There has been a remarkable lack in recent years of one phrase when it comes to those who feel themselves inclined towards homosexual activity... "giving it up for the sake of the Kingdom"... the phrase which should be used for all of our natural inclinations, like those to jealousy, hate, or violence, which are not in line with conventional dogma. To argue that whatever comes naturally to a person is the basis for what is right is not the Christian way, and the Cross, the symbol of sacrifice to a greater good, should be the lead for those who are of that inclination, just as it should be to those wishing to engage in intercourse with children, or with someone to whom they are not married.

Closer to the topic of marriage... our society of late has attemped to destroy some traditional aspects of marriage, such as it being the place for the bearing of children, and it being symbolic of the unity of the two halves of mankind, but the fact that this destruction has gone on does not in any way validate a loosening of the criteria for marriage.

Tolerance for homosexuals is necessary, and they should be given no hinderance in their desire to sleep or live together. To change two fundamental aspects of marriage... the union of man and woman, and it being the socially acceptable place for the bearing of children... goes beyond tolerance to being an imposition of a totally new definition of marriage onto those already in it, and those institutions (such as the churches) which have been bestowing this institution for far longer than the state. I don't see how this last paragraph destoys any ideas of the Liberal party, as it offer tolerance, but also respect for tradition and our institutions, especially respect for the Christian framework of marriage whence is derived its secular form.

Richard King's opinion makes an interesting read. However, one issue has not been addressed.

There is not much doubt that the majority of Australians believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. That is the outcome of the amendment to the Marriage Act in 2004- a clear definition of what the majority of Australians hold.

Surely that is a reasonable outcome in a democracy such as ours. Legislation reflecting the view of the majority is hardly a new concept.

We don't need to see anything more than that in the position taken by the two major parties following a strong lobbying move by The Australian Christian Lobby group and some other concerned organizations.

As historically marriage has been between a man and a woman (or one man with several women!), why can’t we have “registered partnerships” for same homosexual couples (or for heterosexual couples who don’t believe in marriage as a religious institution) as in the Netherlands, with those in a registered partnership having the same rights as those married.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands

You gotta feel sorry for those social liberals in this country who don’t have a taste for unionism or environmentalism. Their only political choice has been the Liberal Party, which lately has been taken over by the forces of evil. Its 17 principles are now an empty relict.

Vanstone and Coonan, liberal campaigners in their student days, have been forced over to the dark side in order to have a career. Abbot and Ruddock are setting the tone, with the loony christian right setting the direction.

Kings is barking up the wrong tree. Today's Liberal Party will never show leadership on gay rights

I don't think that 'place for having children' should really be considered as part of the concept of marriage, as considering this as a key criteria for defining marriage totally invalidates the committment of people who marry but are infertile, or who do not wish to have children- and yes, there are many people who marry without any intention of having children. Equally, many people have children out outside of marriage, who love each other and their children with just as much committment as those within marriage.

Marriage is a solemn ceremony which confirms the serious intentions of the couple to remain committed to each other for the rest of their lives. And with that interpretation I fail to see how we could exclude people from same-sex marriage. If we include children in the definition of marriage, then we must surely closely quiz all people wishing to marry as to their reproductive aims, and then put them through a battery of fertility tests to ensure that their aims are likely to be met.

Laurie, I don't believe that saying that marriage is a responsible, socially acceptable place in which children should be raised in any way invalidates those unable to concieve through infertility or ignores the love that parents who don't have children in wedlock have for their children. An infertile couple are still joining the two halves of mankind in a loving marriage, but are just unable to bear children. Just because they cannot bear children doesn't mean that their marriage is incomplete, yet it also does not change the fundamental fact that heterosexual unions procreate in general.

Our society suffers now as, although we are richer than ever before, a lack of stable families creates a gap that is ever more difficult to surmount. The removal of the emphasis on children being a thing intrinsically linked to marriage is part of this change, and those who suffer are a whole generation of our young. Children born in marriage are more likely to have two parents raise them, whilst those born outside of it are not, and are exposed to the unfortunate consequences of this.

To define the union of people solely in terms of a commitment to one another makes the union weak when a third force, that force being children, enters the equation, and they are not counted in the original statement. The equivocation introduced by removing children from socially recognised unions is a problem we are dealing with in unions of men and women, let alone unions of those of the same sex.

Also, I don't think we should call them "homosexual unions", as there are many homosexual individuals who choose to enter marriage. Marriage in the christian churches is not a "heterosexual union" persay, but rather is a union of man and woman, whatever their inclination. To allow "gay marriage" is to change the meaning of traditional marriage to a simple expression of sexuality, which diminishes its other facets - procreation, social stability, lifelong frienship.