Josephus, it may be vague to you but that is my own opinion about the definition of marriage. You can have your own opinion. Neither of us is wrong or right, it is just an opinion.

"It does not define her use of the term love as we all should love and care for each other, does that then define we are all married."
You didn't ask for my definition of love, and the rest of that question is silly.

"There is no exclusion clause and no life long commitment."
I don't believe it should be lifelong if there are any good reason it should end in divorce.

" What is the emphasis on the word joining? does it mean a sexual union? What purpose does the State have in recording the unproductive sexual union of two persons of the same gender?
I always thought 2 people would join as a married couple? Am I wrong?
What purpose does the state have in recording the unproductive sexual Union of two persons of opposite sex? Are you suggesting infertile or older couples shouldn't marry?

" This will allow the State to examine all persons of the same gender both receiving welfare, especially if they love each other as your definition describes."
I'm not sure what you mean here Josephus?
Doesn't the state already deal with defacto gay couples on welfare?
Being married will be the same, as with heterosexual couples.

In the wedding ceremony the "joining together" refers to the sexual union of the husband wife and vows witnessed by those present and is recorded by the State as legally binding, in contrast to casual sex.

I suggest you look at the last link I posted by some in the Irish homosexual community in support of the "NO" vote. At least they are informed, unlike the Media brainwashed public, that marriage is merely about love.

Gee Josephus, the 'media' sure did a good job on 'brainwashing' the Irish public didn't they....what with forcing the many hundreds of thousands of people to go against their will and vote for gay marriage?

You sure give the media a lot of power.
Are you for real? Do you think the majority of Irish people are so gullible?

Or could it simply be that these people just thought it was the right thing to do?
They weren't' so stupid as to imagine gay marriage would affect anyone else at all, except those stuck in a time warp where they still believe an invisible God 'spoke' to one of the many mere human writers of the fictional bible and called homosexuality an 'abomination'. 2000 years ago?

Australia will follow Ireland's lead soon, and rightly so.

If people wish to be ignorant of the developed functions of the human body so be it. Biological science does not support the view of two lesbians were designed to use artificial means to fulfil their female design. Nor was the human rectum designed to take the male penis and spread diseases found in excreta, like hepatitis and AIDS etc. I have been to three funerals of men in their 40's who have died of the debilitating AIDS virus.

//Nor was the human rectum designed//

Try telling that to some people...

Do you think it is only male rectums that take penises Josephus? Because there are a plethora of videos on the internet that conclusively disprove that theory. Nor is it exclusively male homosexuals who catch HIV. Given your interest in biology, you should note that strictly speaking it is HIV which is transmitted, not AIDS. Antiretroviral therapy is effective these days that in developed countries like Australia, progression to AIDS is increasingly rare and most HIV-positive patients can live long and happy lives.

Of course, a gentleman engaging in any sort of casual intercourse has the option - and would be wise to take it - of wearing little rubber devices to prevent issue. By wearing a rubber sheath over their old feller, they can significantly reduce the chances of catching most STI's, including HIV.

I really don't see what this has to with marriage.

Suse,

"Australia will follow Ireland's lead soon, and rightly so"

Not going to happen, Ireland had a referendum we won't and can't.