Kipp, I fully understand the reasons for WW2 as I served in the armed forces for four years said to be fighting for democracy.
Democratic secular government means to me government making laws and decisions for the majority of its public.
In Australia the vast majority of the Australian public are heterosexual, a small(vocal) minority homosexual.
In order to win votes this homosexual minority has been pandered to by the various political parties and been granted legally equal partnership rights in law, this is apparently not enough, they wish to have the present Marriage Act( implemented almost from the biblical time of Adam and Eve to legalise the union of man and woman) amended or redrawn to embrace the legal union of homosexuals. For the vast majority of the Australian public this is just not on, I would make therefore make this observation, be satisfied with the status quo and gracefully acept the situation as it present exists.

Jack from Bicton, What you are saying is that the Australian hetrosexual "majority" citizens only have the rights, and minority group Australian citizens must abide by that "majority".
That is not democracy, that is mob rule and facism; and why over 30,000 gay germans where exterminated in the concentration camps during WII.
You may not undertstand that there are other people on this planet, that are not of the same being as yourself, but accept that you have no moral right to deny the same equality to them, that you enjoy and that will have absolutly no affect on you.

Kipp,
What you do not accept is that there is now equality. Any person can marry another person of the opposite gender. A homosexual person can marry another person who is homosexual, but of the opposite sex. A hetrosexual person cannot marry another person of the same sex irrespective of whether he or she is homosexual or hetrosexual.

There is no restriction of any person marrying another person of the opposite sex, providing they are of age.

If two people of the same sex want a civil contract or union they can do so, they just cannot call it a marriage. A mmarriage is a union between a male and a female.

Think up another name for your union if you want.

@Banjo,
>>> "What you do not accept is that there is now equality. Any person can marry another person of the opposite gender. A homosexual person can marry another person who is homosexual, but of the opposite sex. A hetrosexual person cannot marry another person of the same sex irrespective of whether he or she is homosexual or hetrosexual."

What you do not see or is that there is not now equality, despite your attempt at sophistry. Look... A man may marry a woman, but a woman may not marry a woman. Men and women are not being treated equally.

But your argument is fatuous anyway, because the obvious inequality is that gay couples can't get married whereas hetero couples can. That you're even prepared to play word games to try to get around that fact reveals that you've either little understanding or care of that what you're adamantly against.

>>> "If two people of the same sex want a civil contract or union they can do so, they just cannot call it a marriage. A mmarriage is a union between a male and a female."

...or a million nuns and a Deity. I assume you're equally against all those Catholic "Brides of Christ" being "married" to God. If that's of no concern to you, then I suggest to you that your appeal to dictionary definition is just a smoke-screen behind which to hide a more honest (but unspeakable) reason to oppose gay marriage.

>>> "Think up another name for your union if you want."

Keep whinging when your generous offer is declined, if you want.

Female parents are called mothers
Male parents are called fathers

The obvious inequality is that men can't get recognized as mothers whereas women can.

It's discrimination!

A possibility for you, Houellebecq...

http://theconversation.edu.au/hes-my-mother-motherhood-across-gender-boundaries-9623

And this was written by a Research Fellow, Dr. Jennifer Power, who is a fellowette.