o sung wu has summed up the situation perfectly.

The sun will rise no matter how fervently some will cling to the cover of darkness.

As I have said before, AJP, and for some reason you choose to ignore, the union of a same sex couple is not marriage and, now that it is no longer a criminal offence, should be given a name, and its acceptance by society sought, by its proponents.
The attempt to hijack the term, “marriage” should cease. Marriage is an important and well established institution in our society, and should not be subjected to depradation of its status by an arrogant, self centred, inconsiderate minority of 1.6% of our population.
Let them go through the process necessary to gain the status they wish to attain for their unions, and desist in their attempts to interfere with the rights and status of others.
Even AJP might be able to assimilate that.

The reality is that a large number of LGBTIQ people are not committed to a long-term, monogamous relationship. Two recent national surveys, “Private lives: A report on the health and wellbeing of GLBTI Australians” and “Monopoly: A study of gay men’s relationships”, it is clear that a large number of LGBTIQ people prefer a more fluid lifestyle. All my Gay friends agree with that, none are interested in getting married.

In the 1st survey: Only 5-10% reported formalising the relationship with a marriage or commitment ceremony, while most others had no wish to do so. In the 2nd survey: Only a minority of men indicated they would like to marry their primary regular partner. To the question, “Would you marry your partner?” only 11% said yes.

While Turnbull favours a plebiscite, a policy largely endorsed by the Australian people in a survey, Shorten and Wong say they fear that debate will lead to gays and lesbians being vilified and attacked. Suddenly Australians have all become homophobic and hateful. Both are wrong to argue that those supporting "heterosexual" marriage are bigoted etc. The Left’s default position has been to engage in ad hom attacks. Supporters of "heterosexual" marriage condemned as “homophobic”, “heteronormative”, “bigoted” and, God forbid... “Christian”.

While they both argue in favour of SSM a great many in the LGBTIQ community show no real interest in it. Also ironic that, after being elected as servants of the people, they wish to deny one of the basic tenets of democracy – the right of citizens to vote on issues. Surely this issue demands the people have a say. Without it, any change will have no credibility or authority.

97% of Australians identify as heterosexual, surely they have every right to express their opinion on whether the institution of marriage, a cornerstone, a bedrock of a stable, peaceful society, should be so radically redefined.

If only 11% of 3% want this change... just why are we contemplating it. Little wonder they refuse a plebiscite and seek a Progressive government consisting of a handful of pollies to over-rule the rest of us.

No, Leo Lane, I don’t choose to ignore anything. You simply haven’t justified or elaborated on that claim with anything reasonable.

<<As I have said before, AJP, and for some reason you choose to ignore, the union of a same sex couple is not marriage …>>

Yes, yes, I know… because of the definition. But what if the definition changes? Definitions change all the time. And, again, would you be wrong in countries where the definition of marriage includes two members of the same sex?

<<The attempt to hijack the term, “marriage” should cease.>>

Terms can’t be hijacked. No one owns them and words change their meanings over time either way.

<<Marriage is an important and well established institution in our society, and should not be subjected to depradation of its status by an arrogant, self centred, inconsiderate minority of 1.6% of our population.>>

There are two false assumptions here:

1. that marriage as an institution is under attack or threatened in some way, and;
2. that it is only homosexual people pushing for same-sex marriage.

As a heterosexual myself, one of the reasons I’m in favour of same-sex marriage is because more equality is always beneficial to a society when there are no reasons to withhold it.

<<Let them go through the process necessary to gain the status they wish to attain for their unions, and desist in their attempts to interfere with the rights and status of others.>>

How will the statuses of others be affected?

//they wish to deny one of the basic tenets of democracy – the right of citizens to vote on issues.//

That's not how Westminster democracy works. In Westminster democracy the citizens have the right to vote for Parliamentary representatives, and those representatives vote on issues in the Parliament. Or at least, that's the way it has worked in the past, and it has served us and Britain so well that I believe we tinker with it at our peril. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm amazed at how many supposed 'conservatives' are arguing in favour of a radical shake-up of our democratic processes because they're upset about the prospect of a law that won't affect them anyway. Bizarre.

//Surely this issue demands the people have a say.//

Why? Why this one issue and no others? Why is it acceptable for the Government to pass laws on all sorts of relly important things like taxation, superannuation, public health, transport, education etc. - things that will have a direct impact on your life - but when it comes to a law that won't have the slightest effect on anybody who isn't gay and considering marriage, suddenly representative democracy isn't good enough any more. What's up with that?

//Without it, any change will have no credibility or authority.//

It will have credibility and authority of Parliament, the same as all our other laws. Or do you show similar contempt for Acts of Parliament you dislike? What a great society that would be to live in, if everybody just decided that the laws they don't like had no credibility or authority. I imagine the road toll would go up for a start.

//97% of Australians identify as heterosexual, surely they have every right to express their opinion//

Yes they do. And they exercise it all the time. You just did, and I'm doing it now. Nobody is trying to remove our right to freedom of expression, although we'd all prefer it if people didn't abuse that right.

//If only 11% of 3% want this change... just why are we contemplating it.//

0.33%? I'm not sure those figure are accurate. The polling I've seen generally indicates about 70% support for SSM. Obviously, most of those in support are heterosexual.