Josephus would you then ban and or disolve marriages between heterosexual adults unable to biologically produce children?

Enough heterosexuals get married with no intent of producing children to make the production of children as a reason to both keep marriage as a state regulated event and not allow it for other than a two adults of dfferent gender emotive nonsence.

Would you prosecute those who produce children outside of marriage? Perhaps charge those who marry and fail to produce children with fraud?

Unless you are proposing massive change sto existing marriage laws to ensure that they are about procreation the procreation argument is largely null and voiid.

R0bert

Dear Onthebeach,

<<For any married person who believes that marriage has no meaning>>

I don't think there is anyone on this page answering to that description, who thinks that marriage has no meaning or that "vows are nothing".
Rather, it is the piece of paper given by the state which claims that one is now married, that is meaningless - and so, if not more, is that other piece of paper given by the state that claims that one is now divorced. As a vegetarian, I tell you that if I needed such papers, I'd rather obtain them from the local butcher.

Marriage is primarily before God, then secondarily before the family and friends. The state/government are uninvited guests!

Dear RObert,

I agree with you. There are many couples who
either don't want to have children, or are unable
to have them. And child-bearing plays no part in their
lives - this doesn't make their marriage lesser in
any way.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It's my understanding that historically marriage evolved
due to the desire to secure property and ensure
legitimate succession. From my understanding the Catholic
Church stopped priests marrying in the 4th century to prevent
their kin making claims on church property after their
death.

Legalised marriage can be used as a tool of oppression -
whether for child brides of elderly men or in cultures
where women are murdered for refusing to be treated
as the property of others.

In our country unmarried women were forced to adopt out
their babies into the 1970s. And in the 1980s unmarried
women were faced the degrading discrimination of being
unable to take out a bank loan.

As you point out:

In liberal democracies - consenting adults should
be able to make their own union choices without the state
regulation of marriage. If one believes in the separation
of church and state in our secular society than I guess
it stand to reason that the state
should stay out of the instituion of marriage.

Lexi, "In liberal democracies - consenting adults should
be able to make their own union choices without the state
regulation of marriage"

But homosexuals were able to do precisely that before the self-styled 'Progressives', the Left and the feminists, decided to regulate their relationships as 'de facto'. Now the same flying wedge, unabashed by the complete cock-up they have made of de facto regulations and family law, are trying to force homosexuals under State regulation of formal marriage.

Before, homosexuals could form and dissolve relationships at will and without interference. Now Big Sister presumes to define and judge their relation ships and set State requirements for their dissolution and disbursement of assets.

How does all of that fit with your claimed aim of abolition of 'State controlled' relationships? You presume to regulate even the minutiae of 'relationships' and involve yourself in their personal affairs and in bedrooms, while claiming the opposite. That is double talk.

As superbly demonstrated by the Netherlands experience with homosexual marriage, they don't want it and are not going to marry.

Or is the goal to destroy another of the institutions so hated by the Left and feminists? Feminists incidentally, who do not represent women, never consult with them and yet presume to always know what is best for them.

BTW, how does any of this help un-parterned homosexuals and particularly unpartnered homosexuals with children?

Dear onthebeach,

The question that is being asked here is -
"Should we get rid of the Marriage Act?"
And what I am questioning is - why is
there a law on marriage? And do we really want
to allow the law makers to define our relationships?
And why is marriage legislated at all?

This isn't about those who choose de-facto
relationships. This is about those who want to
marry and are not allowed to do so.

I am aware that the evolution of de-facto
rights has in many instances negated the need for
marriage laws for matters of estates, finances
and custodial disputes. However the Marriage
Act still defines marriage as a "union of a
man and a woman to the exclusion of all others."
Therefore it does allow lawmakers to define
our relationships - does it not?

With respect, what you are doing is ducking a number of issues, none of which support your agenda which is to advocate for 'gay' marriage.

Of course the laws passed relating to de factos and family law are relevant. But it is easy to see why the architects of those changes would like to escape scrutiny and accountability.

What is going on here is that you are unwilling to accept the democratic decision that has reaffirmed the definition of marriage. The Marriage Act has been done over and over and over at the behest of the Greens in the Senate and in the media, an to nauseating lengths by the publicly funded broadcasters, SBS and ABC. It is stale. Unless of course the Greens would like to put it up as a signature policy for the coming election, which they will not of course.

Given that you are unwilling to accept the democratic decision, you are unlikely to engage with any arguments that dispel your own proposition.

For interest though, since you criticise the democratically arrived at State law that gave you your marriage and you maintain that the State should never have been involved, will you now act to dissolve the artifice you so object to in your own case?