Saltpetre<" lies, distortion and genital-driven selfishness reign supreme...an ever-increasing morass of writhing bodies... "
What a horrible world you appear to live in!

If you are suggesting that all the attributes you discuss above have only come about in this apparently terrible, morally bereft world we live in today, I would suggest you think again.

I ask you, how on earth does 'allowing' gay couples to marry affect the heterosexual marriages?

Sure, there are more divorces and de-facto marriages these days than ever before in history.
I would suggest that were it as easy to legally and financially leave your spouse in past generations as it is today, then there would have been far more divorced people in past societies too.

They would not be chained together in loveless marriages, as some poor people were, back in the 'good old days'.

It is ironical that people complain about Labor members being permitted to vote as they wish , rather than being required to vote in accordance with Labor policy . A few years ago , a constant complaint about Labor politicians was that they were supposed to vote the party line . Apparently ,the right to hold a conscientious belief does not apply in respect of gay marriage .

To say that MPs should always vote as the majority of voters in their electorate wish is inconsistent with parliamentary democracy .

As another contributor says ,applying this argument would result in the reintroduction of capital punishment . It would also probably result in the abolition of speed limits , free petrol being supplied from Budget funds and removal of income taxes .

We may as well abolish Parliament [ which would be very popular ] and laws can be made in compliance with opinion polls . There is no need for MP s to speak in Parliament . Citizens can express their opinions on Facebook .

suzeonline,
You asked "how on earth does 'allowing' gay couples to marry affect the heterosexual marriages?"

The fact is Gay couples cannot by nature form a complementary gender union which is what the term marry means. The fact is this PC generation cannot define ideas correctly, as for them near enough is good enough. Homosexual acts have never been defined as marriage, as invisaged in marriage is offspring forming a family.

Philo,

You still haven't answered suze's question: how does broadening the definition of marriage to include gay marriages impact on heterosexual marriages?

The fact is that the meanings of words change over time. A faggot used to be a bundle of sticks; now it is a male homosexual. Spam used to be a particularly awful type of processed meat; now it is also unwanted email. Nice originally meant ignorant or unaware, changed to mean accurate or precise, and these days means pleasant or agreeable. And the evolution of language is by no means a recent phenomenon - one only has to read some English classics to appreciate that fact. Chaucer uses different language to Shakespeare; Shakespeare uses different language to Dickens; Dickens uses different language to Tolkien; Tolkien uses different language to Rowling. The fact that some stick-in-the-muds can't or won't accept that language is in a constant state of evolution and always has been, with new words being added, old ones falling into disuse and definitions shifting over time, won't actually do a damn thing to stop language changing.

The Acolyte Rizla,
What Gays do in their relationships is not marry, but pervert a natural sexual act.

Philo,

Gays don't marry because they aren't allowed to at the moment - whether or not this prohibition is reasonable is what is being debated. Quite what this has to do with sex I fail to see.