Excellent article. Best argument against same sex marriage I have read.

I particularly liked the points of:

- No love requirement for marriage.

- Everyone has the right to be married if they choose to be.

- There are no known social benefits to having same sex marriage.

Thanks for the article

In this age of failure to commit and high divorce rates, I would have thought that any move which celebrates a long term relationship would be applauded by our society. The gay community wants a stamp of approval and sense of inclusion. We can do that as a society by allowing the choice to marry or not. Here we are again, pipped at the post by our more socially aware cousins across the Tasman. First it was the vote for women, then it was their disability scheme and now gay marriage. We should look and learn and follow suit quickly.

Is there an argument here? What we have is a set of prejudices masquerading as analysis. A set of contrived straw man arguments are no substitute for logical analysis.

Let me break down the article by each weak argument:

1. They never wanted it before. Demographics, opinions and policies change over time. That's how civil rights movements work.

2. Lesbian feminists don't want it. And probably still don't, all gay people don't have to get married, it's about having the right to marriage.

3. Marriage used to be about having children. To some people, but to most people, living today, it doesn't. See the thousands of arguments refuting this.

4. Claim that same sex couples do not survive past 65. Weak statistical understanding, many assumptions and ignoring many other variables. Wait, don't married couples last longer than non-married couples? Perhaps it is an argument for same sex marriage.

5. Not as "beneficial" to society. No evidence to support this.

6. Marriage is not about "Love". Completely wrong in our modern society. In my opinion this completely discredits everything you have to say on the subject.

7. Gays can still marry opposite sex. See previous point.

8. Inheritance rights. No real argument here, just that you don't agree that same sex coupes should have these rights. Well they should.

9. Already have nearly the same rights. Would three-fifths of the rights sound about right to you?

10. It's all a ruse to get you approval. I'm quite sure they don't give a $hit about your approval. It is quite simple, they are normal people, who are denied the right to marriage because people like you think that their relationships are not the same. They don't care what you think, just stop working to oppress their rights.

12. Marriage is a religious term. Yep I agree. I am happy for you to take back the term, and keep it. However this would mean completely removing the term from all of our secular government laws. Yes, this means that opposite sex marriages would not be recognized by the government. If fact, I'm happy for individual churches to have the choice exactly who they marry. It will just have no meaning outside of the the church. Think, Aus vs Saudi blasphemy laws.

What the author should really admit is that marriage itself is largely a dead institution, as the times have most definitely left it far in the past.

The rights he would happily deny to same sex couples are, by his own arguments, not appropriate to married couples in the modern age either. Partners of both genders work, so patronising measures to ensure the little woman left at home is alright once the man dies are not needed.

BUT marriage is sacred so leave the straight couples be, but make sure you permanently consign same sex couples to a different and lesser status. Then everyone can rightfully treat same sex couples as lesser, WITHOUT all the legacy measures of care and mutual support straight people can continue to enjoy. And those silly gay people don't really appreciate marriage anyway, just listen to what they said 50 years ago!

And he didn't even bother to address how often the use of reproductive technologies undermine his garbage about children in same-sex families not being raised by their 'natural' parents. Take all those donor sperm/egg kids away now!

Give me strength. Please come up with something more logical and fair, and then I might listen. THIS is the bottom line. The SECULAR Australian Government recognises loving relationships between two adult people. Discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation alone should be illegal. Replace marriage IN THE LAW with something more appropriate to the modern age, and I'll be right there with you. But this guff? Please.

Why now?
Well now enough of the anti gay discrimination has been exposed as the extreme ignorant cruelty that it is.
And what remains is mostly inside a red-neck minority?
And now, equality in marriage is in real prospect!
As for Lesbians once being strongly against marriage, well that was because it may well have been virtually compulsory, almost always included a man, and gave him virtual lord and master status, rather the the more equitable sharing and caring partnerships, which are today's new norm.
Lesbians are now more in favour, given they would and can marry whoever they love; rather than a male master.
And talking about divorce; perhaps it's a phenomena connected to traditional marriage, which sees two people wake up one morning, laying beside a perfect stranger and someone, one mightn't even like! This is because traditional marriage is all to often based on infatuation lust and baby making, rather than love.
Whereas, people who have had to fight everybody and anybody, just to be together, may well be in truly loving life long relationships.
While it may well make my skin fairly crawl at the sight of two men deep tongue kissing and groping, I would never actively deny them a right to some measure of happiness, natural human warmth and contact!
That is neither my right or my role!
Albeit, I might yell at any couple, hetro or gay, engaged in any similar public display, "get a room!"
Rhrosty.