Wow

Of all the arguments against marriage equality – and there are some shockers – Babette’s tennis analogy and mixed metaphor is surely the most fatuous. People are neither oranges nor bricks.

Jon J exposes the hypocrisy here well – if the purpose of marriage is to procreate, where are the objections to childless straight couples?

In this day and age, being married is neither necessary nor sufficient to being good parents, and being good parents is neither necessary nor sufficient to being married.

A gay couple in Britain plans to sue for the right to marry in church. The chance of that lawsuit succeeding is zero, but it’s enough to start Babette on a slippery slope moral panic with some vicious generalisations thrown in (“ their naked ambition is to bully everyone”).

Yuyutsu
I agree, people should be free to refuse to photograph gay marriages if they want. I also think churches should be free to choose whether to conduct gay marriages. But given the fine Liberal principles you espouse, do you also agree that the right to marry should extend to gay couples if that is their choice; and the right to marry them should be extended to those churches that accept gay marriage?

Dear Rhian,

I am not a believer in rights - I believe in freedom: Freedom is God-given, whereas rights are man-given.

How would you view someone who goes into a bank, hands the teller a $100 note and asks for $2.50 in coins in return?

Now gay people say, "no, I want $2.60 for my $100, not $2.50".

What I say instead is: "I don't want or need your change so long as you don't rob my $100 note in the first place!"

Gay couples can ALREADY marry as they please, in Australia. It is not illegal and if a church is willing to marry them, then it is not illegal for that church to do so either. So what are they asking for? to sacrifice their abundant wealth for a small change? Why don't they just go and marry?!

The whole idea of someone telling others whether or not they are allowed to marry is absolutely ridiculous.

So in answer to your question, I don't want my $2.50 increased to $2.60 - I want to keep my original $100 note. I want the state to stay out altogether from the business of conducting or registering marriages of any kind, to stop this form of "service" - or rather disservice. Keep marriage a private affair between a couple (or even more) and whoever else they invite - be it God and/or a church and/or their family and friends.

Dear John J, with the developments in reproductive technology, heterosexual people over 60 can propagate by using sperm in the case of the male and stored ova in the case of the female. We are only on the starting edge of such technology - in years to come it could become possible for heterosexual couples of any age or fertility to propagate by manipulating other body cells to act like sperm and ova. While not necessarily approving of such technology, the real point is that mixed doubles is NOT the same as men's doubles or women's doubles - not in tennis or in life, so the cry of "equality" is spurious. Many so-called lesbian couples already have children by former male partners, so the fathers of their children are eliminated or marginalised in the lives of the children with "two Mummies". As for the 'made-to-order' children of male homosexual couples, they will never know their biological or gestational mothers. How is this "progress" for humankind?
Greg Byrne

Greg, your beliefs are respected and there is no need to put the "Elephant" in the room on the issue of same sex couples marrying.

Atman, you say "Gay marriage and the ongoing are about attacking religion, and not getting justice for victims"
Would you not say that gay people are also victims, by stigmatisation of the religions.

The gay lobby gets away with illogicality and intolerance by screaming out that anyone who raises such criticism is being homophobic (which is simply not the case). Consequently, most of the media and many MPs lack the courage to engage in such debate.

If the majority of voters favour changing the Marriage Act as alleged by the gay lobby, it is difficult to understand why the gay lobby is against holding a national referendum on the question. It suggests the gay lobbyists know they would lose. Instead of risking the loss, going on what has transpired in other countries they continue to focus on getting the conscience vote of MPs who choose to succumb to their demands rather than remain loyal to the majority of voters they represent.