Foxy,

What was your understanding of marriage previously?

Pink is changing the language. GOD (Oxford dictionary) or more usually COD, will now be obliged to change this, why?

“formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognised by law, by which they become husband and wife.”

Can't agree there leoj. Your so called struggling young singles, particularly those with HECS debt have the capacity to earn more than most. That capacity has been paid for by often young families, struggling to support a family.

It is entirely reasonable those better educated at tax payer expense should start repaying their debt to the taxpayer sooner rather than later, & do so as an expression of gratitude for the long support they have received.

Foxy:

"We can continue to argue on what should or should not
be the case"

You are not arguing - you are just stating the fact that there is a Marriage Act and Howard altered it. As I have said just because governments administer marriage does not make it reasonable. Why do you think governments should administer marriages? You obviously accept that they should but what are your reasons?

<<I notice that in recent times the terminology has changed from same sex marriage to marriage equality, in an effort to evoke even more feelings of guilt in opponents.>>

<<Perhaps. The term is still accurate, though.>>

No it is not "perhaps". If one types in (via a google search), the words 'marriage equality', versus 'same sex marriage' one will clearly see the differences.

It's clearly a matter of fact. If one chooses to avoid that, well that is their choice.

leoj,

Before the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 there was
no definition of marriage. The Act lacked a definition
at that time. You can Google this
information in Wikipedia.

Dear phanto,

All societies that we know have definite rules about
marriage because there is a strong body of evidence
that in general marriage promotes a more healthy,
stable and prosperous society. The government obviously
finds value in supporting these outcomes, therefore it
naturally follows that it should regulate marriage.

Also lets not forget that -
marriage is a contract. It creates rights. It may involve
things like property, children, and it is the task of
governments to protect those rights. Therefore marriage needs
to be protected by the law.

I'm sorry I didn't Google it, NathanJ.

The fact remains that "marriage equality" is still a valid term. What Big Nana did was presenting a false dichotomy by claiming that if there isn't total equality across the board, then there is no equality at all, and that, therefore, the whole campaign is disingenuous.

<<It's clearly a matter of fact.>>

Well, apparently it's not to everyone.

I Googled it and skimmed a couple of the articles that appeared in the search, and the only distinction they were making was the idea that 'marriage equality' is preferable because it acknowledges that it would all just be 'marriage', neither form with an appendage that may imply that one form is less legitimate than the other.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=marriage+equality+vs+gay+marriage

<<If one chooses to avoid that, well that is their choice.>>

Certainly. What makes you think I did, though? That's a rather cynical way to interpret my indifference to a point that I showed to be a secondary issue.