Procreation [the purpose for the marriage act] is not emotive nonsense, it is a biological act naturally occurring at the marriage of male sperm and female ova and those involved in it ought both be held life long responsible by the State for the loving nurture and maintenance of the children produced. The parents are responsible to register new citizens to the State. There are no new citizens joining the state from same sex couples. The Marriage ACT held by the State covers the biological reality of a union between a man and a woman.
Why? Because it naturally produces children.

I don't believe that homosexuals support marriage for them at all. The precursor, common law marriage was forced on them through the feminists and Left meddling in marriage and creating a de facto provisions that no-one can understand. A few noisy activists, but largely the self-styled 'Progressives' -the Chardonnay quaffing middle class Left and feminists- are at it again.

No-one, simply no-one, can arrive at a simple understanding of the definition of de facto because there is no definition. There is a jumble of scenarios that the feminists and Left wanted included, but even the federal agencies themselves cannot agree on the de facto status if any in given examples. The result though is that homosexuals are forever at risk, as are heterosexuals too, of being judged by others, the State in particular, of being in a 'de facto' situation without actually choosing to be. The consequences can be very expensive. Where homosexuals once used to begin and end relationships as they chose, Big Sister State now tells them what to do.

Another consequence is that bigamy has been legalised in practice. A person can have numerous de facto claims on his/her livelihood and assets. That is despite the person having an existing marriage and family. It is despite the other party/parties, the 'de facto' claimants knowing the person was married and there being no agreement for de facto status.

One of the compelling reasons to cleanse the Greens/Gillard government from the government benches (to take the rubbish out in September '13) is precisely that - that there has been continual legislative interference in citizens' lives and in the institutions that make our culture what it is, without any prior consultation with the electorate and consensus that change was needed. Always there are unintended negative consequences that the government refuses to even acknowledge.

Josephus, good to see you pushing the same line as the Catholic Church. I say keep the religious ratbags like Archy Pell out of the bedroom.

Dear Lexi,

<<Not everyone wants a de-facto relationship.>>

Fair enough, so people can get married by their churches, and those who do not have a church can get married by their hairdresser.

<<What I am questioning is - do we need to have marriage legislated and to we want to allow lawmakers to define who we can marry?>>

Obviously not, anyone should be able to marry anyone and anything else (and any number thereof). What that actually means depends on the authority that sanctioned that marriage - if marriage is conducted by a reputable church, then the marriage will be respected by that church's followers and most likely by other churches as well. If that's the hairdresser, the respect this marriage carries is then subject to the hairdresser's reputation. If it's the government, then such marriage should be spat on: any hairdresser has a better reputation!

Dear People,

I'm not advocating anything one way or the other.
What I'm trying to do is simply put up a subject
for discussion and get people's views on the subject.
The Marriage Act has been the subject of many discussions
between family and friends, and I thought it might be
interesting to get opinions on it here on the Forum.

I've been reading all of your posts with interest - and
you've all raised some valid points.

I certainly don't have all the answers - and I find
myself with more questions than answers.

RObert's post made a great deal of sense to me.
And I'm looking forward to other opinions on this
topic.

For any married person who believes that marriage has no meaning -ie it is 'outdated', or it is simply the State interfering and nothing else, or the contract is not worth the paper it is written on- her/his way ahead is clear: be honest enough to inform your husband or wife and get a divorce. Because the vows meant nothing. You have no comprehension of what marriage is about and you are wasting the other person's time with your deceit.

Worst are those who dismiss it as being solely about 'love'. Honestly, just who do they believe they are kidding? Or, what is more likely, their superficiality shows they have no idea.