Yes, and moreover, offer a conscience vote to the coalition, to give the same rights to Australians in Australia!
I mean, just how ludicrous would it be, to recognize same sex marriages performed here, in foreign embassies, and still withhold exactly the same right on our own soil.
And there are enough States with their hand up, looking for just such reform, and on their territory!
I mean, the current stance would look so silly, if sexual orientation, had any element of choice in it, instead of being, just another normal aberration, over which, none have any control over, whatsoever. No ifs buts or maybes!
And people with a medical background should know this same fact better than anyone! Unless of course, they are the very worse kind of incorrigible bigots!
I mean, does any heterosexual think, that they, while still in the womb, chose to be straight?
Or left-handed, or born with a club foot etc/etc?
Only the most ignorant flat earthers could believe different!
Time to end this final area of perverse unjustifiable discrimination!
And given freedom to choose is a right, rather than a privilege, any church or church elder remains free to refuse to perform such service.
Therefore, what right do they then have, to try and force their personal bigotry, down any other throat!
There was a time when similarly ignorant people argued that slavery was justified, given it said so in the bible; (which bible, who's bible) or that blacks had the mark of Cain on them, and therefore were no better than beasts of the field!
I mean, religious bigotry has a very long and entrenched history, with some devotees, unable to give up their flat earth, stone age beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary!
Rhrosty.

Australia, and by this the author means the Australian Government, should not legally recognise any marriage. A marriage does not need to be legally recognised. There are absolutely no benefits in relation to the government that require a marriage certificate. It is not a matter of human rights at all. No one has a human right to have a marriage certificate. It may be something they would like but it is not a right. The fact that some people already have a legal marriage certificate does not mean that it is a right.

The distribution of legal marriage certificates has been carried out by the government for reasons best known to itself. None of these reasons are defensible. As the homosexual lobby are keen to tell us it is time to usher in the 21st century when it comes to relationships and this should include questioning government involvement in those relationships.

Homosexual people clamouring for government involvement do not want to question government involvement in marriage because they want that involvement. They want it, not because there are good reasons for having it, but because they need someone with the authority of the government to declare that homosexuality is in every way equal to heterosexuality. They need to appeal to ‘authority’ because they are simply not secure enough to be able to stand on their own two feet and ignore any arguments which threaten that security or present good reasons why it should be acknowledged as equal.

No amount of ‘authority’ will ever appease someone who is insecure about something for which they have no reason to feel insecure about. Dragging in the government and wasting taxpayers’ money to try and shore up your own personal insecurities is a desperate measure. It also is no guarantee of anything. If same-sex marriage became law it would simply mean that it was reasonable in the eyes of the government. The government once thought it reasonable to deny the vote to Aboriginal people on the basis of their skin colour.

It is simply lying to say that gay marriage is not "allowed" or is not "legalised".

Gays have the same right to marry - to exchange solemn commitments - as heterosexual couples. They also have all the same substantive rights attaching thereto.

What they don't have, is the ability to get that relationship registered by the government.

This fact invalidates the author's entire argument. Being a professional intellectual specialising in this area, she cannot plead ignorance. This is a case of deliberate dishonesty, folks. Paula is lying and she knows it.

We have seen in here that the advocates of so-called gay marriage just go quiet and slink off when challenged to defend their own arguments.

What they refuse to answer is:
1. why government should be in the business of registering people's sexual relationships in the first place?
2. why should some forms of sexuality and not others be thus recognised, or privileged, or marginalised?
3. why they don't support marriage equality for polyamorous and every other form of human sexuality without any discrimination whatsoever?

Polyamorous marriage is really illegal - literally a criminal offence under the Crimes Acts - and the crime is the mere exchange of vows - a speech crime, a thought crime, unlike the situation for gays,.

Furthermore, unlike gays, there is a substantive legal disability on polyamorous which disables them from making binding marriage settlements.

So why aren't you more concerned about that, Paula? *Real* human rights violations, not fashionable fake ones.

Answer the questions.

@ Jardine K. Jardine

The bottom line is that we gay people want exactly the same rights and opportunities as the average heterosexual person, or heterosexual couple. We gay people don't really consider our selves any different to heterosexual people, apart from the fact that we are sexually, emotionally and physically attracted to the same sex. Just as a heterosexual person is sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Also accusing people of "lying" simply because you don't agree with them is not constructive. Some people will never ever understand homosexuality, and thats fine by me.

My heterosexual partner and I were happily unmarried for 21 years until her untimely death. Our union was recognised by Centrelink. As I understand it, the same priveledges are also afforded to unmarried couples of homosexual persuasion. Why is there therefore this great urge to be legally married? If two people of whatever sexual persuasion wish to make vows of commitment to one another it should not be the business of the state to regulate it.

David

@ VK3AUU

There is a difference in law between defacto-spouse and defacto-partner.