Emperor J, you take a very shallow and limited view.
The question is whether one of our basic and important social institutions should be interfered with to satisfy the whim of a self absorbed ,arrogant, dishonest 1.6% minority.
If they want to institutionalise the same sex union, they should set about doing so, and start by realising that marriage is institutionalised world-wide, and is the union of a man and a woman. The name of this well established foundation stone of society is not available to be hijacked and used inappropriately.
It is not a simple matter of a definition, it is a matter of preserving an important element of our society from depredation by a noisy minority.

EmperorJulian:

You are in favour of same-sex marriage and yet you cannot come up with one logical reason why people should go through the action of getting married. What is the point of arguing for something on the basis of equality if that behaviour is illogical?

There is no logical reason for marrying and so there is no logical reason for changing marriage legislation since there is no logical reason for having that legislation.

You talk of the benefits of getting married but what benefits are there which are not already available to couples whether they are heterosexual or homosexual?

What is the point of agitating for something that is totally irrational? Unless you can come up with a good argument in favour of marriage then all your huffing and puffing about equality and discrimination makes no sense.

I have asked you why your want to be married and you have not given one answer. If it is so reasonable to go through the process of getting married then it should not be hard to come up with at least one answer.

Phanto, how about a billion answers? Say 100 million from north America, 100 million from South America 200 million from Europe, 100 million from Africa, 200 million from China, 200 million from the Middle East, 100 million from Russia?, 100 million from the regions I haven't thought of. If the question of why people marry really bothers you and you're not just trolling, do your own research. Google beckons.

EmperorJulian:

That is not an argument it is just a statement of fact that a billion people are married. It does not tell me why they are married and what logic led them to marry.

Not everything that people do is logical.

If it is just a question of numbers then you could also say that there are a billion people who are opposed to same sex marriage so does that make it logical?

Do I have to do research to find out why people marry? Is it that complex an issue? Did you do research before you got married?

I already know many of the reasons that people give for getting married but I have not yet heard a logical one. I do not know which ones you give because you will not tell me. You seem to be avoiding the question. You want homosexual people to be able to marry but you cannot give a good reason why anyone in general should get married so therefore you cannot give a good reason why homosexuals in particular should marry. You do not have an argument for your case unless you have an argument for marriage in general. That is fundamental logic. You have to be able to give reasons for changing something especially if you want the government to change something.

Perhaps you married because you gave way to emotional pressure or out of some misguided sentiment about you relationship. Perhaps you do not want to focus on why you did what you did and perhaps why you even remain married. You do not want to examine your reasons and so you just resort to platitudes and rhetoric that are trotted out in regard to marriage.

The more marriages the better – that way we do not have to question the whole notion of marriage. A billion people cannot be wrong - or can they?

Leo Lane, simply stating 'marriage is between a man and a woman' is not an argument. It is an empty statement. And to claim it is a world wide institution for a man and woman is simply wrong and ignorant of the fact that many countries have embraced same-sex marriage.

You also completely ignore the fact that same-sex couples have marriage ceremonies all the time...the only difference is that their marriage has no legal recognition from the Federal government. That can be rectified by a simple legislative amendment.

I'd say I look forward to some rebuttal of intellect but I have no expectation of that happening.

phanto,

Here’s a logical argument for marriage: it provides a speedy nationally and internationally recognised way of proving a couple’s legal rights and relationship status (as opposed to state-based de facto laws that differ from place to place).

So your non-sequitur, that marriage should therefore not be extended to same-sex couples, is bunk - even ignoring for a moment the fact that it’s a non sequitur to begin with.