579:

“The word marriage is tied up with social welfare that is the importance of that word.”

Social welfare is distributed on the basis of two people being a ‘couple’. The government does not distinguish between a couple and a married couple. That is why it has no need to know who is married and who is not. Much less does it need to be involved in facilitating marriages nor does it need to have legislation that has anything to do with marriage.

Same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite sex couples. If it is truly rights that they want then by and large they already have them and where they do not they should be given them. It is not however a ‘right’ to have your government define your relationship for you just because you would like them to. Governments have to maintain or change legislation about any issue in society only when there is some good reason to do so. You should define your own relationship yourself whatever the makeup of that relationship.

There is no good reason why you would want the government to issue you with a marriage certificate since everything it offers is already available to unmarried couples. There is no good reason for the government to be involved with defining marriage or certifying it. Everything is covered by their definition of ‘couples’.

At present the government actually discriminates against couples. There is a three page definition of what a couple is and they have to jump through hoops to be classified. A marriage certificate is, however, an express card to the rights that both couples should be entitled to. Married? No questions asked go straight to the head of the welfare queue.

Nobody can be forced to marry two people anyway: priests could be arrested and even tortured and killed, but they can still refuse and be martyred.

More likely, they will stop conducting marriages altogether, openly, but perhaps will still conduct them underground, which is much more respectable than the way they have been so far, cooperating like sheep with secular authorities and filling out their marriage forms.

Yes, it's about time for the church to separate itself from the state, then for example it doesn't matter what the state calls "marriage" for it's but a bad joke anyway.

It is important however, that those who were already married by the former definition, are able to cease being married (without having to separate for a year) as the terms and condition of this status have changed and are no longer what they agreed to.

As is normal "Runner" is lying try here for a more factual report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenian_same-sex_marriage_referendum,_2015

Runner why wouldn't you mention the similar votes where the majority of voters who voted for gay marriage?

@ Jayb and others

Public support to legalise same-sex marriage is at its highest level in almost five years, a Fairfax/Ipsos poll reveals.

The poll finds 68 per cent of voters support gay marriage whereas one quarter, or 25 per cent, are opposed.

The evidence, and to read more: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/fairfaxipsos-poll-gay-marriage-support-at-record-20150614-ghnjhi#ixzz3xrxNXam

What the Gaybots want shouldn't be compulsorarily taken seriously.

Any Gaybot Marriage compulsory referendum won't happen at the 2016 Federal Election. Turnbull won't risk splitting the Liberals or splitting the Liberals from the Nationals.

Jason84:

Isn’t the question a bit misleading?

Do you support same-sex marriage? Well I would support same-sex marriage but I would not support government involvement in any marriage. The question depends on how you define marriage. Is marriage a relationship that must have government approval? Obviously it is not because many people call their relationship a marriage even though it is not certified by the government. They have a right to call their relationship whatever they want and no one can stop them.

The question presumes that only marriages approved of by the government can truly be defined as a marriage. Who are these questioners to make such a presumption?

This is how dishonest the debate can become. Same-sex couples bemoan the fact that they cannot get married but that is only true if you define marriage as a relationship that must be approved by the government. The problem is not with the law but with the definition of marriage.

The irony is that they complain because they think their opponents are narrow minded in their definition of marriage and yet they are equally narrow minded in demanding government approval