Saying that the creation of same-sex marriage “passed with a yes vote from only 37% of eligible voters” prompts the rejoinder that only 23 per cent of eligible voters voted no. If a jurisdiction has voluntary voting, the views of the non-voters are irrelevant.

The same-sex marriage campaign has been brilliant - ruthlessly dishonest, but brilliant nonetheless. Even straight news reports refer to it as “marriage equality” rather than word theft. Even its opponents refer to the “legalisation” of same-sex marriage when, as it is not and never has been illegal but is and always has been non-existent, it cannot be legalised but can be created insofar as the High Court has amended the Constitution by redefining the word “marriage” in it to mean something noone thought it meant at the time the Constitution was written or at any time in the previous 2,000 years. Its proponents compare it with past bans on interracial marriage as if there is no difference between access to marriage (i.e., access to the union of a man and a woman) and the nature of marriage (i.e., the union of a man and a woman). I cannot recall a sillier thing being taken seriously in my lifetime.

The whole non-issue is so ridiculous that I am waiting for some to claim that there is an even more widespread example of discrimination in Australia than the non-existence of same-sex marriage. I refer to funerals. They discriminate against the living because you have to die to have one. Everyone has the right to a funeral and a death certificate while still alive. It is only vitaphobic religious bigotry that is stopping this obvious human rights reform. It is time Australia legalised funeral equality.

Religious bigotry on display again, Many cultures have a different concept of marriage then the christian one. Many of those cultures were pre-christian Europeans ones.

I really wonder why Christians as so against same sex marriage, I can only image it's just another thing that they can wave their self righteous fingers at rather then review their own behavior.

If only they had put as much energy into keeping the kids in their care safe from harm as they are against same sex marriage.

Equality does not exist in nature, but that aside I find it strange that the presumably-religious author appeals to nature (shunning unnatural-practices) whereas religion aims to rise above nature!

Cobber the hound has reminded me of another tactic of the word theft campaign; namely, the labelling of opponents as homophobic fundamentalist religious bigots. This abuse is used to cover up for the lack of logic of the campaign. It is far easier to divert attention from the argument by the calling those on the other side names than to find a logical justification for depriving the language of a word that means the union of a man and a woman.

Time to get over the fact that you've lost this debate Wayne; and, those unfortunate enough to be born homsexual know all the risks inherent with enjoying a sexual union with a same sex partner!

You seem to come at this with the premise that these folk have a choice in their sexual preferences?

I mean, do you? If you don't and just can't change your natural sexual bias?

How can you expect more or different of others?

They can't change anymore than a left handed person can become a right handed person, just because you ignorantly want or believe it to be so!?

Albeit one can and does discourage hedonistic lifestyles and risk taking that can have unintended consequences for many others; and a completely different debate!

As for the kids and their so called rights; many same sex couples already have kids!

As do disfunctional hetrosexual couples and single parents!

You need to abandon your fundamentally flawed stone age beliefs and just let go!

No one is proposing that your or yours act contrary to their inherent nature or beliefs; except perhaps you?

Get a life, preferably one of your own!
Rhrosty.

I think the difficulty, Cobber the Hound, is that certain religious people genuinely believe that the only rights we have are the ones their God outlined in their Bible and that these are immutable, not that humans created them and can review them to make society fairer or better. They view such review as an intervention into something that humans have no right to intervene in - indeed, can't (because for them to change would require the negation of their deity, something they can't consider, because "faith"). Unfortunately they also believe that everyone, not just those who choose it, should live in a way that accords with this outlook. The once-unique now-ubiquitous cultural meme that says "Only *our* god is the *true* god" has been a very destructive one in terms of people being able to get along.

It really is perverse logic to argue that same-sex marriages should be outlawed so that churches are not compelled to conduct them.

I fully support churches being free not to marry gay same-sex couples if they choose (though I hope they choose otherwise). But I also support same-sex couples being free to marry if they choose.

The churches already have complete freedom to decide who they will and will not marry. The Roman Catholic church marries divorcees only in very limited circumstances. Other churches choose to marry only active members of their own denominations, and few would marry a couple of an entirely different faith.

I wonder where the real totalitarian impulse and motives really come from, and who is advocating and dramatizing such motives and actions.

Again, these references apply to the USA, but it seems to me that they have a trickle-down effect all over the world, including here in Australia. Affecting such outfits as the Australian Christian Lobby and right-wing politicians such as Cory Bernadi and Kevin Andrews.

Building God's Kingdom by Julie Ingersoll

Libertarian Theocrats by Michael McVicar (an essay)

Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg

American Fascists by Chris Hedges

The Family by Jeff Sharlett.

Just another godbothering bigot.
Ignore.

To think this whole debate can be easily settled by adding a simple clause to the marriage act that states ' between two people' thus allowing all couples to choose between a man and a woman, or between two people.

You want equality, what can be more equal than allowing all couples to choose in a non discriminating way.

Gays don't want equality they want our world to be changed to accommodate their tiny minority and show total disregard for normal couples rights.

Walters: Discussion is turning to the importance and practicalities of preserving freedom of conscience and religious belief alongside acceptance in law of same-sex marriage. The possibility, even desirability, of a two tier system separating civil and religious definitions and functions concerning marriage has been raised by prominent church leaders.

The SSM legalisation case is a sham. There is no justification for legalisation of SSM.

The media and pro-same-sex marriage politicians have been disingenuous by not acknowledging how the fundamental freedoms of speech, conscience and religion have been suppressed since legalisation of SSM in Massachusetts and Canada.