The only person who said a marriage is between a man and a woman, was John Howard.
Nobody can give a true answer, as to how same sex marriage will affect them, other than they are hostile to Gays and lesbians.

Chris C., 'marriage' does not now mean 'the life-long union of one man and one woman', and has not meant that for as long as English has existed. Polygamous marriages exist. We have used the phrase 'polygamous marriage' for a long time. We could not have if you were right.

Nor does is the meaning given completely by 'the life-long union...'--there are various legal rights and obligations attached to marriage, which contribute to the meaning of the word.

Life-long commitment, legally and as part of the institution is subject to conditions, and has been for a long time (consummation, fidelity). These days there are others. As had frequently been remarked, too, a wife's entitlement to hold property of her own is a new feature of Western marriage. The meaning of the word has changed.

In any case, the attempt to argue a moral case on the basis of the meaning of a word has got to be fallacious.

"If the federal parliament can redefine the words in its constitutional list of powers any way it feels like, there would be no stopping it taking over every area just by redefinition. A train is not a bus. An apple is not a tomato. Red is not green."

I agree, government shouldn't define marriage. However by the government does define marriage in order to regulate it. If it stops regulating it, you can define it however you want for as long as you shall live.

Lego,

Families do change. They always have and always will. I understand that you may not like how some families are now (what time-period was family utopia by the way), but you can't change this. Attempting to change how people live by asking the government to stop it will not work.

You also have the common misunderstanding that the "homosexual lobby" is going to destroy your beloved "family unit". What could anybody possibly do to change your family? Somehow you think that if two blokes decide to call themselves a family then all of a sudden you will get divorced and your kids will move out of home and become homosexuals themselves?

Do you understand? It is not homosexuals that are trying to change the way you live. You are the one that want the government that regulates relationships between people.

To Stezza.

The fastest growing crime statistic in the USA is juvenile homicide, a trend which is beginning to happen in Australia, with the announcement in June 2000 by the Australian Institute of criminology that it was “puzzled” by the significant rise of violent crime (including murder) that was being perpetrated by children in Australia.

The family has always been the primary socializing influence on children and it is under stress today and getting weaker. It is not in the interests of either governments or parents to allow this to continue. It may be impossible for a democratic government to pass legislation controlling the rise of single mothers, or latchkey children, or divorce, or the fact that families today are scattered around the suburbs, or many other marriage and family related matters. But they can stop homosexuals from redefining the word “marriage” to suit their own self interest.

Most people just do not accept that the word “marriage” is anything less than the union of a man and a woman. And I think that I am right in concluding that most people also see the redefining of the word “marriage” by the homosexual lobby as yet another new threat to the family. Let’s put that to a referenda and I will accept the outcome. I don’t have a problem with a democratic decision, but you obviously do.

You now have two choices. You can keep trying to change attitudes through reasoned debate, but then you will keep coming up against characters like me who can easily counter your arguments. Or, you and your friends can continue to suck up to Labor and the Greens so that you can over ride the wishes of the electorate through minority wedge politics. I would advise the latter course as being the more effective, although the danger is that Labor and the Greens will be considered parties in thrall to the homosexual lobby, and most voters will turn away from them for that reason.

"You now have two choices."

Lego,

If you understood my argument, you would realize that I am neither attempting to change attitudes, nor support any policy of any political party re:marriage. You seem to completely ignore my point that by removing the marriage act, churches and other community organizations can define marriage however they want. That means that you are completely free to define marriage as "the union of a man and a woman". Why do you have a problem with this?

You have not countered any argument of why the government should regulate marriage other than to stop other people using the word marriage in ways you disagree with. Appealing to government to force people to accept your definition opens the possibility that in the future, your democratic nanny state will define marriage in a way that will force you to accept their definition. You see, by abolishing the marriage act, you both retain your right to define marriage however you want, and remove the ability of the government to remove this right in the future.

So really you have two choices. Accept that the government can change the definition of the word marriage, for better or worse, or decide that the government should not regulate/define marriage. You can't have it both ways.

Kipp,

Same sex marriage would affect me positively, but I still don't believe in calling it marriage. If gay people could get married, I would be more free to define the terms of my defacto relationship. Currently there are laws in place to give gay people equal rights (and responsibilities) without giving them marriage. Now some of those responsibilities I have been given even though I have made no commitment in marriage. I see this as ridicuous. If I wanted to be married, I would get married. That's why I agree with Stezza.

I also agree with Chris, on semantics, that homosexuals wanting to be called married, even when they have every right marriage holds already, is like me wanting to be legally called a mother. I notice you haven't been able to refute the logic of that analogy.

Not that it bothers me too much. I also get annoyed when Americans change the meaning of words. Like momentarily for instance. In America it means 'in a moment', rather than 'for a moment'.

I understand some homosexuals believe they will gain some majical acceptance by the ability to use this word, but as I said, why not let me be accepted as the mother of my children even though I am male. It's the same thing. I can be called a father, and not a mother, and gay people can have civil unions, and not marriage.