Astutely observed m2catter,
Your argumentum e contrario that life without religious influences would be a much more peaceful one is clearly validated by the peaceful secularist reigns of Stalin and his counterpart Mao compared to life under Islam.
The combined death toll of 100 something million attributed to the secularists is greatly eclipsed by the 270 million attributed to the religion of peace.
That's approximately 170 million bodies more peaceful.
A significant improvement in anyone's books.

m2catter,
You said; Quote, "They deserve the same respect then other people as well".
The legal contract of marriage has nothing to do with respect of other people. We can respect people without marrying them, or they being married. The aspect of respect by the State of persons has no input into the Marriage contract. It is primarly to ensure any offspring of that contract are nurtured and cared for by both partners. People can make arrangements to share the same house and they can draw up a legal contract to cover a split in their relationship or in the case of death. It does not require marriage

Cornflower where did I call you a homophobe ? That comment was directed to someone who is as described.

I merely answered objectively that your presented argument lacked substance.

History tells us which pitfall to avoid.

Just because a political figure smooths his base or is courting the small liberals doesn't mean it's correct. I don't believe that Rudd/ howard/Turnbull/Hockey can speak for the nation on issues like this or even a majority. They are all talking too a narrow percentage of the population who 'might' change their vote.

I might note that you still don't address any of my points and continue with the shock horror which is AN *indicator* of homophobia.

HermanYutic,

Arguing by extremes is the mark of a half baked opinion.
No one to my knowledge is saying that life would be all wisdom, love and light without religion. What is clear is that religion has be a major source for conflict since before the bible times.
Figures by some scholars indicate that it has been the greatest cause/justification for mass misery and violent deaths ever.

Personally My view is that the absence of religion would simply remove one for the causes for mass violence. Being an ingenious species We would find another justification (sic) anyway.

The problem isn't with religion per se, more to do with the need to force others to toe the Dogma line.

Philo
You miss the real purpose (emotional) of marriage today.A contract simply doesn't meet that requirement. "Anyway what's in a name....."
I surmise it's a fear of the unknown.

Tell us where you got those bodycounts for Islam, HermanYutic.

Sancho,
http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/

examinator,
Are you telling me the Basis of the Marriage Act is to protect and enhance the emotional relationships? It is not rather the lawful Act of Marriage they want changed not their emotions protected?