Dear Josephus,

<<births and deaths was developed in Western society by the Romans to keep a record of their citizens.>>

Romans also had slaves and gladiators - if we are to adopt their ways...

<<a mutually committed lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, as it gives security to their children.>>

The only security that exists in this world is the grave, yet relatively speaking, having more adults in the family is relatively more secure because if any of them dies or becomes infirm, the others can still raise the children and will be committed to doing so.

<<but marriage is a biological term>>

I was considering marriage a spiritual quality, but if as you claim that it is merely biological, then why even think about it - nature can take care of itself!

Dear Suse,

'romantic rights'... they have that in North Korea: if you work especially hard and please the regime, you are given a prize, 3 nights with your spouse!

Are you suggesting that Australians too must beg their government for such rights rather than remain free to enjoy their romance as they please, unhindered by the state in the first place?

Yuyitsu, I doubt there is anything more romantic than a marriage ceremony.
At least mine was.

The state merely provides the paperwork to seal the deal... so I don't see why Gay people can't have the same deal.

And even more importantly, why would this act affect anyone else directly?
Children are happy in any family where they are loved and cared for, and heterosexual marriages do not always provide this, so the only issue I see as a true problem with marriage equality is a religious issue.

We should be encouraging our politicians to allow a conscience vote on the issue, as I don't believe the majority of them are against marriage equality in our thankfully increasingly secular society.

Suseonline, "I doubt there is anything more romantic than a marriage ceremony....The state merely provides the paperwork to seal the deal.."

It is just paperwork, huh? But not for the opportunity to have a fuss made over you though. Then you don't need to trash the Marriage Act do you? However gays can play dress up and have the occasion now. Nothing stopping them.

However your dismissiveness also betrays your contempt for the institution of marriage and all it represents for the that great bulk of the population who don't get to complete the cleverly scoped surveys of Getup.

Suseonline, "in our thankfully increasingly secular society"

I support secular government which we already have. PM John Howard was one of the very rare politicians to say that and act accordingly.
But from your posts you would go further to discourage Christian churches (not sure where you stand on Islamic mosques). Why then are you determined for gays to be married in the Christian churches you despise the churches so? It just doesn't figure, doe it?

The Netherlands has introduced gay marriage but very few gays have availed themselves of the opportunity provided to wed. This indicates that the large rump of gays would prefer that you let them alone and did not force State regulation of their relationships as has been done by de facto law changes and as you now propose, by overturning the Marriage Act. Is your concern really about gays? Or is it about the wishes of a few gay activists and a rump of Left 'Progressives' who believe that they always know what is best for others?

You do come across as pursuing secondary gain every time you advocate gay marriage. Examples being that you trash marriage as just being about paper, or 'love' and you always take the opportunity to disrespect your much hated Christian churches. A nasty child experience in a Catholic school maybe? The right of gays to conduct their own affairs without State regulation and State interference is collateral damage, but your target is the Roman Catholic Church?

Dear Suse,

<<I doubt there is anything more romantic than a marriage ceremony>>

I can only second that, but is there anything so unromantic as the couple, straight after the touching ceremony, disappearing into a back-room to sign papers?

<<The state merely provides the paperwork to seal the deal...>>

A marriage deal is already sealed in heaven. If it is indeed sealed, then there is no need for paperwork and if it is not, then no paperwork will do it.

<<so I don't see why Gay people can't have the same deal.>>

Sure, I totally agree, all people, gay and shy alike, heterosexuals, homosexuals, asexuals and all the rest, should have the same deal - no paperwork at all.

<<so the only issue I see as a true problem with marriage equality is a religious issue.>>

Nothing to do with religion really, only with the misinterpretation of religion. Religious progress can only be made by freely and personally submitting oneself to austerities - nobody external can get you closer to God by forcing you to do anything or denying you the freedom to do whatever you want.

<<We should be encouraging our politicians to allow a conscience vote on the issue>>

If they had a conscience, they would have already been using it!

<<as I don't believe the majority of them are against marriage equality in our thankfully increasingly secular society.>>

The majority of them aren't for or against any principle other than keeping their seats and acquiring the higher chair of a minister or PM. They say whatever they opportunistically believe may buy them votes, including church-goer votes (thus corrupting that church), if it helps them to keep their back-side warmly glued to their chair.

Politicians belong to the realm of Asuras (Titans), described as:

"Always desiring to be superior to others, having no patience for inferiors and belittling strangers; like a hawk, flying high above and looking down on others, and yet outwardly displaying justice, worship, wisdom, and faith -- this is raising up the lowest order of good and walking the way of the Asuras." (from http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/tp/Six-Realms-of-Existence.htm)

those calling for a conscience vote or referendum are not sincere. Look at what happened in California when the people voted against perverting the marriage act. The left wing nuts then screamed to twisted judges who overturned the will of the people.

Elected politicians are there to represent the views of their electorates. Gay marriage has been batted around the Senate over and over by the Greens, displacing more urgent business. Recently all from both Houses were required to go back and ascertain the opinion in their electorates, which they dutifully did. The result was that the Marriage Act was confirmed as it was.

It is because some gay activists and Left 'Progressives' do not respect the democratic process and accept the democratic decision that they are now demanding a 'conscience' vote, while hoping to sledge and embarrass anyone who disagrees with their view on the subject. The fact is that even if a conscience vote went against the said activists they would still not accept the democratic decision.

Returning to 'conscience' votes, that would be the near opposite of what elected representatives are required to do in a democracy, which id to represent the opinion and good of the electorate that elected them.

In any event, the activists and Left who are demanding a conscience vote would be highly critical of any politician whose conscience produced a decision that was opposite to their own. Imagine if those the activists decry as 'religious', actually lived up to the Left's (usually wrong) expectation and votes accordingly.

Roll on September '13.