In early esoteric Christianity, marriages were not performed in church, but rather in the home of the bride or groom.
The first reported miracle, was the changing of water into wine, in just one such ceremony?
In fact, the church's intrusion into this area, to further entrench its control of its devotees, is only centuries old, and strictly man made.
Many argue that Christ was gay, with his preference for male companions, and his bachelor status at such a late age in his community, where Children could be betrothed as prepubescent juveniles?
If the master was to walk amongst us today, he would inquire of the opposition to true equality, what's your problem, it's your creation not mine; and, I have no commandment forbidding it!
Did you not notice my preferred company when I last walked on the earth, was tavern keepers, whores and drunkards!
And that I had absolutely no interest in the sexual preferences or orientation of others!
That I loved them equally!
That that was the inherent message, from the sermon on the mount; or that of the good Samaritan, or the do unto others message, as you would be done unto!
The my only interest was and remains the saving of souls, not building massive edifices or hoarding treasure; or, making brand new man made laws, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the spirit!
At the end of the day we will all face final judgement, including those who have sort to speak for God, without ever once being actually asked!
Who might well thunder, who gave you mortal, the right to speak or judge in my name!?
To misrepresent ourselves as someone else, is called fraud and uttering/identify theft. There are severe penalties for that!
So, what would be an appropriate penalty for the identify theft of God?
Internal voices are not evidence of any such request, just severe mental illness?
Incidentally, voices coming out of thin air can be very disconcerting, even more so, when you actually understand what they're saying!
Rhrosty.

While the author insinuates discrimination, none exists. That is the view of the Human Rights Commission that acts on briefs and law drafted and enacted by the 'Progressives' who now falsely claim denial of 'rights'. It was the strongly held view of the Gillard government where Nicola Roxon, federal Attorney General and the PM Gillard were both emphatic that they had dispelled any discrimination against homosexuals forever through numerous law changes.

Much of the valuable time of the previous Parliament was wasted on homosexual marriage. The Greens, who continually disrupted Parliament with all manner of tricks to force 'gay marriage' into debates and embarrass the government, the Gillard government especially, will not accept the democratic decision, made many times.

For their efforts, the Greens Watermelon Party is now at a very low ebb from the decision of the people. Hopefully it will drift to the bottom of the ocean soon. The Greens Watermelons will not be mourned.

However it is regrettable that the original Greens who were concerned about the environment were long ago displaced by Trotskyists, Marxists that are there now, interfering with social change and making fools of themselves picketing honest shop owners over Middle East politics while their try to earn their living.

It is interesting but sad that the Greens Watermelons and political 'Progressives' continue to have 'same sex' marriage as their priority when there are so many pressing matters before Parliament. Maybe if they all got real jobs.

You're right Onthebeach.

Why doesn't this Government just legalise Gay marriage and be done with it?
The sky won't fall in, and then they can concentrate on more important matters...

I, for one, am over it all!

Yeah Suse, then the 3000-5000 homosexuals who want to try out being legally married for a few months of their lives before finding a new partner can have their little adventure.
Bring it on, I'm a morbid sort of person I'm actually really excited about spending my twilight years in observer status upon the dystopian freak show that lies ahead, it'll be like a cross between the Tenderloin of 1860's Manhattan and Blade Runner!

Well, Jay, why not just move to one of the fifteen countries where gay marriage is legal? Then you can sit back and enjoy the 'dystopian freak show' as much as you like. Of course. you'll have to use your imagination quite a lot to find anything remotely unusual or tittilating about it all, but judging from your posts here I think you've had plenty of practice at that.

The Australian Federal "Marriage Act" clearly defines "marriage" as a union between males and females. In order to change that, there must be a referendum which the homosexual lobby knows it will lose.

Homosexual lawyers are claiming that the word "marriage" in the Marriage Act can be redefined to conform to what they want, thereby side stepping the Australian Constitution. Constitutional lawyers know that doing that would endanger the entire Constitution. Constitutions in every country are written using words who's meanings were defined at the time of writing. Changing constitutions by redefining words would be extremely dangerous for political stability.

"Freedom of Speech" could be redefined as "whatever the government thinks is appropriate." "Freedom of Assembly" could be redefined as "Assembling with government permission." Secular Government could be redefined as "governments approved by the church." The list is endless.

It is not illegal in Australia to drink urine, and believe it or not, among "social progressives" in the 1950's it was once all the rage to drink their own urine. This was because the blessed Mahatma Ghandi drank his own urine and the luvvies thought that he was wonderful, so they copied him and bragged about how enlightened they were.

Now drinking urine and homosexuality are similar concepts. If you want to drink your own urine or engage in homosexuality, then do so in private. Because if you do it in public and seek my approval for it, you are not going to get it. What you do in private is your business. But I will not approve of it, I will despise the practitioners of it who want to normalise it, and I will discriminate against them as I would towards any one else who's behaviour I disapproved of.