Too late for this stuff. Most people who intended to vote have already voted, and the 'feeling' is that the SSM proposal will get a guernsey. I mean, did anyone really think that Australia would be less morally bankrupt than the rest of of West where this rubbish has passed into law?

My attention was immediately drawn to the “private lives of others” bit. Yeah, and why didn't the homosexuals keep their private lives private and leave the long-suffering public out of it? They have deliberately, and outrageously, made their pathetic lives public in an aggressive, nasty way. Not much private about it, son. And nobody would “...hold beliefs about how others’ private lives ought to conform to our standards” if the homosexuals and their political urgers had kept it to themselves. Damn silly talk, here!

And, stop picking on Christians; you don't have to be Christian to be disgusted by the idea of two people of the same sex getting 'married'.

It is clear that that philosophy has been dumbed down in the universities, like everything else has.

Someone throw this kid a towel, he needs to dry behind his ears.

Perhaps his vision of truth is clouded by a bunch of lefty academics, or perhaps he is just short sighted, but he obviously has a problem finding the wood in the trees.

Most no voters don't give a damn what poofters do in private, but we do think the world would be a better place, if they had not propagated AIDS around the planet. Giving them the right to an institution millions have lived by for centauries is not humane, it is straight theft. It is an institution that should not be sullied by the left in their continual effort to destroy civil society.

For the left to claim the moral high ground while tearing down yet another pillar of western society is typical, & as disgusting as their usual ways.

This article is completely misconceived.
Marrige is the union of a man and a woman. The union of same sex couples is not marriage, and the assertion that it is marriage is an attack on the institution of marriage.
There is no recognised name for the union of perverts, which, until recently was a criminal offence.
There is now no reason for it not to be named, and for its acceptance by society to be sought.
It is not marriage, and calling it marriage, as the lying, unprincipled political wing of te perverts does, is an attack on the institution of marriage, and upon those to whom marriage is an important part of their lives.
What is wrong with "perviage", or "sodomage"? Those names are not taken. "Marriage" is not available. It means a union of a man and a woman.

I agree with Previous 3 posters. Let's face it Male to male sex is just plane dirty & unhealthy. Female to female sex is all about hating males. Something has gone wrong with their Genes if they are genuine or they have a Mental Illness if no Genes are involved. Have a relationship by all means but don't sully it by calling it Marriage.

Just because a man feels a sexual attraction to an animal does not mean would should legislate marriage for it. This article just confirms the inability or unwillingness of our students to think.

Can't believe some of the comments on here. Apparently "male to male sex is just plane dirty & unhealthy" is what constitutes civilised discussion nowadays (not even mentioning the spelling error).

I thought this was a great, eloquently presented, and well argued article.