Jayb said:
“Except for raising Children. A definite, No no.”

Well, there’s certainly enough mines already in that field; a topic all in itself.
Perhaps it’s because gay people don’t have parents? ;-)

It’s funny though . . I’d wager the same people who scornfully deride gender imbalance in parliament will blithely promote the opposite when it comes to marriage / family.

Rhian said:
“Your argument is essentially circular – gays can’t marry, because marriage can’t be between two people of the same sex.”

Nah, it’s not a circular argument. That’s what the law states. It’s quite clear and unambiguous.

Rhian said:
“Many cultures throughout the world discriminate legally and culturally against women, as did ours until fairly recently. It doesn’t make it right.”

Sure, and each society decides what is deemed to be appropriate for them. That’s not to say that we in Australia view all aspects of other societies or cultures as being wholly in line with ours either, but in general, the notion of man & woman as the marriage unit stands up very well and perhaps without peer.

And just to add, legal discrimination is just that; legal.
As such, same-sex marriage is illegal. The reason for that has to do with eligibility, not discrimination. And just to be clear, I use the non-pejorative meaning of the word ‘discrimination’.

I’m expecting you will be appalled to learn that Fernwood Fitness won’t accept my gym subscription merely because I’m male. It’s scurrilous, I tells ya . . . but where oh where is the outrage.
Is Fernwood Fitness discriminating against me or am I merely ineligible?

Dustin

You are right, that’s what the law says. But it is not an argument for why the law shouldn’t change, so it begs the question - a form of circular argument.

And, I accept that there are sometimes good reason for discrimination to be lawful. But I don’t think there are good reasons for marriage discrimination to be mandated by law.

Historically, marriage as a union of man and woman worked well. But the world has changed. We understand homosexuality differently, as intrinsic to a person, not a lifestyle choice. Contraception, no-fault divorce and the social acceptability of de facto relationships have eroded the presumption that marriage is an indissoluble arrangement and the only socially acceptable context for sexual activity in a world where sex always held the possibility of pregnancy. Most marriages are now conducted as civil, not religious ceremonies. Marriage has already changed radically in the last few decades.

Many countries have legalised gay marriage, and that seems to be standing up pretty well too.

Like others in this thread I would support the right of churches to refuse to conduct marriages, just as the Roman Catholics are currently free to refuse to remarry divorcees (though as an active churchgoer, I hope they choose to embrace gay marriage). But I don’t think there is a valid reason for the state to discriminate.

Rian: We understand homosexuality differently,

No, we are being forced by Political Correctness to understand homosexuality differently. Sort of "a little bit pregnant."

ok .. maybe not everyone, as these discussions attest. But surveys consistently show majority support for gay marriage. Your claim that these survey have biased samples seems a bit unlikely to me; but as you point out, when we have our plebiscite, we’ll find out.

Suseonline:

There is not much point in the government having a law against bigamy when you cannot stop people from enjoying everything that a bigamist has. You can be legally married to one person as well as be living as a couple with someone else so you haven’t nullified anything by your law. You just cannot have two marriage certificates but since the certificate offers no benefits that you cannot already claim as a member of a couple then it is of no consequence whether or not there is a law against having two certificates. You cannot claim benefits from the government for two relationships whether they are legal or not legal so the bigamy part of the law is irrelevant.

Similarly you cannot prevent two people who are under the legal age of marrying from living together and enjoying all the benefits that an over age couple can enjoy. Under age couples will get no benefits either way. If you are trying to prevent under age sex then laws already exist to deal with that issue.

Rhian:

“But surveys consistently show majority support for gay marriage.”

Support for same-sex marriage is not the same as support for homosexuality as something intrinsic. That is exactly the interpretation that homosexual people want to put on any change to legislation. That is the whole point of the exercise because they themselves are not convinced it is intrinsic at all. Perhaps many people just want to shut them up and move on and they are sick of the whole debacle. This is as good a reason as any other for supporting them.