R0bert,
Most of what you have said seems agreeable; however today in Australia we have child brides as young a nine been given by parents to older men or relatives which I believe the Government should take a stand against. Marriage must be between two consenting adults. Adults be eighteen years unless the courts agree they are responsible. If they intend to have children that if related there are no genetic likelihood of deformity.

History has shown that less family problems arise when marriage is lifelong between one man and one woman. Few homosexual relationships can sustain such lifelong commitment; because children bind the bond between a man and a woman.

Josephus,

You raise valid points. I think you will find that the intimacy of which you wrote is female bonding with no sexual meanings, overt or covert. A sort of closeness to others as sisters. Do not males bond also?

However, if you were to mention teenage crushes, then I agree that there is has a strong sexual element. Teen crushes tend to be for another/others of the same sex. I have a friend who is both a mother and was a teacher. Her belief is that gays do not progress out of this stage to develop as heterosexuals.

I was unaware of the practice you mention of lesbians. I had thought, if they didn't use clitoral stimulation, that they might use vibrators, similarly as some straight women do.

Josephus,

I utterly agree that the government should take a stand about child brides. Actually, I thought it was illegal irrespective of ethnic/religious grounds.

In fact, I think that our government should go further. When we have married migrants from societies which accept of child brides, in fact indorse it, then there should be a check made of when the marriage took place. If the woman was underage at the time of marriage, I think that she should be asked if she wants to be married. If so, she marries her husband (again) under Australian law; if not, then she is deemed single.

I know that there are refuges in Australia set up by Muslim women for girls, who are either promised or being forced into marriage.

Robert,

Your criteria for marriage is completely logical. But, for many their union/cohabitation is highly emotional - and they want all the bells and whistles to accompany it - hence marriage. Even seniors seem to want a marriage ceremony.

If I had my time again, I would only have married because of having children. A widow with adult children, I certainly wouldn't go though any marriage ceremony now.

In France, the civil union is the only legal recognition of marriage. Any religious ceremony is not recognised in law; and takes place after that of the civil one.

There are all manner of very good reasons why a State would want to record births, deaths, marriages and name changes.

In doing so there have to be some rules. Although recently there are some very challenging 'innovations', for example, a father's name being removed from a birth certificate to be replaced by the mother's lesbian partner. That is fine for the immediate ego needs of the lesbians concerned, but not so good for the child. For example not knowing his health(genetic) inheritance could risk his life. But apparently 'rights' don't extend to the silent minor, only to noisy demanding adults who can use PC to their advantage.

Obviously if anyone objects to the State regulating marriage, gay marriage isn't something they would recommend.

The issue at stake isn't that the State should not be regulating marriage. What is being proposed by 'gay' marriage is further, in fact total regulation of relationships by the State, by forcing homosexuals too under the umbrella of intrusive State regulation. That is something that homosexual activists have always objected to before now.

Make no bones about it, when the Statist political Progressives re-jigged de facto law (it is now very broad indeed!) and extended it to homosexuals, in one fell swoop they wiped out all of the alternative forms of relationship for homosexuals, to force homosexuals under the single approved relationship decided, approved and regulated by the State.

Whereas previously homosexuals were free to decide their own splits and who owned what -they were masters of their own destiny- the Statism of the Progressives decreed that they be forced into the same corral as heterosexual couples. Rather than give gays choice and 'rights', they removed their choices and rights.

Gay marriage is the icing on the cake for the Statist Progressives, with the State snooping into everyone's bedroom and deciding their relationship status for them. Big potential savings for Centrelink though and that is a spin-off for government. Major benefits for all of those activist lawyers too, who saw Beamers in the windfalls from homosexuals being forced under family law.

onthebeach,

I think that all fair-minded people would be appalled that a biological parent could be replaced by another on a child's birth certificate. Each child has the right to know both its birth parents for many reasons.

I would have thought that, as with heterosexuals, a legal adoption would be required for any name change. Even then, the birth parent's name is not replaced on the birth certificate.