CS Lewis wrote that, "There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not".

It seems he was right that there needs to be a very puritanical version of religious marriage, and a more relaxed liberalised version of State marriage.

progressive pat wrote
"It seems he was right that there needs to be a very puritanical version of religious marriage"

what? like sharia law?

Nah mikk, more like Mark 10:6-9 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate".

The secular version of marriage could be, two people in love bound for as long as the self feels it helpful.

Progressive Pat,

I think the point that would need clarification, is that it was the "state recognised" marriage that the public was bound to recognise. Insofar as the "religiously married" wanted to pat themselves on the back for having "better" or "real" marriage, I think it would do them good to understand that the state didn't care about their distinction. The religiously married can be "just as" married as anybody else for legal or state or bureaucratic purposes.

Rusty.

This article is an insightful look beyond the
Emotional on gay marriage rights.

It is said that marriage is for begetting children
Gay unions too, beget children,they adopt them

Because this is already happening with apparently
No sanction in gay unions ,it seems to me the horse has
Already bolted on the begetting of children

It then just remains for them to be recognised as families
Given the variety of family groups in Australia and Western countries aLready, single parent families, blended families after divorce. I can see no difference in two same sex parents. Although why they want to be married when such a huge percentage
Of people are dying to get divorced and out of this dubious arrangement that is marriage is beyond me.

many 'gays'have no intention of ever getting married. Like in the US they are just waiting to dance around in the streets, gyrating and pushing perversion in the face of those that oppose it. Many will have their adopted children with them modelling total indecency. NO doubt a mock crucifixion or two will accompany celebrations like in US and other countries. ABS/SBS will be the first to join the 'celebrations'. Then back to reality more disease, more suicide more perversion, more pornography, more partners and more child abuse. God is not mocked.

The article ends with the statement "Given that this is the case, it would not only be unwise but incongruous for Australia to change the universal and historic understanding of marriage."

The statement is a lie. There is no universal and historic understanding of marriage. Polygamy is recognised in many current and historical societies. In Tibet it took the form of polyandry - one woman with many husbands. In American Indian society Berdache or same sex marriage was also a recognised form of marriage. If one argues from a lie one can possibly prove anything.

There's a missing clause in the argument:

1. Legalising homosexual marriage will cause people to agitate for the recognition of marriages between multiple partners, and marriages between people who are related.

2. This is bad because...

And I was unable to find anything in the article which allowed me to complete premise 2.

Cherful,
Same sex partnerships have literally nothing in common with opposite sex unions, they're two completely different things, that's why they had to come up with slogans like "Equal Love" and "Marriage Equality".
Everyone knows that two people of the same gender can never be really married even if the state allows it, we as a society already discriminate between good and bad marriages, sham and sincere etc.
The state recognises many things and makes many rules which we as people ignore or openly denigrate as stupid, pointless or counterproductive, legal same sex marriage would be just another example of how out of touch the political castes are from the rest of society, it'll widen the gulf between the "progressive" ruling class and the conservative working classes.

This matter needs to be put to rest via a public plebiscite.

The only thing we have absolute control or a real choice over, is the thoughts we care to entertain in our heads; and through them our attitudes!

At the end of the day our responsibility is to ourselves and the man or woman looking back at us in the mirror!

Conduct yourselves as you believe, according to your lights and allow others the same privilege!

Only God not the "self appointed" moralists or a stone age book of contradictions or patent untruth, penned by men alone, can judge whether or not they're flouting his law!

However, given they and their natural aberration sexual orientation also like a left handed masturbater, are his creations; that they flout a God given law, can hardly be true can it? 99 change hands.
Bring on the plebiscite!
Rhrosty.

R: " their natural aberration sexual orientation also like a left handed masturbater"

Ah, now it's so clear. This was really about some people being afforded the "dignity" and "equality" of marrying their left hands.

And that's meant to be "equal" to the hopeful and life-affirming union of man and woman in actual marriage, as demonstrating the achievement of the opposite sexes' dynamic intimacy and maturity ?

With this sham Gay "marriage" it is, yet again, the Too Big To Fail celebrating their failure, a pompous and insulting farce just like its prophetic warning in the "marriage" scene of Pasolini's 'Salo'

This argument has been so politicised that our representatives need to abrogate the decision to the people. Hold a plebiscite on the matter then everyone can 'just shut up'.

The author acknowledges that this topic is highly emotional, but then tries to calm us down saying: "the reasoning for change is big on emotion and little on substance".

I believe that this is because the author fails to see the full dimension of the issue. Indeed, whether or not homosexuals can receive a piece-of-paper from the government stating that they are married is by itself a storm in a teacup, but that's not the real issue, which I further believe that the author fails to see because he agrees with Obama:

"I agree with President Obama's proposition that all people are created equal. This is a biological and theological fact."

This is obviously nonsense - obviously no two people are equal. Yes, in the ultimate sense we are all the same one - God, thus we cannot be unequal, but in the relative sense, those humans we mistakenly think we are were never equal whichever way you want to look at them.

The author continues:

"To treat persons who are different to ourselves with anything less than respect and love is to deny the faith"

Sure, but treating a person with respect and love is quite different than treating them as equal.

Having agreed in principle as if all people are equal, what the author sees is just a petty quarrel in the family, whereas the real issue is that this is just one small battle in the big war of "equality".

The terrible thing about equality, is that in its attempt to deny the fruits of self-discipline and dedication, the "equality camp" denies the possibility of spiritual progress.

Murray. I generally agree with our proposition that the 'language' in which we frame the argument is fundamental to making rational and reasoned argument in progressing the debate. Good on you for putting the 'marriage equality' trope under scrutiny and demanding a less lazy definition of slogan in arguing either for or against the proposition.

I take you to task however, when you state "Despite differences in gender, in personality, in culture and race, every human being is equal.". I believe that the "equality" meme is disingenuous when applied to "culture". It is cultural relativism to maintain a position wherein 'abandoning the elderly to die either in the deserts or the snows', to genitally mutilate females within the society, to burn the widow or to maintain internicinal conflict for generations between families or clans/tribes is of equal value to that culture to which I am a member. I consider 'my culture' to be vastly superior to many others.
Your distress at the inaccurate simplicity of 'marriage equality' is the same as the inaccurate simplicity of 'climate denier'. Well written article.