“Another relevant principle might be a utilitarian approach to the betterment of humankind. More people will be happier if they are permitted to marry whomever they want.”

What is the difference in happiness between de facto couples and married couples? You can be with whoever you want. People who equate happiness with the legal marriage are people who have a very poor understanding of human happiness and relationships.

Comparing sexual orientation with race, disability, gender and other such human characteristics is dishonest unless sexual orientation can be shown to be as fundamental to human nature as those other characteristics. Stating it as a ‘given’ in the hope that people will accept it as readily as they accept race, disability and gender is very poor logic.

Sexual behaviour is not proof of sexual orientation. It is only proof of sexual behaviour. Until we have proof of such a human characteristic as sexual orientation then any such comparisons with race, disability and gender should be dismissed. We can observe race, gender and disability with our own eyes and we can observe sexual behaviour with our own eyes but where is the proof of sexual orientation?

One aspect of the current contentious debate hinges around the formal name given to the bonding of two people.
The term "marriage" is old, very traditional, and had its foundation in the legal recognition of heredity including goods and chattels.

Today, the term defines the legally or formally recognised union of two people as partners in a relationship.
Why not find another term for this union, thus cease irritating those who have traditional or religious interpretations of the word "marriage"?

“The outcome of such an analysis is that religious arguments on same-sex marriage are subjective, discriminatory and lack ethical merit.”

What arrogant claptrap. It is one thing to say that you THINK that someone else's beliefs “'lack ethical merit”, but to pronounce that they ARE, is totally unacceptable bigotry. But then, bigotry is what we have come to expect from the supporters of fake marriage – most of whom don't care about homosexuals themselves, but only their own, political bandwagon. In this case 'Ethical Rights' and the death cult 'Exit International'.

David Swanton is a 'word forger', twisting the meanings of words to suit his insidious manipulations of people's minds. 'Equality' – a word beloved of that other Marxists manipulator, Bill Shorten – has nothing to do with fake marriage. Fake marriages between people of the same sex are not equal to normal heterosexual marriage. The is no 'right' to fake marriage. Sure, the pushers and urgers are trying to bring about an artificial right, but there is no natural right, and it is dishonest to say there is when even he artificial concoction has not yet been delivered.

And of course, the Swantons of this world would say that religious believers are not 'objective'. That's just another empty put down from an anti-religionist. He even sneers at others' beliefs, while apparently having none of his own or, if he does have any, they are far superior to those of Christians.

David Swanton has no particular qualifications to be lecturing anybody on what they should think. He simply takes a 'I'm right and your are wrong' approach. Anyone can do that.

But, to someone I can respect: Graham Richardson, Lefty and ex-Labor politician as well as YES voter, has apologised for the thuggish behaviour of the YES campaigners and their loud, violent demonstrations against NO voters.

Don't be fooled by Swanton's “There are no fundamental dangers in same-sex marriage that require its repudiation.” It is the side effects that will haunt us forever.

The following sums the author's ideas: "it violates the sound ethical principle of equality for all humans."

There is no such ethical principle. It's a total lie, hence there is no need to read any further.

HEROC V the Australian Costitution
s. 116.
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth

" or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion"

This is where homosexuals fit!

Yuyutsu,

“There is no such ethical principle. It's a total lie...”.

Spot on. Coincidently, I have just begun reading a book by philosopher, Ryszgard Legutko suggesting the very same thing. There is reference to the maybe-sham of human 'rights', too, most of which are a construct of political activists and man-made legislation.

Demand a 'right', and viola, you have it.

Diver Dan,

Some people say that marriage is a religious thing – nothing to do with governments in the first place. I don't know where that would put the legal protections of marriage, though.