Assuming that marrriage is a commitment of two or more persons to share their lives I don't see why government has to be involved at all in a ritual binding. It can simply be a contractual arrangement dealing with property and other issues like any other contractual arrangement. If religious groups require a ceremony or the marriage pair or group want a ceremony that should be their own business.

If there are children involved regardless of what relationship produced them the government should be responsible to see that children are not mistreated and have the opportunities that children should have.

'If Portugal can allow same-sex marriage, why not Australia? '

If Japan can slaughter whales why can't Australia?
If Iran jails homosexuals why can't Australia?

The question is really pretty silly.

In this case I agree with runner. Let us do what we feel is right. Whatever Portugal does is the business of Portugal. Morality or what is right is not decided by what others do.

Wow - I was about to say exactly what runner said (well, pretty close, anyway). The logic in the title of this post is on par with a little kid: 'if Jimmy can have a lolly, why can't I?'

@runner and david f

I remember back when to the arugments over wether Australia should legalise gay sex or not, and your comments pretty much mirror what was said in those debates which went on for years and as a result was one of the last western countries to fully legalise gay sex back in 1994. I can guarantee that once gay marriage is legalised Australia will look back in shame at the silly arugments against gay marriage, just like with the debates on wether to legalise gay sex or not. Also you cannot compare Australia to Iran as its not a western country and as for Japan they actually allow its citizens to marry same-sex partners who have citizenship in countries where gay marriage is legally approved - unlike Australia. So even Japan is more advanced than us when it comes to marriage equality.

The question I ask is that why do gay people want marriage in the traditional sense anyway? After all, what is marriage today, or rather, what has it become?

Starting back in the 70's, marriage became nothing more than a bit of paper which could easily be torn up (metaphorically speaking) with the stroke of a magistrates pen. In fact movies stars and others who think their lives are somehow interesting to others have been divorcing for centuries.

Few people taking the vows of marriage today believe that they are in any way committed to a long lasting relationship "in sickness and in health, richer or poorer, etc." The marriage is more often than not about an attempt to imitate life as seen via the TV soapies complete with all the lavish wedding breakfasts, an expensive wedding gown that will never fit again after the babies have arrived, plus excessive amounts wasted on over-sized houses (not homes, there's a difference) filled with all manner of indulgence and often racked up on credit.

The traditional notion of marriage has changed completely in the last couple of decades, so what do gay couples see in that piece of paper that the vast majority of others don't? I believe there is already legislation in place to share property and assets following the death of a gay partner or a separation, so what's all the fuss about?

Sorry if I'm not attuned to all matters relating to gay marriage. The above is only my opinion and that's what this site is all about. People's opinions!