Poirot,
I have heard of sex in the city. I would hope you do not perform your sex in public. Though the intended union is declared to society; what is declared is: that this man and this woman have agreed to live together as husband and wife. That is a natural biological act. In some cultures before marriage it was established that the bride was virgin - indicating she had not been married before. This is a biological position. Marriage is a natural biological act between a husband and wife.

Dear Philo,

Poirot is right. One can engage in a sexual act without a formal union of any kind. A formal union involves societal recognition. That makes it a social act. Social acts are defined by the society in which they occur. Marriage is a social act uniting two or more people in a formal bond. Generally where there is polygamy one partner is added at a time, but there is no reason that there cannot be a mass cremony.

If 'marriage' was such a wonderful and God given gift as the speakers-for are suggesting, then why do the royal fambly have such a problem with it?

After all, Queenie is there, like the Pope, as God's agent on Earth yet her kiddies seem to have a real problem with getting hitched and staying that way, do they not?

It is not exactly a closely guarded secret that kings and princes are 'putting it about' as if they had no 'little missus' waiting for them at home.

The Belly anecdote is for real across the boozers of the land, but also in the boardrooms and the church pews.

Only the wilfully blind, obtuse and/or stupid would really believe that 'marriage' is anything more than a useful social convention, liable to change over time, as it already has done over even the last 100 years.

You fear-mongers seem to believe that 'marriage' is a totally fixed structure, which it clearly is not.

Wake up to yourselves, and if you go to the pub, particularly Belly's pub, look your mates in the eye and wonder, 'has he or hasn't he?' and then go home and wonder 'has she or hasn't she?'

It's no good putting your 'faith' in your marriage certificate, or your BIG church wedding, this is about people and their quirks.

The 'marriage' bit that you value so much is but an empty shell all too often, so why not let others crawl into it too, if they want to?

david f,
The marriage arrangements and living arrangements in various cultures is interesting. I had never thought of a mass polygamous ceremony. Do you know if this has occured? Big night for the groom, viagra sales would escalate.

With the increasing imbalance of genders in China, it would not surprise me if polyandry became more common there. The Chinese are fairly pragmatic people and will find ways to overcome a problem.

I understand that in some places in India it is common for the husbands brother to also have sex with the wife. Others house both genders of children together where sex is the norm. Incest is more common in those places where common or dormatory sleeping arrangement prevail. In Japan it is common for a husband to also have a mistress which seems to be the accepted norm. I saw a paper that claimed that one third of boys, in Japan, have their first sexual encounter with their mother.

However back to subject, if governments only approve of the word marriage for same sex unions I wonder what terms Aussies will come up with?. A letter in the smh suggests that we should abandon the Marriage Act completely, but I think some sections desire the legality of it.

Abandon the Marriage Act?

Or, abandon sex, otherwise known as 'the marriage act' by the overzealous supporters here?

Forget martial arts, perhaps 'the marital arts' should be awarded with black belts for those who 'get it right'?

Pillo for those who do not know is a full on Christian.
And from a time most people had been like that.
No offense meant mate you do sink the boot in to any one not one of yours.
Have you ever thought why we let the Church turn our sex lives in to a formal thing called wedding?
Long before the story of your Christ child was in part taken from earlier Gods Baal most closely related, ceremony's took place to tie couples together.
We can say it is not true but facts is many increasingly live out side wedlock.
Why not?
And why not let same sex, who in your view are on the way to a hell that does not exist, wed?
Some belief lets first cousins wed, pre teens be taken as wives.
Lets look closer at that not let bigotry control others in the name of Gods.