"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."

LEGO, do you understand how government and the Constitution work in Australia? Legislation DOES NOT require a referendum to be changed. An act of parliament changes legislation. Referendums (nationally) are used to alter the constitution. If you don't understand the issues then your place in the debate is irrelevant.

Dear Minotaur.

The reason why the ACT legislation legalising homosexual "marriage" is in trouble is because the Federal government has taken issue with the fact that it is contrary to the federal "Marriage Act". Federal law over rides territory law and the only way to change that is by changing the Australian Constitution through referendum, which the homosexual lobby knows it would lose.

The homosexual lobby knows that Australians do not want homosexual "marriage."

As a liberal person I agreed in the 70's that homosexual behaviour should not be illegal. But that did not mean it was socially approved behaviour which granted them equal rights. If homosexuals want equality and the right to sodomise our society, then as far as I am concerned, they should make homosexual behaviour illegal again.

LEGO, the High Court is yet to determine whether the ACT same-sex marriage legislation is not significantly different from the Federal Marriage Act and therefore unconstitutional. I have no idea what you are going on about when it comes to constitutional change being needed. You seem a bit confused.

You also seem confused about equality. Its quite simple really. A persons sexuality, the way they are born, should not disqualify them from being able to marry. The law has no place dictating to people because of sexuality...that is why laws criminalising homosexuality were wiped from the statute books.

minotaur, "A persons sexuality, the way they are born, should not disqualify them from being able to marry."

Presumably you would demand the same 'right' regarding age, viz., 'A persons age, they have no choice over it, should not disqualify them from being able to marry'.

Then again, the same argument can be put regarding the number or blend of partners, or even marrying a horse.

It isn't about 'rights', nor is it about 'discrimination'. The Human Rights Commission and the previous Labor/Greens government, the federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon and e-PM Gillard, all held that there is no rights abuse and no discrimination, and they changed many laws to make it that way.

Are they all liars?

Just who is gay marriage for?
It is astounding that the reduction of the spectrum of possible homosexual relationships to a single option, defined and approved by the State is being sold to homosexuals, as their 'right' and a remedy for the 'discrimination' the Australian Human Rights Commission (and the previous Labor government) says doesn't exist anyhow.

One can see how that might suit suitcase lesbians with their U-Haul trailer stacked with their belongings ready for the second date, but it is diametrically opposed to all that homosexuals have previously stood for and regarded as their own, which is choice to form, make and break whatever relationships suit them and without some public bureaucrat or court ruling otherwise.

Gays have been sold a pup. Formalising it into the Marriage Act only puts reinforcing rods in to ensure there is no way back to your free-wheeling days of freedom. Trust the political 'Progressives' who always know what is best for you and pass laws for you to toe the line.

Marrying a horse? What an absurd thing to say...it destroys any credibility you were seeking. In case you hadn't noticed animals or inanimate objects cannot consent.

Not sure what human rights you are on about but the Australian Human Rights Commission disagrees with you and agrees not legalising same sex marriage is discrimination:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans-and-intersex-equality-0

As to marriage "only puts reinforcing rods in to ensure there is no way back to your free-wheeling days of freedom." Have you not heard of divorce?

I couldn't care less about the institution of marriage but if society wants it then stop the discrimination and let gay people get married. Although another way to stop the bickering is to just get rid of the archaic and unnecessary institution anyway.

minotaur,

Philosopher Peter Singer, father of animal liberation did not mention consent as an impediment when rationalising the sex with animals and nor do his 'progressive' followers, presumably.

Lets not deal in speculative stuff, just facts: if the Human Rights Commission had any discrimination case at all no matter how slight regarding homosexuals, it would be all over it like a fat kid with a packet of Smarties. Until then the Human Rights Commission should remember that it does not replace the Parliament but is responsible to it.

minotaur, "Have you not heard of divorce?"

You are not understanding the effect of inclusion of homosexuals under de facto provisions. They do not have choice, the status of their relationships is now decided by State bureaucrats (who can differ in particular cases, such is the ambiguity in the de facto definition!) and by courts. Coverage by the Marriage Act would put reinforcing rods through that, setting it in place forever.

How can your not see that gays have already lost rights and stand to lose more and for whom? Honestly now, we already know what they have lost, but what exactly do the substantial majority of gays actually gain out of this? Before they could form, change and cease relationships as they chose. Bust up and agree who brought what and who leaves with what. Very adult, easily done and worked well for countless years. Now bureaucrats and courts make those decisions for them, and gays pay large wads to lawyers.

How many homosexuals, gays especially, ever needed the State to regulate their relationships?

It is interesting minotaur that you are similar to most 'progressives' and gay activists who propose gay marriage in that you see it as an archaic and worthless institution, which probably is more of an inconvenience to you, somehow. You and they would trash the Marriage Act and the institution of marriage if allowed to do it.

It is absurd that you propose marriage for homosexuals while at the same time wishing it dead and buried. What does that say for your own credibility?