Justice Nicholson summed up his whole entire argument in just one sentence: "These opponents of recognition of same sex relationships frequently ignore the fact that these relationships often involve children, of whom one of the couple is often the biological mother or father".

The very notion of marriage is to provide stability and responsibilities for the raising on children. Mother Nature, in her wisdom, has made this possible be creating two groups within a species, namely male and female. In order to reproduce, you need (at least) one of each. As a clever primate, we have produced rules that accord a status to such mating pairs - it's called marriage.

The good judge says that because some previously hetrosexual individuals, have offspring, and for any number of reasons, are then attracted to a member of the same sex, the non-biological parent should be afforded that very special privilege of being considered married. His reason is to protect the child.

So in order to protect a limited number of children that find themselves in this situation, the whole group of self-indulgent primates should be accorded that very special privilege.

Sure - when two blokes can make a baby by themselves I'd be the first to agree.

Perhaps instead of trying to get same sex relationships recognised by the state, we should think about why we need to have any relationship state-sanctioned at all? Surely this is a private matter.

Well said “the big fish”, sadly both sides fail to see the implications of suppression and equal acceptance. Considering the majority of species including man, use polygamy as the standard form of relationship, the only reason its rejected is on religious grounds. Problem is, all religions have practised and accepted it during their histories.

It irks me when we get this constant bleating of how badly off certain sections of the community are. Yet if you look, you'll find a lot of same sex couples, are in the economic and sociological upper levels of society.

Lots of other species indulge in same sex, its also very prevalent in religious circles.

Homosexuality is not perversion, its different. Its perversion if its forced upon you. I think perversion relates much better to religion in its violent suppressive approach to everything it can't control.

If it turns you on, keep it to yourself and enjoy it. After all we all have our quirks, thats what makes us individuals and interesting, not morally straight jacketed religious boring clones. I'd love to have two ladies with me, it would reduce the work by 1/3 and increase leisure and pleasure time by 2/3rds, sounds good maths to me. Applications are now open. No muslims, christians or same sex need apply, I want enjoyment, not misery.

As the honorable author's been involved in stripping lots of parents of their biological and economic rights, causing huge psychological and economic damage to many people. I doubt his opinion should by held in any esteem other than contempt.

This "homophobia isn't due to Christianity" rubbish is...rubbish.

If homosexuality were truly unnatural, natural selection would have ensured it no longer existed. It's only the religious who have a context for defining it as unnatural.

If homosexuals wish for some type of ceremony , let them at it. but not marriage which is ordained for man and woman.
Ever since homosexuals 'came out' they have been pushing to be regarded as normal. That relationship is not normal but most people consider it to be their private business.
It should never ever be used to brainwash children into believing that it is normal. Children have enough to cope with in ordinary growing up, they do not need to have their brains frazzled with such relationships.

There is no question that a move toward equality for same sex couples is revolutionary and therefore intimidating to some. Yet a revolutionary move towards a position that improves the lives of a number of citizens, without injuring the rest can only be a positive one. And there doesn't seem to be any rational argument that injury will occur to the rest: indeed, other countries that have granted equality to same sex citizens have not crumbled, miraculously.

That some citizen's religious feelings are offended by such a move is undisputed. Nonetheless, we are living in a secular society and follow secular legislation. Therefore couples who are married do not have to divorce in a church to be divorced legally. Couples who marry and do not have children (through choice or biology) do not have their marriage status removed from them. Christians may indeed marry non-Christians. Women are not forced to marry against their will. People of different races may marry each other. All of these were once forbidden, before a revolutionary decision to allow them - as indeed same sex marriage will one day be.

Similarly our secular society allows people to wear eyeglasses, eat shellfish, wear clothing of mixed fabric, argue with their husbands - all of which are forbidden in the bible.

Suggesting that that same sex couples are unnatural is not logical. Homosexuality exists, in all cultures - thus it is a natural state. Not a choice, and not a lifestyle. People once suggested that the minority left-handers were unnatural, too - we don't legislate against them.

Same sex couples are in the minority. Does that really mean that the state should continue to deny them equal rights under the law? They are citizens too.