The whole point of the so-called marriage equality movement is to reject the conventional definition of marriage. There is no more reason why the statutory definition should be confined to "any two persons" than that it should be confined to a man and a woman.

The debate is so reminiscent of the debates over religion in the 17th century. At that time, it no more occurred to the law-makers and people in general that people should be free to choose their own religion, than that they should be free to choose what laws to obey. As a result, all the different sects of Christianity tried to impose their form of worship on everyone else, in a one-size-fits-all statutory standard.

Sound familiar? The divisivenes, harshness and abuses of these conflicts are notorious, and there was also the inane petty tyranny in everyday life.

Then people realised that it's actually none of the government's business.

The same-sex marriage movement is just a re-run of all that, with the gays now gearing up to be the new Puritans and try to impose their orthodoxy in every day life and its customs. Everyone must accept the new rule; alternative faiths are banned.

John's article does not address any of the issues on any principle. He merely argues that Australia should do what others are doing. But others are *both* legalising and banning same-sex marriage.

What no-one can ever explain is, why governments are registering people's sexual relationships in the first place.

We can joke today at the old custom of a man asking his fiancee's father for her hand in marriage, because we think it's not the father's to give or refuse.

Yet what has the same-sex marriage movement done but substitute asking the state's permission instead of the father's?

Why do people feel driven to have the government statutorily approve their consensual sexual relationships?

A second excellent, non-emotional article from this contributor. There are any number of arrangements available for same-sex unions that would not bring marriage - sacred to many people - into disrepute.

Unfortunately, sexual disorientation appears to accompany mental disorientation in some people demanding absurd changes to the Marriage Act.

[Deleted off topic.]

[See above.]

[See above]

Another dishonest and baseless argument that can't cope with the dictionary meaning of discrimination used at law: "on the issues of equality and discrimination, it cannot be said that the union of a man and a woman is the same thing as a union of any two people of different sex. It is an ‘apples and oranges’ proposition. Equality can only apply when compared as two different types of ‘fruit’."

It is clear discrimination is defined in law as "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of a group" and is stated not to be merely "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another".

Of course there is not equality of fruits if you are looking at type of fruit. But if you are looking at nutrition where is recommended you have 5 pieces of fruit per day then there is equality of fruits. The differences are irrelevant. And the law is our guide to which differences if acted on are prejudicial treatment and which are merely discerning difference - Sex Discrimination legislation and the bulk of the Marriage Act 1961, except for the 2004 insertion of gender requirement, point to equality of sex, gender and sexuality on par with that of culture, ethnicity and religion. There are no special roles specific to women or to men. But here we have homosexuality argued in isolation and with a corrupt version of discrimination. Diverse sex and intersex people? Diverse gender and trans people?

The author should have learnt from the review of history - that we will not stop, only pause, if given a discriminatory separate mechanism for same-sex marriage that likely leaves trans and intersex in limbo again, that likely leaves our relationships under-recognised. To do anything else would be to contradict and question the morality of all the antidiscrimination legislation we have to date.

You forget we live with persecution and are disparate minorities united by fighting for our rights to live. This baseless argument is missing both the context of the law and our discrimination that motivates change. Transparently selfish, impractical politics.

Could we not have two types of marriage, the religious get married in the temple and their congregation provides the benefits to the new couple. The other type is non-religious marriage via the state where tax payers provide the benefits...or don't we want all Aussies to be happy?

Given "Marriage" now includes gays, trans, multiple, cross-species, rubber doll and etc it's time for the government to get out of it.

Get over yourself and your bigotry and just put it to a plebiscite if you're convinced that you're right!Or is that what you're trying to avoid, with the endless obfuscation?
Rhrosty.

"It is not a simple matter therefore of changing the definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex unions but a very fundamental fabrication in the meaning of marriage as it applies to the vast majority of the population as well."

In the first place, 'fabrication' is probably not the word you are looking for here. (Although it could be appropriately applied to this entire article.)

In the second place, if your heterosexual marriages are really so fragile and pathetic that they can be materially damaged by letting other people have the same privileges you do, then the sooner they collapse the better.

I dont understand why gays want to "marry" anyway.

Marriage was designed, especially by the church, as an institution to continue patriarchy. A way for a man to dominate women and children.

Why would gay people want a part of that?

The author acknowledges that this topic is highly emotional, but then tries to calm us down saying: "the reasoning for change is big on emotion and little on substance".

I believe that this is because the author fails to see the full dimension of the issue. Indeed, whether or not homosexuals can receive a piece-of-paper from the government stating that they are married is by itself a storm in a teacup, but that's not the real issue, which I further believe that the author fails to see because he agrees with Obama:

"I agree with President Obama's proposition that all people are created equal. This is a biological and theological fact."

This is obviously nonsense - obviously no two people are equal. Yes, in the ultimate sense we are all the same one - God, thus we cannot be unequal, but in the relative sense, those humans we mistakenly think we are were never equal whichever way you want to look at them.

The author continues:

"To treat persons who are different to ourselves with anything less than respect and love is to deny the faith"

Sure, but treating a person with respect and love is quite different to treating them as equal.

Having agreed in principle as if all people are equal, what the author sees is just a petty quarrel in the family, whereas the real issue is that this is just one small battle in the big war of "equality".

The terrible thing about equality, is that in its attempt to deny the fruits of self-discipline and dedication, the "equality camp" denies the possibility of spiritual progress.

(sorry, my last post was in the wrongly posted here - should have been in "Reasons for changing marriage remain flawed : Comments")