It seems that in the long run there will need to exist two types of marriage, secular and religious, so that for religious people the sacrament of marriage is maintained. Alternatively, marriage could be privatized as nature's God intended.

Don't meddle with the Marriage Act - REPEAL IT!

Completely disagree!
Equality in marriage would finally recognize in law the fact that those people who happen to be born different, didn't chose it to be so!

Let the people speak and put it to an overdue plebiscite, which by the way just allows us to know the will of the people; but does not bind our so called law givers the way a referendum would?

Either would do, given the usual medley of dyed in the wool control freaks have had far too much to say for far too long!

And simply put, it is just not down to them!

I would however not impose any thou musts on any of the usual bigots the way they have with folks who just happen to be born different.

And given they are born different, still part of the family of man and God's creation.

I don't pretend to know what purpose God had in creating this naturally occurring aberration; other than to force the pious hypocrites among us, to acknowledge their own fundamental flaws or that not everything read in some alleged holy book is Gospel/it ain't necessarily so.

The concept of, at least do no harm must hold sway here.

As opposed to the probable suicides of literal hordes of seriously unhappy folk who have been persuaded, that their natural aberration is against the will of the creator, [who made them just as they are,] and is a terrible sin.

And given they as extremely vulnerable and impressionable young folk, could not stop being themselves!

And therefore, sadly, chose suicide as opposed to continue to live in Church labelled sin!

Time to stop listening to the voices in your fundamentally fatuous head; and stop being entirely unreasonable toward folk who have never ever been given a so called choice!

And not down to the very reverend (judge, jury and hangman) to tell us what God thinks; given he couldn't possibly know?
Rhrosty.

Not all people who oppose same-sex "marriage" are religious and such arguments confuse the issue. The term "marriage equality" also confuses, since all persons gay or straight already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I agree with the author that it would be better for same sex unions to be recognised under their own Act with regulations (e.g. for inheritance) that are more suited to their circumstances. I support the legalisation of same-sex unions.

Historically "love" was never an essential prerequisite or condition for marriage. The historic esteem for marriage has been for its role in reproducing the human species as a legal/social/religious contract, whereby the parents took responsibility for staying together and supporting their family (and commonly their extended family also.) Same-sex unions, unlike a marriage between a man and a woman, are incapable of joint reproduction and consequently are fundamentally different to a conventional marriage.

The desire to use the term "marriage" is an attempt to seek social recognition and approval for gay and lesbian lifestyles.

I believe that only a minority within the gay and lesbian communities will ever seek to formalise legal relationships and much fewer again will seek to have children.

Rhrosty, "the fact that those people who happen to be born different, didn't chose it to be so!"

That so?

How then do you explain the chosen, flexed sexual preferences of Anne Hecke and the many other examples from celebrities alone?

Undying love lost with Degeneres,
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=116193

Happy mum with loving husband (a male husband not the faux version) and family,
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/stars-family-holiday-traditions-20123110/25836

The mantra that gays are born is necessary, essential to spruiking the falsehood that gays are somehow denied marriage and other 'rights' isn't it?

Dear Rhrosty,

<<Equality in marriage would finally recognize in law the fact that those people who happen to be born different, didn't chose it to be so!>>

It would never achieve that purpose, since legislation never tells what is so.

Even if the service of homosexual-marriage is provided by the state as proposed, that tells nothing about whether or not the people in question chose to be homosexuals.

Equality in marriage can also be achieved by stopping the state from meddling with private loving relationships altogether. If you think about it, even now they don't have a way to tell who loves whom and who is truly married to whom.

---

Dear Bren,

<<all persons gay or straight already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.>>

AND of the same sex as well. The fact that the state would not recognise such a marriage makes no difference - it's not illegal.