Marriage, as I said, is about the regulation of human sexuality, and the bearing and rearing of the next generation. Since same-sex relationships cannot produce children, that rules out the second fundamental reason for marriage. As to the first, that regulation has always been about keeping the wandering male to commit to his female partner, especially so the second factor was ensured. Women in marriage domesticate men, and the public ceremony that goes with it is a message to all that the male’s days of sexual wandering are over, as he now commits to a lifelong relationship with his wife, and any children which might result from that union.

Moreover, the number of homosexuals who are a) in committed, life-long relationships to the exclusion of all others, and b) actually want to get married, is minuscule. Most homosexuals admit to enjoying promiscuity and multiple partners, and find that long-term relationships (and certainly marriage therefore), are far too restrictive.

Marriage has always been about heterosexual pair bonding, and the protection of children. Thus again, homosexual relationships fail on both counts. Homosexual activists can try all they want to redefine the institution of marriage out of existence, but then they should no longer pretend that it is still marriage.

Finally, people are welcome to become involved in all sorts of committed relationships, be it two sisters, a religious order, or a football team. But those relationships are still not marriage, and never will be.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I put it to you that any commitment between two persons, to the exclusion of all others, is to be celebrated by our society. Isn’t that what you’re getting at, really, at the heart of the matter? And, of course, as gay uncles & grandfathers or lesbian aunts & grandmothers, these couples can fill a gap in the lives of children, so often deprived of extended family by our post-industrial society.

Dean Ransevycz, Sydney, NSW

The phrase is the ‘regulation of human sexuality’, not its irresponsible proliferation and misuse. Same-sex relationships and polyamorous ones do not qualify, almost by definition.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Pretty good, stressing the benefits of strong families, free trade and markets, and resolute foreign policy.

Remember that Chairman KRudd won by ‘me-tooing’ many of Howard’s ideas. But Nelson is being treated with contempt by voters for me-tooing where Labor differed.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

You stated:

Since the two goals of marriage have always been the regulation of human sexuality, and the wellbeing of the next generation, this precludes all kinds of relationships.

Even if it could be shown that your premise is true (which i doubt, but “show me the money”…), it does not follow that poly-amorous & homosexual relationships are precluded.

Surely homosexual marriages would fullfill the “regulation of human sexuality” part of your premise?

Thanks. Dean Ransevycz

Thought I might add a female voice here.

This is quite a vibrant discussion group, which is both informative and entertaining. Keep up the good work of bringing important issues to our attention. Most people are like sheep, and will follow the loudest horn, though, fortunately, there are some of us who are able to cut through the spin, whether based on historical performance or common sense, and recognise it for what it is.

What doesn’t kill you, makes you stronger. Perhaps western Christianity is due for a good shake up. One just has to read how strong the Chinese Christians are, to know that our Lord is able to sustain us whatever the condition Chairman Rudd drives this country down into, whilst ably supported by the feminist deputy by his side.

Of course WA [most of us] strove hard to keep work choices in place. (;-)) There is a boom on. No doubt brought on by good Liberal policies, though the Chinese may have had some small participation, even though the government is Communist.

While we can laugh, give our opinion, select our own religion [hopefully Christian] we have much to be grateful for.

Hilary Farquhar, WA

But until a few short decades ago, no culture throughout human history considered marriage to be merely a private contract. It was always seen as much more, as a social institution, which impacts everyone in society.

Since the two goals of marriage have always been the regulation of human sexuality, and the wellbeing of the next generation, this precludes all kinds of relationships. Your advocacy of polyamory and same-sex marriage only appears logical when we strip-mine the institutions of marriage and family of their historical functions and goods.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch