AJ, one final point in response to your 'oral sex' comment. You will be heartened to know that this too fits in to our NO vote. And yes it is disgusting, so anyone engaged in such activity falls right into the same category as the YES people. Being a 'normal' couple does not give them any more moral rights than the queers. They choose to engage in filthy activities, behind closed doors, that's their choice. I naturally totally disagree with such conduct and so I would give them the same amount of grief as anyone else who engages in anything but what a normal healthy couple, (male and female)do as a matter of natural course. Giving 'head' is not one such thing, so I'll give you this one.

//I naturally totally disagree with such conduct and so I would give them the same amount of grief as anyone else who engages in anything but what a normal healthy couple, (male and female)do as a matter of natural course. Giving 'head' is not one such thing//

Funniest comment I've read all week. I'm not sure if our resident troll realises whilst support for gay marriage might only be sitting at about 66%, support for oral sex would be sitting in the high nineties. The very high nineties. Hell, I reckon you could count the number of people that don't like getting head on the left hand of a clumsy right-handed butcher. But apparently this minuscule minority are the only normal people.

minotaur "there is no mention of children in the Marriage Act"

Actually, there are several sections (89, 90, 91) relating to the "legitimacy" of children through marriage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(family_law)

But there is definitely no mention of "love".

AJ Philips "what’s nature got to do with it, and how do you know that homosexuality is not natural?"

Nature can be used as an argument against gay marriage (or even homosexuality in general).
The functional purpose of genitalia is reproduction, so there will *always* (legitimately) be people opposed to any non-reproductive sexuality. They need not be obnoxious about it.
There is evidence of homosexuality in animals, so it does occur in "nature".
There is no evidence of "marriage registers" in nature, only mating.

All the psychosocial elements of sex are inventions of our own minds, so can take many forms.
Which is the great (and terrible) thing about humans. We can invent our own realities.

And we invented "marriage".
We can define it how we wish, but it is a communal/tribal understanding, not a personal one.
It varies across cultures and eras, but it has never included same sex couples.
Even in bisexually-tolerant ancient Rome, the law only recognised straight marriages.
If our community/tribe does not wish to alter that definition, it matters not what some individuals demand.

The argument based on "love" can be used to *logically* demand polygamous and incestous marriages.
Is our society ready for those reforms? No. And it may not be ready for gay marriages either.
If so, tough. Gay partners are still recognised as "de facto" and gay people can keep living and loving together as they have done for years.

Not from my observations, ALTRAV.

<<[The YES side] only give anecdotal comments about precedents set elsewhere in the world.>>

Equality in itself is a rational reason. There’s no reason to appeal to what other countries are doing.

<<On the NO side a number of political, religious and social or personal arguments have been presented.>>

Yes, and all of which are fallacious to one degree or another. Most of which can be categorised as fallacious appeals to tradition, extremes, or nature.

<<When actual scenarios were presented, such as the fact that the men engaged in sodomy and buggery, again, no response to the allegations.>>

Yes, there was. You haven’t been reading very closely. You even addressed one of them in your post to me.

<<The standard vitriol of the YES campaign appears to go on the attack by responding with questions ...>>

If you make a claim without justifying it, then expect to receive requests for a justification. For the third time now, that’s not deflection, it’s giving you an opportunity to justify your claim or demonstrate that you have no justification.

<<The answers were not acceptable because they would show the flaws in the YES arguments …>>

Oh, by all means, give us an example, won’t you?

<<… whether the YES movement like it or not, they are not welcome to conduct themselves as they see fit, (at least in public) …>>

Well, that’s censorship for you. What happened to you lot being all about free speech?

<<… and they do not have the right to compare themselves with a 'real couple' and all it stands for.>>

Still confusing those in support of marriage equality with gay people, eh? There must be a lot of gay people this country. A majority, in fact.

The sections of the Marriage Act that refer to children would apply to same-sex marriages once they become legally recognised by the state. There is certainly no mention in the Act that people have to be married to have children. In fact it recognises the opposite is true.

yep the regressives have modelled and promoted every perversion one can drag up from sodom and gommorah. They putrify the minds of kids and then blame anyone standing for decency for mental health issues. The job of academia seems to dumb down people to such an extent that they are unable to see the obvious. Simply the more homosexuality and other sexual perversion is promoted and ' normalised' the greater the suicide rate will be depsite trying to legislate it as normal. The yes case has no case except to push lies.