Of course a piece of paper does not make for
a bulletproof love life. People get married for
a host of different reasons. However, this choice
should be available to all consenting non-familial
adults in our society however under the current
legislation it isn't.

"I got married and hoped for the best and perhaps I am
biased because I view stable monogamous relationships
as a less multifaceted sundae, but as a pleasantly
surprising cherry on top of the sundae that is my life."

To each his/her own.

Yuyutsu…

Christians rolling over to gay marriage, are of the modernist faith; immanentists. No Westminster Confession of faith in their life.

Immanentism fits the Marxist logic of fluidity. Easy it is to divide the Christian church on this most basic of Christian teachings: The Sanctity of marriage.

But the fundamentalists will not be rolled!

I'm pretty impressed with the Conservatives of the Liberal Party. Since this Marxist agenda of social destruction of the West began to escalate, it became clear, a small group of powerful bourgeoisie in the upper echelons of power and influence, are the driving force behind it. Kudos to the Libs for the recognition of the fact.
And what brilliance, a referendum to flush them out.

One point I do agree with Yuyutsu, all homosexuals are not interested in the Marxist manipulation of their sexual fetishes between themselves. It has been a very negative ride for many of them.

Yuyutsu...

And while I'm on the front foot, the most urgent counter attack against the Marxists confrontation with society, is education.
It is critical education of vulnerable children be reclaimed.

The way forward with this counter-attack is threefold.
One is the elimination of the teachers unions. Two is the sale of the public school system to private enterprise, a move that will automatically eliminate the former. And three, defund universities.

I'm not sure why the No side of the argument hasn't raised this, but it is not illegal for homosexuals to get married in Australia. The government just doesn't register those relationships. They are just de facto, rather than de jure. So the argument cannot be about the right to be married. Which makes it about not very much at all. Probably on both sides of the argument, which maybe is why No hasn't used it. I think if marriage really meant something, we'd be having an entirely different argument.

AJ, Australia is actually one of the few countries that already has one form of legal incestuous marriage and that is avunculate marriage, where you can marry your aunt or uncle. That is the same degree of DNA match as a half sibling yet I've not heard anyone suggesting we remove that right. So I can't see why full siblings can't marry, if they are cults and the relationship did not start in childhood.
As I said, if we are going to destroy the original concept marriage then it may as well be available to all adults. That is what is actually meant by marriage equality.
Polygamy, adult incest and polyamory already exist as defacto relationships, just as homosexual ones do, so I cannot see why, if you open the door to one, it's not open to all.

Graham, I believe it is all about money.

A huge percentage of homosexuals are employed by the government.
Government employees have most generous pension benefits.
These pensions are extremely generous to the spouse of the employee.

I believe this whole push is to get these benefits for the sexual partner of homosexuals employed by government.

It is somewhat telling that much of the thrust for homosexual marriage is coming from universities, the ABC, & the bureaucracy in general.