So "a couple is a couple" if you are dealing with centrelink. Now what about healthcare? Why can't we have a shared PBS card? Why can't I use my partner as next of kin on a legal document?

How are centrelink going to prove anything? What about the couple of straight young blokes sharing a flat? or girls for that matter? Are centrlink staff to assume that anyone sharing a dwelling with a member of the same sex is in a relationship with that person? Things could get very interesting down at the local centrelink office!

Oh, Centrelink does, Sparkyq. When I was on Austudy I had to fill out an intrusive array of forms and affidavits declaring that my flatmate was not, in fact, my de facto wife. Ironically, if I were gay I wouldn't have needed to.

It's a bit of a challenge to discern any good intentions in some of the posts above, but I'll assume for the moment that we're all here in a spirit of generosity towards our fellow human beings, open to new ideas and opinions, raising issues that genuinely need to be explained.

What I find in need of explanation is the association of criminal behaviour with the recognition of same-sex relationships: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139181 As Kipp has indicated, it takes little effort and even less imagination to find examples of illegality among any group of humans, but this is not grounds for denying rights to the law-abiding majority.

I could also use an explanation of how polygamy is relevant to this discussion: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139221 In all of the jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is recognised, polygamy is illegal. In all of the jurisdictions where polygamy is allowed, same-sex relationships are not - indeed in most of them homosexuals are persecuted. Far from one leading to the other, the evidence is that polygamy and same-sex relationship recognition are mutually exclusive.

I'd also like to know how unfounded claims about the author's motivation further this exchange. Even if it were possible to discredit him by proving some weird animus against "all things outside his understanding," the ideas would still be there to discuss. Not just in this article, but here http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4541 and here http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/01/13/1137118970554.html and here http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/output/print The idea of same-sex marriage is becoming more acceptable by the day. It seems to me that personal attacks on its proponents simply highlight the lack of credible arguments against it.

Finally, on a point of fact, I'd like to know how the US state of Vermont can be described as a "victim of judicial activism" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139181 when its same-sex marriage laws were passed by its legislature not once but twice: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09040703.html

Trav - "If Gay marriage is allowed, then in the future what argument could you put forward against a proposal to allow people to have multiple wives or husbands?"

Trav, Have you heard of the term bigamy ?, Regardless if gay marriage was legal or not bigamy is illegal. You cannot under Australian law legally marry somebody else while your still legally married to another person. In countries where gay marriage is legal there has been no proposals put forward for people to have multiple wives or husbands, legalising gay marriage is totally different to bigamy, I cant believe you could even compare bigamy and gay marriage together.

Woulfe,
I'll concede that I tarred Vermont with the same brush as Massuchusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and California (pre-Prop8).
I didn't consider it particularly important being too accurate with Rodney who claims on his website that "Major surveys show that about 5% of the Australian population are gay or bisexual men"
http://tglrg.org/more/127_0_1_30_M2/
Note that he doesn't say 5% of the male population. This makes his claim notionally equivalent to the canard that 10% of the Australian population are homosexual (ignoring potential variation (from 5%) in the lesbian population) but distorted so as not to be immediately recognisable as the discredited 10%.
Seeing as you used LifeSiteNews.com I guess I can too to demonstrate that Rodney is telling porkies.
Statistics Canada determined that 1.9% of the Canadian population are gay, lesbian or bisexual
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08032008.html
A study by Deakin University in Melbourne "also indicated that an extremely small fraction of the Australian population self-defines as "homosexual." Only .66 percent of women and 1.03 percent of men defined themselves as homosexual. This figure is well below the "statistic" of 10 percent that is often touted by homosexual activists. The extremely low percentage of homosexuals in the population agrees with the findings of other similar studies in Western countries. Besides those who self-defined as homosexual, another 1.26 percent of women and 1.23 percent of men defined themselves as bi-sexual."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08031907.html
"Recent studies in many different countries show that the prevalence of homosexuality is less than 3% of the
population: In a US study, the prevalence of homosexuality was estimated to be 2.1% of men and 1.5% of women. (Gilman SE. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 933-9.) Another US study estimated the prevalence of the adult lesbian population to be 1.87% (Aaron DJ et al. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57 :207-9.) In a recent British survey, 2.8% of men were classified as homosexuals (Mercer CH et al. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1453-8). In a recent Dutch study 2.8% of men and 1.4% women had had samesex partners. (SandfortTGetal.ArchGenPsychiatry.2001;58:85-91.) In a New Zealand study, 2.8% of young adults were classified as homosexual or bisexual. (FergussonDMetal.ArchGenPsychiatry.1999;56:876-80)"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/features/marriage_defence/SSM_MD_evidence.pdf

The government recognition of the privileges and obligations of relationships for the purposes of social security payments, insurance, contracts, next-of-kin, etc, is one thing.

Marriage is something else. It is a matter of religion.

Consider other so-called "sacraments" like "confirmation" or "bar mitzvah". Any government involvement or recognition? No. Nor should there be.

It's worth drawing an analogy with "baptism". At a civil ceremony, I took responsibility to help mentor an infant, offer support and encouragement for life, something much weightier than merely promising to try and bring that child up in a particular religious faith. (I'd been asked to be a godparent, but refused, because any oath to a deity I didn't believe in would have been pointless).

The simple solution is for a "marriage" to have no legal weight outside the religious institution involved. Repeal the Marriage Act (1961) and any similar state acts, and replace it with something purely secular (although I'd recommend it not be called the "Coupling Act"... let the wordsmiths come up with something appropriate).

The only thing that should matter to a government is whether forms relevant to a registry office have been signed by appropriate parties.

If some new-agey "church" wants to marry a dolphin and a cat, let them do it, issue a valid-within-that-church marriage certificate, whatever... but it shouldn't matter one iota to any government. (Although, perhaps when quasi-human rights are granted to anthropoid apes, then governments might consider recognizing civil unions between apes that can consent via sign language).

Remove any reference to "marriage" from all government laws and regulations and replace those references with something secular... problem solved.