Obviously Belly, Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd agrees with my view unless of course they are telling lies.

Toni will agree with you Runner. I don't think there has been mention of marriage outside of the media, Julia was calling it a union. Could be wrong. Religion can-not come into decisions that effect individuals, we don't all hail mary. fairy tales.

Given that the claim that it is a religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman would it not follow that anyone who chooses to be married would need to demonstrate that they believe in a God? If they dont they cannot be married, if they do they will need to convince a church that they should be married in that church - kick this silly debate to where it belongs - in church there are far more serious issues about which we should be concerning ourselves.

BAYGON,

You raise a valid point however even heathens have benefited greatly by adopting biblical principles. The West would not have had the great blessings it has had if we had adopted secular or pagan practices as a national practice.

I wanna have 7 wives, can I join in?
One of my fiance's wants to marry her mother. (I personally don't like this idea, mother in laws and all that you know? :) )
My other wife to be wants to marry her dog, whatever turns her on I suppose.

After all the state should not decide how we partner off, just that we're all partners.

Hasbeen I don't think that there is or has been any mandatory requirements in the marriage act to produce children. Whilst for many it's been the assumption that people who get married will have kid's it's not been a requirement nor has society generally withheld or withdrawn marriage from those who can't or don't function as a breeding pair.

Couples don't have their marriage cancelled if one person in the marriage becomes unable to contribute to a future child nor if they have been married for a number of years without having kid's. Nor does marriage stop a significant number of children being conceived outside the bounds of a recognised marriage.

Benefits are generally paid on the basis of co-habitaion and the presence of kid's rather than on the basis of a marriage certificate as far as I'm aware.

I'd like to see the government butt out of the whole thing, keep their involvement to a basic registration for things such as an authorisation to act as next of kin during medical emergencies etc.

I can no longer be part of a breeding pair (well maybe with an expensive reversal and some luck). As I understand it if I was in a live in sexual relationship with someone who was heavily reliant on social security for their income their payments would be impacted by my income. No breeding pair but a financial impact never the less.

None of the arguments against gay marriage make sense while we continue to allow and support so many exceptions for non-gay couples, married or otherwise. They keep looking like excuses rather than reasons.

R0bert