I have been waiting to hear a strong secular case against this and I'm still waiting. So far, think I can break down anti gay marriage philosophies into the religious, the ill informed and thirdly, the most insidious, the deeply held desire by some to take any form of dominion over someone else. This is a power trip - some people just love to deny people things. They love being asked what they think, they love being outraged and they are generally miserable people who didn't get what they thought they were due so nobody else can either. "life isn't fair" you will often hear them say. Credit to them, there's nothing prejudiced in their thinking, they are just that kind of person.

Metrop,
What do believe or think a mariage union means?

Thank you Don for a well reasoned comment.
I believe that it is not only the ABC that is driving the agenda for SSM. It is the Politically Correct stance. It is gratifying to hear another who is not PC.
The "gay" and lesbian group, albeit not a major proportion of our society. is very vocal.
I am bored by their screams. It is not "gay".

I'm yet to hear an argument stating why one believes that the state has a role in regulating relationships between consenting individuals.

I understand that religious people believe that marriage should be defined by their religious beliefs, and within their organizations that is fair enough. But as with circumcision, attending church on sunday, or the wearing of the hijab, these beliefs should not be forced onto those not within their organization.

It is also true that some non-religious people also do not support SSM. There may be many reason why this is so, many non-religious people also celebrate Christmas, so why would you expect any difference?

The solution lies in how Christmas is celebrated in this country. Allow people to be free marry within the same sex (or celebrate a religious tradition) but no not use the state to force society to recognize the tradition (Christmas is not enforced). If the state removed the Marriage act then Churches could marry (or not marry) whoever they wished, and whoever wanted to get married could get married. This would make marriage a symbolic act and not a useless state registration system of personal relationships. What does the state add to marriage that would be lost to those that support the institution?

I am happy to hear any argument against this position. I have proposed this before and I am still waiting.

Don,

I get that you don't like gay marriage... but I'm still not quite sure why. Your concluding statement that "in the future religion might disappear but without children there will be no future" suggests that it might have something to do with the the (non)existence of children, but I can't see the logical connection. Do you think that everybody under the age of 18 is just going to mysteriously vanish if we let gays get married?

"My reason for raising this issue is because there seems to be [a] view that agnostic and atheists must be on the side of same sex marriage. Not so."

No, the 'view' is that rational people who are free from ideological bias must be on the side of same sex marriage. And nothing in this article contradicts that.