Modern marriage and historical marriages are about external appearances and not so much about actuality; about <i>saying</i> that it is a couple's permanent, monogamous, heterosexual union of love and family. Too often this is not the case, though this seems not to concern its supporters.

This article is about an imagined "right" of individuals to demand that others conform to their views. It ignores the reflective nature of rights - my right in an issue is balanced by your rights not to yield to my opinion. It fails because of marriage's historical common failure in practice to attain its goals.

The author seemingly approves discrimination in employment, association and more, without justification.

Conscientious Objection is only justified on the basis that it is private and respects the rights of others to hold opposing views.

It's not justifiable to deny public or employment rights on the basis of choice of life partner (spouse), eg in taxation, health insurance, inheritance, property rights after a relationship dissolves, or do these require commitment to the notion of exclusive, heterosexual marriage.

Exclusivity, which is part of traditional marriage though clearly never universally observed, is, like religion, in these days of Tinder, now a rarity, it seems.

Should the secret cross-dresser, though heterosexually married in public, be denied the rights of marriage due to his or her private activities? What if the spouse though not necessarily happy with this chooses to continue the life partnership?

If I had my way, I'd remove the word "marriage" from the statutes in favour of "life partner", but that won't make LGBTIQ folk happy either. Change is afoot, whether we agree or not. Society's rules must mirror its members. So, get on with it - abandon the outdated, imperfect definition of marriage.

The question is only the extent of necessary in a society which accepts the need for acceptance, fairness and, yes, the private right to conscientiously object but not at the expense of others' rights.

I'm not gay and I'm voting 'selfish' on the basis that voting 'Yes' does not in anyway benefit me, and why should I support something that does not benefit me?
You'll have to make me a better offer, and it will have to include a large sum of cash.
None of the other regressive brainwashed retards would support something that did not benefit them so why should I?
Vote your conscience they say, I will and you can guarantee it.
In my opinuion 'fair go' is dead and it's a sign of the times to vote 'selfish'.
The gay lobby have pushed too much of their agendas onto innocent underage schoolkids anyway, and for that alone they cannot and should not be trusted.

And I'm not going to give them the power to force Christians in their own churches to go against their own religious beliefs to marry gays, just so the mentally challenged freaks can have a token win to destory the fabric of moral decency.
They'll never stop, because its a global socialist agenda, but at least I can cause them some anxiety and depression, just like they did when they wanted to sexualise the children of decent heterosexual couples.

For those gays that seek only to mess with other peoples lives, like legitimised members of ISIS you can forget about me supporting gay marriage, because I support gay suicide.

Getting married wont stop their mental issues or thoughts of suicide, and that's a proven fact.
When they start acting rationally and respectful of others, I might reconsider my position.

I absolutely agree with those conscientious objectors! Who should never ever be forced against their will, to marry same sex partners or bisexual turd burglars!

But particularly if the turds have been seriously polished in overused elephantine passageways, to the point, it'd be tantamount to throwing a sausage down a corridor? Who turned the lights out?

It's all downhill from here? And or, backwards on out of control roller skates? MUMMY!
Alan B.

Where's the need for such tedious arguments?

Forcing someone to work/perform a task against their will is slavery.

Surely we can all agree that slavery is not on?!

Thanks for the homophobic post Alan B. You should marry Leo Lane, you're both haters.

Most of the nostalgic back-to-the-past proponents of "time-honored traditional-marriage" just havent done their homework re the always fluid and changing nature of what could be called "marriage" and the way that both women and children treated and mis-treated (as chattels or property of the husband/father).

This reference describes the on-the-ground realities of the always changing situation: http://www.stephaniecoontz.com/books/thewayweneverwere

Changes in technology and thus by cultural extension have been one of the principal determining causative agents in marriage/family relationships, and human relationships altogether.

Will today's young people addicted to the narcissistic nature of selfies and social-media be in any sense capable of incarnating the necessary qualities for sustaining a good marriage and/or raising sane healthy children?

Meanwhile do a search of the ultra right-wing outfit The Alliance Defending Freedom
This reference would be a good place to start:
http://www.thinkprogress.org/the-800-pound-gorilla-of-the-christian-right-89b8cfca7051
It is interesting to note that Tony Abbott gave a talk at one of the ADF gabfests.

Conscientious objectors have a right to not be compelled to do the thing they object to. In this case marrying someone of the same sex.
They DO NOT have the right to stop anyone else from participating in the thing they object to.
Your whole argument fails, and makes you look like a bit of a prat, when you framed it as "conscientious objectors".
One more misleading and perfidious attempt to justify hatred and bigotry.

If your job or business involves facilitating marriage or weddings then your religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. Can these people/businesses discriminate against adulterers, women having their periods, athiests? Whats the difference?

Keep your sick and insane beliefs to yourself and keep your noses out of other peoples private lives.
Sheesh how many times do you godbotherers, and dont pretend you arent one, have to be told.
Believe any super fairy, pigs flying, fag hating nonsense you want just keep it to yourself.

