All Christians (and Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc) believe in gods of their own creation. Since, like religion, marriage is a sociocultural construct that varies widely in the way it is currently practised in different cultures, I can see absolutely no reason why our society can't cope with a broader range of officially sanctioned marriage forms than are recognised under the Commonwealth legislation.

Personally, I share Groucho Marx's 'institutional' view of marriage. However, I have no problem with anybody over the age of consent and involved in committed relationships, institutionalising them as marriages if that is their mutual desire. It's their business, isn't it, rather than yours or mine?

If indeed it is possible for States to legislate for this to happen, then that would be a good thing. Let people seek happiness in relationships and lifestyles that suit them.

Those that want to interfere (and, indeed, 'pontificate' about it) should just get over it and mind their own business.

Come on guys, we all pontificate, not just the religious. I mean, what are we doing on this forum, if not pontificating. Garra is right up with the best of us, if not one of best.

I suggest Garra has a god of his own creation - himself! It still amazes how people can come in and formulate all manner of new orderings of society without any consideration of the past. Toss it all out and start again, and you can say whatever you like without any accountability whatsoever.

Garra says, "I can see absolutely no reason why our society can't cope with a broader range of officially sanctioned marriage forms than are recognised under the Commonwealth legislation" Really? How broad, what forms? Such bravery, such openmindedness, such foolishness!

Really? I thought that the idea was for these forums to offer us ordinary mortals a venue for commenting on the articles that are published at OLO, and the various issues that are raised by them. It seems to me that those who wish to pronounce dogmatically their intrusions into the lives of others, usually on the basis of their own religious beliefs but often based on little more than mindless prejudice, are undermining the capacity of these forums to fulfil that function.

I chose the word 'pontificate' quite deliberately in this context because of its etymology: those of us who express opinions with which the homophobes and godbotherers disagree may be guilty of injecting compassion and reason into the debate, but we certainly don't exhibit the supposed 'infallibility' that the far right imagine they share with pontiffs.

Aslan, the point still stands that a legally sanctioned marriage (and one prefered by religious extremists) in this country includes one between a gay man and a straight woman rather than between two gay men. This is part of the problem. The former couple would meet the current criteria of marriage but the actual marriage would be likely to end up in great unhappiness for all concerned.

Fortunately things are progressing. Spain is the latest country to validate same sex marriage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3706414.stm). Events, of course, won't be onwards and upwards. But regardless of any setbacks, the gay movement will continue to work on this issue.

In response to David, I suggest that ALL Christians have a God in their own creation. How do you explain not only the differences between Christians regarding homosexuality but the myriad of denominations? That's why it is so amusing when Aslan refers to other Christians as "Christians" - as if they are not real ones. And where's the evidence that you are a real one? Christianity, unlike the laws of physics, is subjective.

A few words of comfort. When we achieve same-sex marriage here I don't think we'll be wanting to marry in your churches (or is that "churches"?). In fact, you couldn't pay me enough to set foot in them for one second.

Davidjs, looks like your dislike of churches is equally as emotive as aslan's dislike of homosexuality. pretty irrational mate

t.u.s

Sarantakos seems to be rely on personal evidence - not a proper survey, and I didn't see where Loader claimed a majority weren't interested, but I will accept that it is probably true that a majority of homosexuals currently have no personal interest in getting married.

I don't want to get into a debate about human rights; I am questioning this statement of yours:
"Moreover, homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply cannot marry someone of the same-sex. This is no more a violation of human rights than disallowing a person to marry someone under age, or someone who is already married."
You make the positive claim that it doesn't violate human rights -- so you must accept human rights and have your own criteria, or else your statement would have been pointless.

I'm also interested in what Christian teachings you, David and others disagree with or have difficulty accepting. Except for the clear moral truths: murder, theft, etc. (and even then) few people have a moral system that conflicts with their own desires, instead it is usually related to their own history, actions and interests. This is not limited to Christians or theists.

Most of those Christians I was talking about would not subscribe to a inerrant view of the Bible and instead view it as inspired, but others simply have a different interpretation of the Romans passages. So yes some of them don't *fully* "believe the Bible nor do they believe in the God revealed in the Bible." But if they believe Jesus is Christ and their view of God comes from personal revelation, how can you claim theological superiority, when you have no objective evidence that the Bible is perfect or that your intepretation is correct?