'Persons of conscience' Josephus?
So those of us who support equality in marriage have no conscience?
Those who seek to discriminate against others have no heart.

Josephus,

"What right or purpose has the State got to register social unions that two persons can now agree to draw up in a legal contract of agreement...."

Er....the "State" has been registering "social agreements" that "persons" have been drawing up and calling "marriage" for yonks.

Suse,

"So those of us who support equality in marriage have no conscience?"

Lol!...one has to first take into account that religious moralists always take the moral high ground by means of their "beliefs". Whether or not those "beliefs" bare any resemblance to sound rationality is apparently outside the realms of polite enquiry.

Suse,

"....they no longer believe the so-called holy men, like the Bishops and Archbishops , are infallible...."

They never believed that Bishops and Archbishops were infallible; suggest that you check with your husband before posting on Catholicism.

Suseonline, "Those who seek to discriminate against others.."

If it is 'discrimination', why the hell hasn't the Human Rights Commission - which is forever hanging out for sensationalist headlines to justify the unjustifiable ie., its own continued existence - ever ruled that it is discrimination?

'Marriage equality' and 'rights' are red herrings. In Ireland it was a triumph of Marxist inspired propaganda that took advantage of the information and tools psychologists have delivered through understanding what makes us human. Scurrilous advertisers do the same.

It is the political 'Progressives' and a few Gay Pride activists who lead and they are quite adept at using a media that has long lost any principles and ethics, that is if they had any in the first place.

Homosexuals have in the broad and by a substantial majority always valued their freedom from the herd and their outlaw, unregulated status. Honestly, as if they really want the in-your-face attention and prissy conflict sought by the gays. Now public bureaucrats, courts and lawyers inform them of the status of their relationships and decide their assets on break-up.

How could that be counted as a gain, except by the very few 'gays'(sic) who are well-off politicians and public servants and can get a share of that superannuation and spouse travel (with the taxpayer paying for both)?

Ex-Labor leader Latham was right to slam L'il Willie Shorten who once again is having a knee-jerk reaction to 'Whatever She says'. This time it is the another ambitious but even less able womyn, Tanya Plibersek, who is undermining Shorten for a knifing later.

Whatever She says,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf4nlIEHfaU

Latham slams Labor,
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-labor-leader-mark-latham-slams-labor-over-gay-marriage/story-fnizhakg-1227371979220

Suseonline,
I note you believe there is only one opinion, others of convicted opinion cannot exercise conscience on their opinion. Obviously you are a sympathizer with homosexual activist bullies and have reduced marriage to contract between two lovers; and anyone else's is heartless.

Homosexual activist relationships last less than seven years and are unfaithful to each other, as gay pride and Mardi demonstrates. In fact two women living together each with children last less than that. Marriage should be for life and for the protection of children. Children come of as incidental to the relationships of homosexuals.

Suseonline

Yes, I agree a noisy minority of opponents of equality cite religion as a reason for opposing gay marriage. It can create the impression that this is the only authentic Christian position, and represents the views of most Christians. That’s not true.

I also agree that the Irish vote represents a remarkable low point in the authority of the church in Ireland. I too applaud this. The Church as an institution is not the same as the church as a community of believers, nor does it always faithfully reflect the values of compassion and inclusion proclaimed by its founder. Sometimes it deserves a slap in the face. In recent years, it has got many issues to do with sex, sexuality and gender wrong: whether refusing female equality, denying same sex marriage or the appalling record of committing and covering up sexual abuse. Small wonder its authority has declined.

Josephus

I don’t doubt you are sincere in your beliefs that homosexual acts are abhorrent, and homosexual marriage should be forbidden. The question is whether your beliefs should prevail over those who, in equally good conscience, believe exactly the opposite, and furthermore believe that your opinions are bigoted and abhorrent. Most importantly, is your distaste at others’ sexual preferences and activities sufficient reason to prohibit them? The Western Liberal tradition would say “no”. Unless you are directly and materially harmed by what other people do in the bedroom or the registry office, you have no right to prevent it, however much you disapprove.