Have social consertives actually given it a thought that perhaps Julia Gillard does not believe in marriage? This is not about her being homophobic or being an atheist, it's simply her against marriage full stop. However she will not likely admit that she's against marriage, but all the indicators suggest that the reason she against gay marriage is because she does not agree with marriage. Now there are other mp's and senators who are against gay marriage simply for political reasons, not because they don't support gay marriage. Then you have the senators and mp's who justify there vote against gay marriage because they claim to support civil unions, well I'm of the opinion that that's simply a diversion tactic. My reasoning is because when the civil unions in Queenland were repealed and converted into civil partnerships none of the federal mp's and senators who claim to support civil unions spoke out against the Qld LNP parties decision to repeal the civil unions. Some of the most socially consertives support marriage equality and yet some of the most left wing people are against marriage equality, just like some gays support gay marriage and others don't. Finally there are many opinion polls which suggest the support the same-sex marriage in Australia is over 60%, however the ACL donates thousands of dollars to the Liberal party so don't expect Tony Abbott to back a conscience vote anytime soon. It's so easy just to say no.

"So to hold a different view about something, in this case homosexual marriage, is to automatically be "phobic" of that thing? Bizarre logic..."

No; but to hold that citizen's rights should be denied to a minority group, without being able to advance a single credible reason for it, suggests that your viewpoint arises from something other than rational judgement.

Most of this mad scrambling for rationalisations results from the fairly recent realisation by the Churches that 'God doesn't like it' is no longer a convincing reason for anything, even for their own congregations. This has triggered a frantic search for something, anything, that can be used as an excuse to oppose gay marriage, no matter how trivial it is. What will they come up with next, I wonder -- that it fades the curtains?

So, Jon J, your argument is based entirely on personal opinion that marriage is a right. How's that superior to churches' notion that marriage is a rite?

This sounds like two kids bickering to me. Did you read my post, above?

"Marriage is a social construction. As the patterns of relating within a society flow and develop, so do the patterns we define to hold those new patterns and modes of relating"

This of course is by no means the end of the matter.

As a social construct marriage responds to biology, the way men and women are physically, emotionally, etc. The union of a man and a woman results in children. Marriage secures the well being of husband/wife, father/mother and that of the children. Marriage between men and women has been found in all cultures at all times. Airy views of "patterns of relating within society flow(ing) and develop(ing)" are nothing more than that - airy. To the extent that marriage has come under pressure through easy divorce or cohabitation only serves to highlight the superiority of the lifetime commitment that marriage entails - just ask yourself why so many people desire marriage, rather than casual and uncertain partnerships, loneliness or serial monogamy.

Even an atheist can recognise aberrant behaviour!

David P states "To the extent that marriage has come under pressure through easy divorce or cohabitation only serves to highlight the superiority of the lifetime commitment that marriage entails - just ask yourself why so many people desire marriage, rather than casual and uncertain partnerships, loneliness or serial monogamy."

I think you forgot to mention a couple of things on your pro marriage stance like, child abuse, spousal abuse, divorce, financial disadvantage following court based decisions on settlement, and so many other things that make this whole arguement ridiculous and your premis so hypocritical, I am so glad the likes of you are not dictating to me on my own personal choices.

Has anyone considered our current Prime Minister may not have voted the way that they thought, possibly due to her being a homosexual herself, despite the current relationship she is in? To be in public life today and to get ahead in either the liberal or labour parties, one needs to tow the 'normal party line'.

Stew on that!