Religious fundamentalists won't like to hear this but they are not having it all their own way regarding the same-sex marriage issue.

Firstly, gay couples have appropriated the language. I referred to my last "boyfriend" as my husband. I mean I was 37 when I met him and he was 3 years older. "Boyfriend" was a bit inappropriate. And gay couples often refer to their "marriage". So, you can say what you like but we are using the language of marriage regardless of what people think.

Secondly, gay couples are having their marriages blessed by the Metropolitan Community Church, the Quakers or any other gay friendly religious denomination. They are already having weddings with the requisite formality.

So, we are calling ourselves "married" and we are having religious services to formalise our marriages. What is left? The legal content. That is, the rights AND responsibilities conferred by signing a contract underpinned by the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 and other related legislation. Religious conservatives and their allies are fighting us on the battleground of government legislation.

I think opponents of same-sex marriage would be better off defending their religious institutions. After all, it would be unreasonable for gay couples to try to force the churches to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies. And I would oppose anyone who wants to force the churches to such a thing. We already have our own religious organisations who can do this. But it is also unreasonable for religious conservatives to try to maintain legal inequality - they don't "own" the Marriage Act 1961. Nobody does. It is a Federal Act which should not be exploited by same-sex marriage opponents who can't even argue on religious grounds and who try to conceal their religious bigotry by shifting to spurious social "arguments" to bolster their cause.

David JS says, "..it is also unreasonable for religious conservatives to try to maintain legal inequality - they don't "own" the Marriage Act 1961. Nobody does. It is a Federal Act which should not be exploited by same-sex marriage opponents who can't even argue on religious grounds and who try to conceal their religious bigotry by shifting to spurious social "arguments" to bolster their cause."

Religious folk (the dreaded fundementalists) exploiting the Marriage Act? Nonsense. They are defending marriage as a voluntary union between a man and a woman entered into for life", an understanding that's been around for quite a while I believe. If homosexuals cared so much for marriage how come only a few hunded wrote in to the recent Senate enquiry compared to 15,000 supporters of marriage as traditionally understood.

And I wonder about a concept of marriage that seems to derive its impetus from legal considerations - my wife and I entered into marriage 37 years ago for life, "for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health", with every expectation of shared love, companionship, children.

What is your concept of marriage David JS?

I absolutely agree with David, marriage is something that is being defended by religious groups and indeed, many atheists, because it is a special bond which as the Marriage Act states, is a "union between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others".

If DavidJS would like to rebut my points (see above), point by point, then he is welcome. However, his attitude (and hence, approach) seems to be that I and other supporters of marriage are just religious zealots out to oppress and demote homosexuals as sub-human - WRONG.

And as David points out, that is a complete nonsense.

Furthermore, as David points out, why did only a small number of submissions of the 15,000 or so in the recent marriage amendment bill, support gay marriage? Perhaps DavidJS could point out why the majority of Australians who placed a submission to this bill were, in fact, against altering marriage for the sake of a minority group and were in fact supporting the status quo - that is that marriage is a special union between one man and one woman to the exlusion of all others?

"submissions of the 15,000 or so"

It's highly likely that the majority of these 15,000 submissions were the result of a church-based campaign.

One reason for the small number of submissions supporting gay marriage is that Christian church members are the ones who seem to be the most-interested in what goes on on in OTHER people's bedrooms.

So the homosexuals are not into campaigns Ron.......!

Who are you trying to fool.

The truth is, not enough of them cared sufficiently to bother writing in. Apart from the very few, they prefer their promiscuous lifestyle.

And no thanks - I don't care to think about what goes on in homosexual bedrooms.

Bye for now I think I've used up my quota.

"Bye for now I think I've used up my quota"

Let's hope your hatred too, David.