Thank you Brendan. You have provided a very interesting analysis of this sensitive and polarising social issue. It is, by a very big margin, the most thought provoking article on the imperative for same-sex marriage I have yet come across.

I am in complete favour of same-sex marriage. I am a man married to woman I deeply love, and same-sex marriage will not affect that.

However, it will give to others spousal rights such as inheritance, right to visit spouse in hospital etc. Same sex marriage is a human rights issue.

One problem that we face is the spread of sexually transmitted diseases through promiscuity. Committed relationships lessen promiscuity and the accompanying spread of disease. Same sex marriage is a public health issue.

Another problem is the alienation from society of people who do not have a partner. In their unhappiness rootless men and women are more likely to engage in anti-social activities which can destabilise society. Same sex marriage furthers social stability.

I favour same-sex marriage for the sake of human rights, public health and general happiness.

Just goes to prove the theorem of intolerance:

(presumably)old + men + High Church = Cardinal Pell's representatives = intolerance

Abbott will need to distance himself from the above if he wishes to keep his long coveted PM's job.

Might be a good article but there's no use arguing against gay marriage any longer as progressives have won total victory over the religious on the issue.

Family First NZ is set to lose its charity status because of its view on marriage.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1305/S00058/family-first-muzzled-because-of-traditional-marriage-views.htm

Religious people now need to consider if the State sanctioning of marriage is theologically viable in the long run, should it be a private matter conducted exclusively by Churches/ mosques, etc. instead...as a way of maintaining God's grace.

Thank you, david f. "In their unhappiness rootless men and women are more likely to engage in anti-social activities which can destabilise society." is likely to be the sentence of the century - unless it was inadvertent due to US/Aussie differences in slang.

What an extraordinarily fickle thing the author's 'conventional marriage' is, dependent as it seems to be on the denominative use of a word.

It's encouraging to see that Brendan is not so married to pursuing his private business interests as to be wedded to thinking, as he says, "Any attempt to appropriate the term "marriage", I believe, would be grossly insensitive…"

[Grossly insensitive, right... wouldn't want to upset the 'prestige and respect' warranted – for example – by the memory of Anna Nicole or should I say, Mrs. J. Howard Marshall.]

"…especially in the context of marriage having religious significance."

If you mean in the sense of "till death us do part", you should be arguing for the criminalisation of separation and divorce.

"Overall, what we know about same-sex couples suggests that their relationships are different in nature, much less likely to be lasting, and generally do not give rise to equivalent social benefits, as conventional marriage."

The same is true, of course, of heterosexual marriages between people under 20 or over 65, of heterosexual marriages involving disabled people, and of heterosexual marriages involving the long-term jobless and those who are chronically ill. So when I hear or read of you campaigning vigorously to stop those too, then I'll believe that a genuine concern for society's welfare is your main motivation.

Till then -- it sure smells like bigotry to me.