Jolanda: "They should have the decency to acknowledge that and to respect how it makes hetrosexual couples feel."

I'm half of a heterosexual couple, and we don't feel at all threatened by homosexual people. You don't speak for us.

"Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman - period."

Nonsense. It's a legal contract, nothing sacred about it.

As for Boazy's homophobic rant above - more nonsense from OLO's most prolific bigot.

Mr Howard is right in that every child deserves both a mum and a dad. He also knows that the practice of sodomy is extremely unhealthy and ends in many diseases (just check out our hospitals). No wonder the Democrats have become so irrelevant. Promoting this lifestyle through legislation does our society no benefit. A small minority who practice this lifestyle might benefit but society pays in the end. We should be funding programs to help people become free from this lifestyle rather than encouraging it.

Following Mr Howard's support for the Marriage Act as it presently stands, the co-convenor of the Gay and Lesbian Lobby Group, Somali Cerise, was quoted in the SMH as saying:

"Marriage is not something that a lot of gay and lesbian people want but the fact that we don't have the choice if we want it is the problem."

It is easy to understand why many homosexuals would prefer to retain the more bohemian and flexible lifestyles they enjoy outside of the straitjacket of the government designed and operated marriage and Family Law system.

Somali Cerise's assessment "Marriage is not something that a lot of gay and lesbian people want" begs the question as to just who is driving the change and why. Of course the usual suspects could be the intellectual elite who are into social engineering and know what is best for others.

Why risk uncontrolled and unknown outcomes changing an institution that is claimed to be already under threat when there could be other alternatives to address the needs of the small number (of the already small number) of homosexuals who want their relationships to be regulated by the Family Law Act?

Come to think of it, why invade the privacy of homosexual relationships and force all to be regulated for the few, especially when there could be other alternatives to achieve what they want from marriage?

It is not just same sex marriage that is being proposed for government regulation, it includes de facto arrangements too.

Have the Democrats ever consulted with homosexuals? When, how and what was the outcome?

Senator Allison I wish the Democrats every success in getting equal rights for same sex couples.

Religious types tell us that marriage is about joining a man and woman together to produce children. Until the 1970s children who were born out of wedlock had ILLEGITIMATE scrawled in red ink across their birth certificate - that doesn't happen now. That's not always been the case - in English and Australian history where if you didn't have property you didn't get married.

Currently in Australia a large proportion of women, approaching 30%, will never have children. About 10% of couples are infertile.

The nuclear family of mum, dad and kids is largely a fiction with less than half the households fitting into this category.

I live in an area with many gays and often the teenage children prefer to live with dad.

Living in a sole parent household or living near the poverty line has a greater impact on a child's health, educational outcomes and presumably life outcomes.

James Purser
Although there's a part of me that wants to answer your question with a simple affirmative I just can't.
There is certainly a part of me that wants to say - call it anything else and give them the same rights and no problems...
I just can't quite go that far.
The problem I have is that when the State (and let's make this point clear - notwithstanding the religious background, marriage nowadays is a social compact governed by the State, not the Church) sanctions and approves something - it also endorses it. I'm not ready to go that far.
As supporive as I am of any loving, non-abusive, consensual relationship between adults I cannot quite get to the stage where I can view a homosexual relationship as equivalent to and as valid as a hetero one. There is something about a traditional family unit (with or without children) that seems preferrable. Of course, giving same sex unions equal rights to everything would necessarily encompass adoption/fostering/IVF etc - which, as it involves children, I have already said I can't support.
However, I repeat that most other entitlements that have no good reason for discrimination should be available to same-sex partners.
I know - I'm homophobic - sigh... I try so hard.
;-)

For goodness sake, what real impact does this have on you as a person in your day to day existence and your own relationships and your connection with your community? Think about it, without all the religious and political guff that is being sprouted by both sides of the argument if that's possible, just look at the issues with pure logic.

How do hetero people personally benefit/ not benefit of same sex people are married? Why does what other people in your community do in their own homes mean so much to you? Why should some people not be given a "fair go" in society, and what other groups should we not be giving a "fair go" to while we are at it? People like me for instance, married and childless? Oh, sorry, already pay more tax than people with children, well other groups then. What (besides the pensions/ health access etc) is really going to fundamentally shift society for the worse because we recognise that two people are "married"- which can I add is a relatively modern institution- or not.

Love doesn't have a gender, it is not male or female, it is the description and outward manifestation of a very deep connection between people. Why can't we celebrate and recognise this deep and can I say fundamental connection between people who are happy, and leave it at that?