Any person who wishes to marry a same gender partner should of course be able to do so without any government or social interference. It is discrimination, total social bias and fear to block same sex marriages. Two people symbolising their love for one another is a sacred and special event, one in which, would also educate our future Australian generation.

R0bert,

I am not argueing against the idea, just sharing my initial thought process, and am happy to acknowledge that my understanding of the term marriage is a relatively recent construct. But from this construct I assume the formal structures and legal framework of what we know as marriage were pulled together around the modern construct of marriage.

I admit that I may find it unusual if the term marriage was used for gay marriages, but this does not mean I would object. I know some long term hetero couples who are in very stable defacto relationships that might find a formal union worthwhile as some people have fundmental problems with the social construct of marriage. When suggesting a formal union, or whatever it may be called, I was thinking that this could be a possibility. It might also get a greater number of people to demand action.

One of the negatives of defacto relationships is the complex issues that can arise if seperation occurs for whatever reason. Couples being seperated when one of them has to go into aged care is one example that springs to mind.

I wish the people who are hoping to put this on the political agenda, all the very best of luck

In the past, I've argued against same-sex marriage on the grounds that "marriage" is simply a word, and one that traditionally has religious undertones. I think our current institution of marriage certainly does have its roots in those religious customs, even in the case of civil ceremonies.

That said, with the wisdom of reflection and the maturity of a few more years under my belt, I think I've changed my tune.

Certainly marriage - even civil marriage - has religious roots. But so does Christmas, and we aren't out to stop gay people celebrating Christmas. Like Christmas (and Easter and the dreaded St. Valentine's Day), the custom of marriage has evolved and means different things to different people. That we allow marriages to be dissolved so easily certainly flies in the face of their religious sanctity. At the end of the day, the religious argument doesn't stick.

My question now is not "why do gay people want to marry, anyway?". It is "why should they not be allowed to?". I don't think the state of marriage stands to be degraded through same-sex union. I don't think it puts anyone at any real risk - not even in a spiritual sense. If gay people are gay, they are going to be gay whether they can marry or not, so preventing gay marriage isn't going to save too many souls.

My religious beliefs tell me that gay marriage - indeed, homosexuality altogether - is wrong. But my beliefs aren't everybody's beliefs, and I have no right to impose them on others. Nor does our government. You won't catch me doing it, and I will no doubt have "opinions" about gay people who marry, but the world is made up of many different types of people with many different beliefs.

@Phanto

Not once in this entire thread, have you provided a valid reason to discriminate against same-sex couples marrying.

I do not usually call people names. Any perusal of my posting history will confirm this. However, there is no other explanation for your opposing SSM other than your objection to homosexual people. Heterosexual couples may marry no matter how different their sexual practices in the bed-room may be (news for you Phanto not everyone only uses the 'missionary position'), nor are they scrutinised if they wish to have children - no matter their abilities to parent.

Two adult people (of whatever sexual orientation) who wish to declare their union in the form of a marriage has been a part of human culture long before the advent of of any of the major world religions today.

What anyone does in consent in the privacy of their own homes is none of my or your business, nor would you want it to be. Neither you nor Cornflower have offered any valid reasons against SSM - because there are none and never have been.

If you do not wish to be assumed a bigot, then the answer is simple. Stop preaching discrimination against people who are different from you.

Isn’t it amazing how we all think.

On other subjects, I find myself aligned with Cornflower and in opposition to CJ Morgan and Severin. But in this case, the reverse applies.

Julia Gillard is unlikely to make the change, as being atheist will inevitably result in an attack from the Church. Rudd was in a better position to do so.