Foxy, I actually attended a wedding on the weekend.

It was performed by a celebrant and, at the end she announced, I now pronounce you husband and wife.

In fact I have attended two wedding within a few months, both performed by celebrants and both said, under the laws of Australia, where marriage is between a man and a woman, I now pronounce you husband and wife.

Best they (gays) get over it and move on, as we have far more important issues to occupy the time of our leaders.

Go off, get hitched and call ot what every you wish, but the marriage word is taken.
I for one won't accept gay marriage as being equal to my marriage, and at the end of the day, that's all that matters to me.

I doubt I will be alone.

Dear rehctub,

I fully understand that same-sex marriage is an
issue about which many people feel strongly.
However, it is important to recognise that there
is an immense range in marriage, family, and
kinship patterns today, and that each of these patterns
may be, at least in their own context perfectly viable,
and above all, that marriage, like any other social
institution, inevitably changes through time.

So, Foxy, you finally concede that the debate is about marriage and not about homosexuality.

Then you go on with your Marxist/'Progressive' agenda that marriage can be anything.

Doubtless you have the considerable hide to claim at the same time that you are not attacking marriage.

As Peter Hitchens said on Q&A recently, the 'Progressives' have already won the cultural war. Hence the hubris displayed by Quentin Bryce with her self-indulgent selfie. I guess it was your hubris too that caused you to let slip that the target was always institution of marriage itself.

Hitchens
@ 52:30 http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3868791.htm

From http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageCivil.htm :

"In debates over gay marriage, much attention is paid to legal rights which same-sex couples miss out on because of their inability to marry. If we take a close look at those rights, however, we find that most are about helping couples care for each other."

The notion that marriage is a civil right comes through in this article, as it does in the GG's comments. Surely she has a right to espouse them on that basis, or should GG's be seen and not heard, other than to dismiss Labor governments?

I still wounder how the threads title got mixed up with same sex couples/GG,s comments.
The only thing that seems to stand out is the author thought same sex meant that?
And while we demand the right to our thoughts I truly wounder why we set aside some people and some views that we think should not be seen.

Luciferase got it right when he said,"If we take a close look at those rights, however, we find that most are about helping couples care for each other."

There are the facts = marriage is not the exclusive domain of caring for each other. I would hope that those that share love for each other care for each other. But those that share love for each other does not interpret as "have sex with each other" as some homosexual lobbyists interpret.