I don't see why straight or gay/lesbian relationships can not be the basis of what are termed as legal, secular "civil unions" while the term "marriage" is left to religious interpretation and certification.

All civil unions should have the same standing. Gay/lesbian couples wishing for the same status as straight couples ought to find this satisfactory, or am I wrong?

Blaise,
Your definition of the true purpose of marriage is fine but the problem is that the welfare state has made that model of family life obsolete.
There is no incentive for families to live as you've described beyond adherence to tradition or belief.
For men in particular under the welfare state there are so many disincentives to taking on a wife and children that it's almost not worth the trouble, who wants to work a 60 hour week for ten years then lose it all and live the rest of your life in poverty because your wife decides she wants someone who'll spend more time with her?
"Gay" marriage cannot exist without a welfare state to pick up the bill and the welfare state came about because of soppy, liberal minded traditionalist "White Knights" and their "fair go for all".
Traditionalists, liberals and social democrats hold the greatest share of responsibility for this outcome, if you didn't want everyone to have a fair go you shouldn't have built the welfare state.

This article accuses gay marriage supporters of ignoring “reason and evidence” but then fails to advance any sound reasons or evidence for its own position except some overly-familiar logical fallacies. First, a blatant appeal to populism (“millions and millions” of Australians oppose gay marriage). Second, a classic example of a circular argument (marriage is about a man and woman raising a child, therefore gays can’t be married). Mix in a couple of straw men (we don’t have to follow New Zealand! Gay marriage is not inevitable!) and we have a good case study in how not to construct an argument.

Same sex marriage being legalized is one thing, but being accepted as normal is an entirely different issue, and one gays who marry just won't be able to accept in my opinion.

I have no doubt they will get their way eventually, simply from the squeaky wheel scenario, but I for one will never accept them as being married, the way I am married to my wife.

In all this debate what no-one from any side has explained is why government should be registering sexual relationships in the first place.

But if sexual relationships are to be placed on a government register and different forms of sexuality have an equal right to "marriage equality" (a fallacy since not even the government claims it's an act of government which constitutes marriage), then why the discrimination against bigamous and polygamous marriages? If it's none of anyone's business whether homosexuals choose to marry, why is it anyone's business if polygamists choose to marry? As I will show, the polygamists have an even stronger case for legalisation, even in the gay lobby's own terms.

Talk of gay marriage being "illegal" is flatly incorrect. Gays have the same rights as everyone else to exchange verbal commitments, solemnise them, have them witnessed, celebrate them however they want. And, in case of a relationship breakdown, no-one has ever been able to explain to me what difference there under the Property Relationships Acts (which in any event is an argument for gay divorce, not gay marriage).

What gays can't do is get the government to register their marriage, and that's all the same-sex marriage debate is about, nothing else.

But bigamous and polygamous marriages are illegal in the true sense of the world. They're against the criminal law. It's not just that you can't *register* a polygamous marriage, which is all that the gays are complaining about. With polygamous marriages, it's the actual exchange of commitments, even if done in private, which is a criminal offence.

Obviously if the gays were really concerned about marriage equality they would be asserting the rights of bigamous marriages to be decriminalized, before spending any time or energy arguing for gays to join in the exclusive and discriminatory club of government-registered marriages, so the whole cause of gay so-called marriage is bullsh!t.

I know many straight couples. Not one amongst them can say, when it was they chose to be straight.
Not one among them could choose to be gay, yet some still believe other straight people can defy all their natural instincts, and chose to live as gays!
Of course no one chooses their sexual bias. We are born with our natural instincts and attractions, carved in stone!
There is simply no element of choice. Certainly, none whatsoever for straights. And given all the crap they have to tolerate, no gay would ever chose to be gay.
We need to finally stop discriminating against and effectively punishing a group of people, due to what amounts to an accident of birth.
I also know of a number of single parents, whose kids are deprived of a second parent and the privileges that flow from a decent income.
Many gay couples are comparatively well off and could do a lot better for some deprived kids, than their alcoholic or drug addicted biological parents.
And the circumstance would differ little if two brothers shared a home and one of the brother's kids, or similarly two sisters, one of them a single mum, the other, a doting aunty. No one sees any problems with those arrangements.
Yet get all hot and bothered, if the same courtesy, were extended to gay couples? Just where is the difference?
It's not like homosexuality is something straights can catch! And it's not like any couple, straight or gay, is performing anything overtly sexual in front of their kids?
It really is time we stopped minding other peoples morals and started minding our own! And discrimination in any form, is thoroughly immoral!
Rhrosty.