Marriage between a man and a women can never be “equalled” by any other relationship and the plebiscite should never be couched in terms of equality.
In this discussion about what marriage represents, we must never lose sight of the fact that the essential difference between homosexual unions and heterosexual unions is that heterosexual unions provide for the continuation of the human race in their ability to beget children. This is the intrinsic and unique nature of heterosexual unions - and this uniqueness is recognized in, and as , the institution of marriage.
If the intrinsic nature of marriage is not about children and only about the relationship between any two people why then is marriage a social institution in which the govt takes particular interest ?
Govts do not, and should not, have any interest in personal love relationships. Govts take an interest in marriage because marriage is a commitment of a man and women who together beget and raise the offspring of their natural union . Such a relationship provides the very best support for the next generation of human beings who will be the continuation of the society into the future and who will provide the important and ongoing structure of biologically connected families as part of a strong social fabric.
Heterosexual defacto couples, too, still have that same unique ability to beget the next generation of our society and they are in a relationship of mutual commitment to each other and to the children of their union . That is why the Govt also supports them.
The push to decouple children from the concept of marriage is an attempt to devalue traditional marriage and it’s essential gift to society -the ability to create new life and a new generation, an ability which gay couples can never emulate.
Homosexual and Lesbian couples can never together participate in the creation of “their” child – therefore they should never be part of the institution called marriage.
Their union is different – and, if necessary, should be called something different. It is not marriage.

Chris I agree with your view however there is no chance in hell these queers are going to accept anything less than the word marriage, because to them it's all about equality.

I feel this is a situation where a compromise is needed and I suggest we add a clause to the marriage act that those being wed can chose from either 'a union between a man and a woman', or 'a union between two people'.

Now if they chose the latter then their marriage has a prefix like SS for example, which gives them the right to marry and protects the rights of normal people like you and I.

BUT! and this is a huge but, the queers are seeking equality rather than just the right to marry and this is a fight that will go on for ever and cost the tax payers billions, so I doubt the queers would accept such a compromise.

Personally, I am against gay marriage and I am most certainly against children being raised in same sex households if for no other reason than in an attempt to avoid preventable bullying.

Sadly, we have gone from a prosperous lucky country into a country that wastes so much money on issues that involve so few within the community from gay marriage, to avoidable domestic violence and indigenous waste to name just a few, and I seriously doubt many of our forefathers who paid the ultimate sacrifice to pave the way for this great nation would have done so so willingly had they known where we were headed.

Welcome to the land of wasted opportunities.

Of course it's about equality: G.A.Y. = Good As You. Our lives and our relationships should be respected, honoured and celebrated just as yours are. That's not difficult, is it? My husband and I have been together for 23 years, longer than more than half of all heterosexual marriages. Yet we cannot yet safely walk the street holding hands, or exchange a goodbye kiss at the airport, or snuggle up to one another in the pub. That is wrong. Marriage is the ultimate symbol that we are every bit as good as anyone else and should be treated as such. Just remember, heterosexuality is not normal, just very common. Normal natural mammalian sexuality, as science has shown, stretches across a spectrum embracing gay, straight, varying degrees of bisexuality, rather as a field contains many diverse species of plants and animals. If heterosexuality were the only norm, all fields would contain only one species - grass - and nothing else. That's a lawn, which is totally unnatural, artificial, and deliberately created by humans.

Dear Flowertime,

<<heterosexual unions provide for the continuation of the human race>>

Yes, but is this a good thing?

<<The push to decouple children from the concept of marriage is an attempt to devalue traditional marriage>>

What devalues traditional marriage is the fact that it was turned into a "legal" instrument with legal implications.

<<Homosexual and Lesbian couples can never together participate in the creation of “their” child>>

I have a relative who did and still does exactly that. See http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16259#283589

---

Dear Rehctub,

<<I feel this is a situation where a compromise is needed>>

This same equality which the speakers for homosexuals desire can be achieved by completely repealing the Marriage Act. Otherwise, if a compromise is needed, then let homosexuals marry as they please, but also allow those who are already "married" by the former definition become unmarried (without having to separate for a year), since this is not the deal they signed for.

---

Dear Doug,

Nobody else has the right to demand that others respect, honour and celebrate their life and relationships. What makes you believe that you are better than others in this regard?

Doug, while im not suggesting you gays are any less equal to myself, as a person, in my eyes your marriage (if you do get it) will never be equal to mine, and it is this non acceptance from people like myself that will continue to drive you and your queer mates nuts.

The simple solution is for your lot to either find another word, or create either a separate act or add a clause to the existing, but changing the act to your liking is taking something away from me that I hold in high regard.