So you wouldn't care if there were no government benefits for married couples, Phanto? Benefits like a halved income tax and the right to visit your spouse in hospital?

I will not be drawn into discussing the [silly] contents of those pastoral letters that were sent by the church to its members, but we should be really worried about the fact that people are prosecuted for sending mail to their friends - this is the road which leads to North Korea.

What I cannot understand is, why the cowardly archbishop agreed to appear and grovel before the committee. Even if he was brought in chains he should have spat in their face. It certainly did not add to his blessings as Psalm 1 says: "Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take OR SIT IN THE COMPANY OF MOCKERS".

Christianity was at its best when it was underground - perhaps it's time for it to shine again there, but then do not be surprised when despairing members of Christian splinter-groups blow themselves up in airports and train stations.

AyameTan:

Those rights are distributed on the basis of you being a couple - not a married couple. You don't need a marriage certificate to obtain any of those rights.

Christophobia is far more prevelant than homophobia. Homosexuality is promoted and held in high regard especially by our national broadcasters. Their hatred of anything Christian is very noticeable. No wonder they want to infect the minds of the kids before they learn any decency. Wasn't it Turnbull who defended his mate photographing nude teen girls. Oh that's right its called art.

Ayame,

Rights have nothing to do with it. Cancer patients don’t get special rights. They get treatment for the disease they have. Heart patients get treatment for the disease they have, but we don’t start calling heart disease cancer and call those who think cancer is different from heart disease heartdiseasephobic bigots.

Of course marriage is a civil institution, though it arose organically. It was not created by church or state. The union of a man and a woman is the institution, and marriage is the name that institution is given. The union of a man and a man or of a woman and a woman, each of which has also existed throughout history, is not a marriage. Any gay who wants to marry may already do so. Years ago, they did to protect themselves from discrimination. Now they do not need to. Why anyone would want to call their relationship by the name of a relationship that they were once pushed into and would actually hate to have is a mystery to me.

I have never seen an argument for depriving the language of a word that means the union of man and a woman, just a lot of specious claims about rights and discrimination, none of which makes the slightest sense, and abusive name-calling.

Of course anyone who calls another person a homophobe is a bully, just as only bullies call people they disagree with racists, or any other disparaging word - most of which are usually completely wrong, merely a nasty attempt at a put down by a nasty person who has really no backing for a nasty belief. The only way to deal with bullies is to ignore their pathetic abuse, and stick to your guns. Politicians might be cowed by the thought of being called 'homophobes' or 'racists' etc because they are addicted to votes and power. The rest of us have no such needs, and we have as much influence over politicians as the bullies do. Ignore the bullies and say what you think.