The thing that really leapt out at me about Fr Brennan's article is what it says about acceptance of homophobia in the broader community.

As Luke points out, each of the four points is either already covered off at law, is irrelevant to the issue, or both. And it's not obscure that they are already covered by laws, or irrelevant, it is patently obvious. They are, even on first cursory look by a moderately intelligent and informed person, really, really, weak and bad things to argue for.

So my point is, it says quite a bit about our society that anyone thinks that there is any traction in them at all. It says quite a bit that they would be published in various fora (and to be clear, I am not talking about no-platforming with ideas with which I disagree; I am saying, that in public debate, especially on serious issues that affect the lives and wellbeing of people, what is published should, actually, contain at least some ideas to be worthy of publication). It says quite a lot about the views of Fr Brennan, a very intelligent and normally thoughtful person - who, unlike so many churchman actually gets that this is a secular issue - that he thought that it was worth putting these ideas forward and that they might be taken on board by those who are not already behind the rood screen.

And what it says, I think, is that as a society we give a pass to bad arguments about LGBTI issues that we would not dream of putting forward about other groups, and what that speaks about is entrenched homophobia.

Also teasing out the issue of the best interests of the child: I think some, if not all, State and Territory jurisdictions already have this requirement governing adoption and foster care (if any do not then perhaps they should).

However, as well as Luke's point that this is nothing to do with the present matter: when the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney went to court to assert (successfully) their right to discriminate against potential same-sex foster-carers, it was on the basis of exemptions of churches from discrimination laws, not the interests of children.

'To “marry” is to form a union with a person of the opposite sex'

That's just a contingent definition that exists at certain times and certain places.

In many times and places it has meant (and still does mean) polygamy, usually polygyny.

In many times and places it has meant (and still does mean) men having a host of rights over women as property that, generally, in our society today we would see as abhorrent.

Would we like to go back to only enfranchising males with a certain amount of property and who are not, themselves, employees? Because that is what the franchise 'meant' in the Anglo-world, not that long ago in the scheme of things.

Do we want married women out of the workforce again? Because that's what mean's roles 'meant' until quite recently.

Custom and practice, or the supposed meanings of words, are no sound basis for treating people less favourably.

"Whether or not marriage adds to the validity of a relationship is questionable but why do homosexual couples feel the need to mimic? "

Instead of straightsplaining to them, have you ever thought of asking any of them, or listening to what they say?

progressive pat,

"...and it will be given to them". What rot! The hell it will. The Constitution is not something anyone is going play around with like that.

And it's not just Christians that object (some of them accept queer marriage, as Fr. Brennan does as long as it suits him). Many objectors to SSM are atheists, or adhere to any of the any other of the religions practised in Australia; including those Muslims, loved by the Left, but who have severe remedies for homosexuality.

wearertardust,

Instead of a rationial argument to support your beliefs, you stoop to abuse by bringing up the 'homophobia' crap usually dealt up by people hating like hell free speech for anyone but themselves.

You are behind the times: the silly word, just like 'racist' has been so mis-used and abused that it has no effect whatever ; it is meaningless and has no currency with anybody who might hate homosexuals merely for what they are (they already know they that they hate homosexuals, and telling them something they already know is not going to change their feelings, and most people I know who are anti-SSM, including me, DO NOT hate homosexuals.