My question to Mr Croome is, what difference will it make?
Bully for you, you're compromising religious/conservative influence--though you're a bloody long way from any kind of watershed--on government, and throwing confetti on a few more hopeless romantics. But I wonder how many of them have a guernsey that they're doing anything beyond being a little bit naughty? I think for most gays getting married's more like foreplay than avant-gardism.
But let's suppose it is the end of conservative/religious hegemony, what positive effects can we expect to flow from that? The free market will have yet fewer constraints on it and we can all indulge our illusions of freedom a little more, but will it make Australia a better place, or its citizens more politically/ethically responsible? It's all very well purging the social bowels of centuries of religious constipation, but what ethical regimen should we observe after that in order to maintain a healthy digestion, so to speak?
Gay marriage is an abomination, not of the institution of marriage, but of the concept of emancipation.
Enjoy the reception into society, but how's that going to change anything?

WmTrevor

I'm not sure that I understand your point about influence in government, runner… It was you in another thread who said:

The point is that the Christian right has not got an imbalance in influence as shown by the fact we have an atheist feminist PM, a lesbian Finance Minister etc etc. Pointing these things out is not hateful Pelican. Or you are doing is showing your Christophobic bias which I suspect is quite hateful.

Put the matter to a referendum that asks only this question! Should we or should we not alter the marriage act, so as to include same sex relationships/couples. Ask the people and then let them decide; rather than a handful of blindfolded pulpit pounding "medieval" fundamentalists? Enough already. Rhrosty.

I am all for equal marriage rights:

The state should very equally withdraw from sanctioning relations between people
- friendly relations
- marriage relations
- sexual relations
- employment relations
- business relations

Consensual relationships of all types should be kept to the discretion of the individuals involved or anyone else they wish to share them with (family, friends, church, clubs, unions, etc.): why should anyone (straight, gay or anything in between) seek (and even pay for) a piece of paper from the morally-bankrupt Napoleons of the government to acknowledge and bless their marriage? The blessing of the state is equivalent to a curse!

'Ask the people and then let them decide; rather than a handful of blindfolded pulpit pounding "medieval" fundamentalists? Enough already. Rhrosty.'

I take it you are talking about the carbon tax Rhostry. Certainly their are far more people against it than they are for 'gay'marraige. Then again the selective 'democracy' is a dogma of the left and especially the homosexual lobby. The homosexual lobby refused the will of the people in California quite recently.

runner,
I don't have a Christophobic nature - I am not arguing Christians not be allowed to marry or stand for Parliament. Read what you have written about lesbians, feminists and atheists and try and see past your conditioned stance. I disagree, it is hateful to point these things out given your motive is not one of inclusion but of discrimination. One day you may see the effect this sort of hate speech has on young homosexuals. You are free to say what you want as I am to refute it.

Why can't a lesbian be a Finance Minister? You have given no logical or rational explanation - because there isn't one. I have great fondness for most of the Christian values and tenets eg of compassion and inclusion - why don't you?

Saltpetre
I enjoy your posts but why is social reform to include SSM "pushing the boundaries". In the 60s Indigenous Australians were not allowed to vote, women were not allowed to vote prior to the 19th Century, slavery was abolished.

At that time these were seen as pushing social boundaries. The litmus test for any change for me is 'do no harm'. What is the harm? We are not talking marrying animals or children, brothers or sisters as there is clearly a 'harm' factor and a matter of consent in the first & 2nd. It used to be considered alright for cousins to marry that is why the Royal families were often developmentally challenged - they were all inbred.

Banjo
I have already provided an explanation about priests and boys. There have also been many reported cases of abuse of girls in various churches. That does not prove a link between homosexuals and pedophilia. Pedophilia is pedophilia it is a whole independent and different animal including both abuse of boys and girls usually by men (but not exclusively).

Trav
Why not get rid of marriage altogether if you see it as purely a legal contract. We are talking about human beings here, with the same wants and need for acceptance and respect as any other person.