a symbol of equality, when for many years it was a symbol of inequality and oppression?

@Wolly B, Wednesday, 16 July 2014 9:49:27 PM

Heh, heh, you are right, but you are not expecting an answer to that one, are you?

Wolly B
The answer is pretty simple. For many centuries marriage really WAS an unequal and often oppressive affair. Women had fewer property rights, only men could initiate divorces, men usually got custody of the kids (now the inequality is perhaps the other way round), rape within marriage was not recognised, and wife-beating was legally and socially acceptable. Employment opportunities were unequal. Until as late as the 1970s, in many Australian organisations women could no longer work once they married. it was not just expected that their role was now in the home not the workplace; it was legally enforced.

Happily, nowadays marriage is a much more equal and less repressive institution.

The unfairness and inequality of treating gays differently to straights in relation to marriage consists, well, in treating gays differently to straights.