2 couples tie knot in Australia's 1st same-sex weddings

Very happy for these couples and the many that will follow.

When they will say enough? Marriage is between man and woman.

When they will say enough? Marriage is between man and woman.

Did you not read the article? It literally proves you wrong, as it's about a marriage that is not between a man and a woman. And as the article says:

Two female couples tied the knot in Australia's first same-sex weddings under new legislation allowing gay marriages.

So counter to your claim, marriage does not require a man and a woman.

Sorry to tell you, but your viewpoint is being left where it belongs - in the past. Sorry you've grandfathered yourself out of society.

surely I am for this...A man and a woman get married and have no children...so a woman can marry another woman and they can do the same.  I stormed straight to the point here asuming that those who feel strongly against samesexmarriage believe the purpose of traditional marriage was for procreation...well, historically society may have been based on this need to grow a population, etc., but given our modern prosperity, childless couples may exist and multiply without any threat to traditionalists, who will  surely continue to breed (btw  i am a proud breeder, so no offense to anyone...)  people have a ceremony as a display of attachement and promise to commit for life...those who disagree with that are misguided.   They should rather argue that children need their father and their mother to be around for at least 20 years or so and push the point that this  is the ideal or even that it is a human developmental need (that should not be substituted by two 'parents' of identical gender...)  of course alot of people will jump down your throat for putting forth such a view

StrangerlandToday  05:36 am JST

Sorry to tell you, but your viewpoint is being left where it belongs - in the past. Sorry you've grandfathered yourself out of society.

I love the "grandfathered yourself out of society" comment so much I'm afraid to sound like I'm quibbling, but I have to:

Arguably, marriage was never just between a man and a woman. One would have to go back centuries to reach a time when divorces weren't available, and by that point you're getting into the times of official concubines, ownership of slaves who could be used for sexual purposes, and marriage laws where "ownership" of widows passed to relatives and such. Marriage between a man and a woman is, like so much other propaganda to come out of the far right, a quaint fantasy.