As the then Minister for Families and Community Services, Jenny Macklin herself said that same-sex law reforms introduced in 2008 had removed discrimination between same-sex and heterosexual couples in 85 areas and "Same-sex couples now have the same entitlements and obligations as opposite-sex de facto couples".

So same sex couples have long had the opportunity to declare their 'love' to government. Or be investigated for rorting Centrelink. It is amusing to think that the Gillard/Greens government found a way to save money and as a spin-off gave spurned gay lovers a means for vengeance through dobbing.

However I wonder just how many gays are demanding marriage. Typically the same few noisy gay advocates take the stage. The larger rump of gay marriage advocates are Lefties and Greens who profess no liking for marriage anyhow and want to see the State 'out' of marriage, leaving it open to all sorts of 'love' groupings (and the household pet included too?).

It is difficult to see how it is critical for gay love to be recognised for marriage and the Marriage Act trashed accordingly, but Muslim love is not. On the other hand the Greens/Gillard government has allowed bigamy through the very broad definition of partner (the meaning of couple is murky).

The only jurisdiction where marriages are made, is ... Heaven!

As that's where marriages are conducted, neither NZ nor Australia have a right to register marriages and whoever does so is an impostor!

Runner said " Polygamy is a 'marriage' form but highly undesirable for a society." Why not if it's okay for same sex couples ?
If one father and one mother married for life is not any better for raising children than two fathers or two mothers wouldn’t three or four better?
Once marriage is simply defined as a government recognized contractual agreement between two consenting people then there is no logical reason why it could not be a contract between three people or four people. This is not a slippery slope fallacy, but actually reality in places that have adopted same-sex marriage.
Two women who form a polyamorous union similar to the TLC show Sister Wives have sued the State of Utah in Federal court claiming the law against polygamy in unconstitutional.
While they're not arguing for marriage, ten years ago, neither were the LGBT activists.
What about the hospital visitation rights, the spousal benefits, the tax preferences?

The future is bleak for Western Civilization if marriage is opened to any combination imaginable and heterosexual marriage is abandoned in pursuit of more toys and career goals. Nations that have adopted same-sex marriage have all seen their total marriage rates decline. ]
A lot of us won't be around in 15/20 yrs ( if it takes that long) but what are your thoughts on the subject anyway, do tou think it will be the 'norm'? ( religion aside)
(I'm interested in where other's think the future is heading just for general discussion and not about the biblical consequences)

But won't it be a great boost to New Zealand's tourist industry.

Just imagine how many honeymoon packages there are going to be for all those Aussie gays and lesbians who want to tie the knot in not too far away splendid New Zealand.

I can just see Alan Jones skipping around the NZ alps singing all of his favourite songs from a Sound of Music. Ahhh....isn't love beautiful.

Hmmm......I just wonder if this idea might have also been in the minds of NZ's MPs when they voted Yea.

saussie <"The future is bleak for Western Civilization if marriage is opened to any combination imaginable and heterosexual marriage is abandoned in pursuit of more toys and career goals. Nations that have adopted same-sex marriage have all seen their total marriage rates decline. ]"

Is that right? Do you have any statistics to prove this statement?
Did the sky fall in at those nations too?
I doubt there will ever be marriage opened to ANY combination at all.

I don't really have a problem with plural marriages, as long as women can also marry multiple men, and no one under 18 should be allowed to marry anyone.
However, there would have to be strict rules to prevent problems that currently plague illegal plural marriages .

In fact, I can see far more problems with polygamous marriages than I can with Gay marriages.

Gay people can no more help who they fall in love with than heterosexual people can.
It is cruel to deny these people the same romantic rights as any other lovers.

Having multiple wives is not a problem to the State as multiple husbands; as paternity of the children cannot be established and increases risk of cancer in the woman. However multiple wives reduces the equality of women to men.

There is only one model that raises the standard and health of society and that is a mutually committed lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, as it gives security to their children.

The registering by the State of marriages, births and deaths was developed in Western society by the Romans to keep a record of their citizens. The registrations are NOT the marriage as is the birth or death it is merely the public record and is accountable in legal terms. Gays actually do not marry, they merely register their relationship and they may call it marriage, but marriage is a biological term that can only happen between a man and a woman. That gays deny their role in procreation for which we are given reproductive organs and choose sex with the same gender is not biological marriage