Shalmaneser wrote: "You seem to be saying that legislation that promotes social advancement should be deleted"

You seem to be saying that this legislation promotes social advancement.

You seem to be narrow minded and lacking in empathy

Yes Robert LePage, I'm with you on that one, cause we have enough screwed up kids in society already.

David G, I also agree with you that there are far more important issues on the horizon than two gays wanting to be legally married.

However, as I have said several times, legalizing gay marriage will not be enough for gays, as they will forever fight for acceptance and equality in their marriage, something that I, along with many others no doubt, will never give them.

It's a shame they just can't take the easier option and find another word that fits their union, as we could all move on and tackle much more pressing issues that we face today.

All this ranting against same sex marriage, yet not one antigay contributor can give a true and clear explanation for why not, other than they are indifferent to others happiness in life; which will not take anything away from them and cost them absolutly nothing.
"There but for the grace of god go you"

There is no prohibition of homosexual sex or relationships.

There is no discrimination in the Marriage Act against homosexuals, as confirmed by the Gillard government and by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

The Marriage Act specifies a number of conditions that have been determined democratically. Those are the conditions for heterosexual couplings. Like it or leave it.

If you want homosexual couplings then fine, no-one is in your way, just put up the Homosexual Coupling Bill if you please and go for it. The result will be the same as in the netherlands - where homosexual marriage law already exists but very few 'gay' marriages ever take place.

'Progressives' hypocritically say they are opposed to the State interfering in relationships. Yet the same 'Progressives' brought in defacto laws that are an absolute mess -no two government bureaucracies can agree on the same definition- and those laws forced homosexuals under the same State control.

Gays were once adult enough to arrange and dissolves their own relationships and agree on the spilt are now ruled by family law, and the government tells them whether they are in de facto relationships or not. Now the same 'Progressives' who stuffed up de facto law and apploed it to gays is forcing the State model/shackles/mold for State determined heterosexual marriage upon them.

It is idiotic to believe that this State regulation of gay relationships and the geterosexual form of coupling being forced on them is for their benefit. Nonsense, it is just the 'Progressives', largely radical feminists, presuming to always know what is best for society and in this case gays.

That is your opinion however, as you are not in a same sex relationship, you are not in a position to comment on what same sex couples seek.
Wether couples are hetrosexual or homosexual, it should be accepted that their personal wishes as regards their relationship and being be respected, for no other reason than their personal and private lives are their own; without right of criticism from others.