I'm bored stiff by the whole thing. I'm voting no, and I'll be very disappointed if SSM becomes legal. Still, just about everything Australian is disappointing since the Left has been in charge - and, make no mistake, even when the Coalition has been on government benches, the Left has been calling the tune. Now, the Coalition is just another version of the Labor Party.

AlanB,

You should try to stay sober until you have finished posting.

Dear Mikk,

«Can these people/businesses discriminate against adulterers, women having their periods, athiests? Whats the difference?»

No difference whatsoever. Nobody should ever be forced to provide a service to another, whether for a good reason; a bad reason; or even for no reason at all.

While I would detest such [hypothetical] discrimination, I would die to protect the absolute rights of any such fool to serve only those s/he chooses to.

If the total troll being nasty (ttbn) is so disappointed in Australia then s/he should emigrate. There are many backward and medieval middle-eastern countries who would welcome such bigotry and backward beliefs.

I am a little surprised that ttbn and others of the same thinking aren't still campaigning against women and Aboriginal people having voting rights in elections. Or demanding women get out of the workforce and return to the kitchen where they belong...let alone being allowed to drive a vehicle!

You misread me Minotaur, was essentially saying what Mikk was saying. If you don't want to do something, fight go to war or anything that you object to on personal moral grounds! Just don't do it!

[Even so, that didn't stop popes who claimed to be infallible, charging at the head of invading, warmongering armies and putting disbelievers to the sword! And in so doing, breaking the central, thou shalt not kill edict, of the so called "Holy" Church.]

And then speaking for God, claiming a divine right to prohibit people born different, from following their natural instincts or being conceded the very rights, we also God created normals, take as our God given right!

Clearly you'll have a right to say no to any and all personal involvement! But absolutely, no right whatsoever, to trample roughshod over the rights of others!

And they have an absolute right to call you to account for claiming a self proclaimed divine right to deny them the very rights you accept for yourself!

Particularly if their private lives are none of your or my business!

And let's be clear, I'm a normal straight bloke with children and grandkids and I'll be voting YES! And not before flaming time!

ttbn, don't drink mate! Just trying a little horizontal levity, which in the case of the challenged homophobes? Seems to have gone right over the top without parting the hair?

If a gentle kind Jesus walked among us today, with his preference for male company and still unmarried at 33, many of the alleged christians sitting in judgement, would judge him gay!

And nail him to an allegorical cross if you could, just by denying him the same rights, plus a tiny measure of personal happiness and contentment, as you accept as God given, for yourselves!

Do unto others as you would have for yourselves. Quote unquote.

Inasmuch as you do unto the least among you you also do unto me! Quote unquote.

Judge not and you shall not be judged. Quote unquote.

All you concerned Christians, have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B

Minny,

You appear be confusing me with Muslims.

ttbn, which sect of Islam have I confused you with, Sunni, Shi'ite or Wabbhism? Then again it probably doesn't matter to you as you seem to classify all Muslims under the one category. That's what ignorant bigots do.

Oh of course, I left out you being a Christian...perhaps an adherent to that wonderfully inclusive group the Exclusive Brethren...or the Lord's Resistance Army. How about The Army of God? They all share your bigotry and hatred.

Minny

If I'm a bigot, then you have to accept that you are also a bigot because you are just as intolerant of my opinions and beliefs as I am of yours. I don't like you; you don't !Ike me. End of!

Finally, ttbn got something right. And I don't care if I'm called a bigot for not tolerating medieval and hateful views. At least I'm not an ignorant, bitter and twisted bigot.

mikk "keep your noses out of other peoples private lives"

If I own a cake shop, that *is* my private life.
Just because anyone can walk in the door does not make it "public" property.
It's my cake shop, not the government's, the activists, the (prospective) customers, or the socialist committee's.
I should be able to refuse to bake a cake for any reason I feel like.

Walk into my cake shop talking loudly into a headset? No cake for you!
Wearing a burqa? No cake for you!
A mankini? No cake for you!
Che Guevara t-shirt? No cake for you!
Swastika tattoo? No cake for you!
Pink hair with argyle socks? No cake for you!
A full length leather Matrix coat in the middle of summer? No cake for you!

My cake shop. My choice. No cake for you!

Walk into my cake shop talking loudly in a foreign language? No cake for you!
Wearing a crucifix? No cake for you!
A nuns habit? No cake for you!
Jesus t-shirt? No cake for you!
Star of David tattoo? No cake for you!
Fuzzy hair with trackie dacks? No cake for you!
A full length priests frock? No cake for you!
What about
Black skin? No cake for you!
Female? No cake for you!
Jew? No cake for you!
Slanty eyes? No cake for you!

My cake shop. My choice. No cake for you! Really?

All shops think like Shocka and refuse to serve OLO posters.
We all starve.

Shockadelics cake shop goes broke from lack of acceptable customers.
What an idiot.

Dear Mikk,

«All shops think like Shocka and refuse to serve OLO posters. We all starve.»

Yes, life without cakes is difficult, but why not grow our own vegies? We could even learn to bake!

«Shockadelics cake shop goes broke from lack of acceptable customers. What an idiot.»

An idiot indeed, but I would die for his freedom to be an idiot!

- because another day, any tyrant could rise and declare that my own particular way of life is idiotic.