Dear onthebeach,

Apart from the fact that the Marriage Act only allows
marriage to be between a "man and a woman, to the exclusion
of all others."

Is that what you mean as non-discrimination?

And surely if only 2 percent of the population want the
same rights as the rest of us have - it won't make much
difference then to the Insitution of marriage will it?

As you pointed out - they're not clamering at the doors in
vast numbers. So why not allow the ones that do want to get
married - marry? Afterall a committed relationship surely
must be better than a wildly promiscuous one, right?

Good for society, and all that.

Lexi,

No, the opposite is the case, as already stated:

- The Gillard government has declared that it removed all discrimination against gays by over 80 law changes taken some years ago; and

- The Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that the Marriage Act discriminates against gays, or else it would have acted long ago.

You have to do better than the broken record and provide facts and argument to dispel what those authorities say.

What expertise do you have since you purport to be a better judge than the Gillard government and the Australian Human Rights Commission? Exactly who do you represent? Give the number of voters you consulted with and when.

It is not a majorty of gays that is driving the gay marriage gig but a media campaign led by a few activists, and a large rump of feminists and political 'Progressives'. They always presume to know what is best for others and are forever messing about with social reengineering. Yet they claim they are opposed to the 'State' interfering in bedrooms. What hypocrites and liars they are, and arrogant.

Gays will come to rue the day they ever let that little lot tell them how to lead the lives. Goodbye freedom to choose how to make and break relationships and sort personal belingings after. Already gays have State bureaucrats telling them the status of their relationships and lawyers are involved in break-ups. More to come it seems. How did gays ever sort their lives before the feminists and 'Progressives' stuck their noses in to make rules for them?

Dear Lexi,

And I want an official and legal piece of paper stating that I am the most wonderful and gorgeous person in the world.

Providing such pieces of paper is a job for artists, stationers, newsagents and the like, not the government. You may also receive one for mother's day!

I am not suggesting that gay people should not 'receive' the same kind of 'service' from the government as heterosexuals - I am saying that it's not the roll of government to provide this kind of services. I am also quite convinced that maintaining the marriage registration offices by government, despite the fee is not even a profitable venture covering all the public servants employed there, hence we the tax-payers pay for other people's stationary.

As for any significance of that piece of paper, see Onthebeach's replies. As far as Australia is concerned, by now such papers have no practical use. I do concede that they still have one use, which Australia cannot remove on its own - to help partners (mainly non-Australians) of Australian dual-citizens to obtain foreign visas.

Dear onthebeach,

Again with the "Feminists" and "Progressives."
You Sir also have to do better than that.
You keep bringing up these old chestnuts.
Why? What does that have to do with an opinion
being expressed on a particular issue. Surely
the opinion should be simply judged on its own
merits. For example, I wouldn't dream of
suggesting that it's
only certain neanderthals in our society who
think like you.

Who assume
that there is only one "right" marriage form,
which is self-evidently right and proper (and
usually God given as well).

However, it is important to recognise,
that there is
an immense range in marriage, family, and kinship patterns
and that marriage, like any other social institution
will inevitably change through time. And people's views
along with it.

Most of us are already aware that same sex couples
in Australia do
enjoy wide-ranging rights and benefits. Marriage however
has been a sticking point that has been denied them.

Quite a few politicians on both sides are changing their
minds on the issue.

As Barry O'Farrell, Liberal Premier of NSW, who's had a
change of heart on the issue has stated:

"We should be encouraging people to have commitment and
family units. So, to recognise that government through
marriage does acknowledge commitment and loving relationships
with certain people in the community and that should be
extended to ALL people in the community."

When New Zealand gave women the right to vote in the 1800s
it took Australia nine years to follow suit. Same-sex
supporters hope that it does not take that long for Australia
to catch up to its smaller neighbour once again.

Many Australians are in favour of marriage equality.
You can Google that fact.

If Constitutions, Human Rights Bills or other laws are
unable to ensure the fundamentals of adulthood and choice
then appropriate legislation is warranted.

You're welcome to disagree with that of course.
We're both entitled to our opinions.
All should be heard.
Reasonably.

Dear Yuyutsu,

As I've stated previously - seeing as the institution
of marriage is legislated in this country and it is
denied to same-sex couples and if Constitutions,
Human Rights Bills or other laws are unable to ensure
the fundamentals of adulthood and choice then
appropriate legislation is warranted.

<<then appropriate legislation is warranted.>>

Yes, I agree.

The appropriate legislation which I suggest should fix this problem, is to repeal the 1961 Marriage Act.