The latest Fairfax Ipsos poll has community support for Gay Marriage at 68%/25%. The question has virtually been settled. All we need now is for those Abbott type, head in the sand, hold outs in parliament to bow to the wishers of their constituency, and enact the necessary legislation.

Dear Paul1405,

I am for the legality of same-sex marriage. However, if the polls showed that only 10% were for same sex marriage I would still be for it, but in that case I would know there was no chance of having it. It would be for it for the same reasons I am a member of the Greens. I think the Greens advocate what I think is right to a greater degree than the other parties. However, if I were to make my political allegiance on the basis of what the polls show which party most people want I would belong to one of the major parties.

Polls merely show what most people want at a particular time. However, there is not a clear dichotomy. Morality itself eventually is defined by what most people think is right.

QUESTION: Is marriage itself a law or a contract between two persons registered under the State?
Equality applies to everyone no matter their financial, marital, gender or age; the thing that is evident is the defining of diversity of one's public status, [these are not synonymous definitions, same with married or single it is defining difference]. Yet under law all are equal therefore one's status is not the defining of equality ether married or single, ether married or homosexual. Note the person is equal and not to be discriminated against on marital status, gender or age etc. Difference is recognised under the law it is not stating that marriage and single people are the same as it is defining difference.

If marriage itself is a law then it is a responsibility that all who make that commitment to each other be licensed and registered by the State even as all who drive cars on the road need to be licensed and registered. At the moment it is optional as many in de'facto relationships give evidence they do not register, in the case of their children and property they are still covered by custody and property law.

TO CLAIM HOMOSEXUALS ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST by human rights as unequal is spurious as there is the capacity to take out a civil contract similar to a marriage contract. The only reason they want the term "marriage to apply to same sex" is to engage lawyers in taking action against persons of conviction upholding marriage is between a man and a woman. This is demonstrated in States already accepting Homosexual couples as married. There is a defining difference the homosexuals are no willing to accept. They want a genderless society, yet the law sees equality of both male and female and defines that difference. Try putting male athletes in female track events.

Paul,

Opinion polls?
Didn't the ones in Britain before the last election shew that the Tories were going to be slaughtered?
Somehow the opinion polls were so far off that there wasn't a mark on the target.

Someone mentioned KISS, ( keep it simple stupid), well, what could possibly be more simple than having two versions of marriage, one between a man and a woman, and another between two people. This way anyone who gets married can choose. Even men and women who marry can choose two people if they so choose, it's no big deal.

It's called a compromise and the queers don't want compromise they want us to change our ways to accommodate them.

Why should we!

As for Bill Shorton, well there's a laugh if ever I've heard one, bill shorten alright, short on ideas.

We have a looming jobs crisis, a housing bubble, a manufacturing industry about to implode and this is the best this guy can come up with.

God help us is the country chooses to dump Abbott because uncle bills a dud.

Dear Rehctub,

<<the queers don't want compromise they want us to change our ways to accommodate them.>>

Homosexuals, or 'queers' as you unjustly call them, don't want anything - they are not a side to this debate and are not to be blamed. It's unrelated others, i.e. the anti-religious brigade, who incidentally use them to further their own interests, pretending to represent homosexuals without even having asked for their permission.