That is right , Craig, but at the moment, in Australia, marriage is defined by legislation:
“Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”
A J Phillips, you really are dense. What reasoning do you think is required for an axiom, which is the established starting point, a self evident fact. Marriage, in our culture, evolved to be a union between a man and a woman, and remains so. It is not changed by public opinion, unless that opinion brings about legislative change.
Can you tell me when marriage was ever an institution for the union of two people of the same sex?
If I could understand your post, Eric G, I would attempt a reply, as you have addressed yourself to me, and appear to be complaining about something

Toni Lavis, I missed your quaint little post, asserting that there was some controversy over marriage being between a man and a woman.
We are talking about our culture, so just let us know when and by whom it was asserted otherwise, and between what parties other than a man and a woman a marriage was said to occur.

You’re not too bright yourself, Leo Lane.

<<What reasoning do you think is required for an axiom, which is the established starting point, a self evident fact.>>

The idea that marriage can only be between man and a woman is not axiomatic. Toni Lavis already explained this, doesn't it?

The “starting point” doesn’t have to be “established” either. It's just a starting point for reasoning. You are committing the equivocation fallacy here.

So there goes your next line of reasoning to Toni Lavis a few moments ago.

<<Marriage, in our culture, evolved to be a union between a man and a woman, and remains so.>>

“Evolved”? So you admit that it was once something else then. So if its current form is so-o-o-o axiomatic, why didn’t it start that way?

<<It is not changed by public opinion, unless that opinion brings about legislative change.>>

So I take it, then, that when the legislation inevitably changes, the broader definition will be the new axiom and you will, therefore, accept it?

Looks like you have nothing to worry about then.

<<Can you tell me when marriage was ever an institution for the union of two people of the same sex?>>

Not off the top of my head. What difference would it make either way? You wouldn’t be committing the argumentum ad antiquitatem here, would you?

You are conflating three ideas here and switching between the three of them when it's convenient:
-that heterosexual-only marriage is axiomatic because it's just so self-evident that that's the way it should be;
-that heterosexual-only marriage is axiomatic because axioms as "starting points" are necessarily "established" starting points;
-that heterosexual-only marriage is axiomatic because it's self-evident that that's what the current legislation says.

You have no idea of what it is that you're arguing, do you? You're just making it up as you go now.

Yeah, great logic Leo. Augustus de Morgan has got nothing on you. I'm off to re-read Elements. Euclid was a bloke who knew his axiom from his elbow.

o sung wu: "As a token of my own goodwill, I attempted to offer you a brief synopsis of the historical background concerning an entrenched belief system, held by some police back in the sixties, seventies and eighties ?" Only after you denied it totally and my post about police recruit training and the police video (yes that was me) made it too embarrassing for you not to insist you were a good cop. Well a good cop would take responsibility for today’s mistakes first. You attacked me, my people and our future and then lied about it. Your rebuke of me as an immature smart-arse is nothing for the fundamental character flaws that I point to in your comments.

Show some real goodwill, not a token, and explain why your comments on LGBTI marriage are true and not hateful. A token of your goodwill would be to not use gay or same-sex because that leads to lies. Your quotes:
"Such relationships do indeed attract additional problems, specific to their unique nature. Therefore requiring a much greater commitment for success. Making it just that much harder to inculcate those very necessary values and normal living skills, that children really need, in order to progress safely and successfully through their entire lives."
"How will the Family Law Court deal with the many dissimilarities in an acrimonious divorce ?"
"Fresh complications for police too, who're required to oversee the complexities associated with a variation of domestic violence ?"
"There's enough trouble, acrimony, human dislocation and emotional hurt now, without a legislated Marriage of Gay people, adding exponentially to it ?"
I will make it easy for you, forget the plurals and just give us one good example for each.

"I'll not accept any sort of rebuke from you pal ! Who in hell do you think you are ?" I am one of the people who has your foot in my guts. You’re just another hiding abuser, flotsam from last century. I am Eric Glare and I am not subjugating myself and my wellbeing so you can be comfortable with your bigotry.

The pissing contest continues, the floors are awash and it's over the sides of people's shoes. Before everyone is drowning in piddle, I'll repeat the question, refined for extra precision:

Who in this thread, or known about to anyone in this thread, is personally disadvantaged by recognition by the law of the land of relationships between any two autonomous adults whatsoever, subject to the provisions now applying to heterosexual marriage, as legal marriage?

I am suggesting that the only basis for claiming affront or disadvantage is control freakery, a feeling of threat at the prospect of the law accepting the way other people arrange their own personal lives - (gasp, rattle, shudder) DIFFERENT people.