rehctub,

<<...the opportunity is not the real issue here, it's the equality they seek and, so long as a same sex couple CAN NEVER have children together, naturally, then their union can never be the same as a normal couple.>>

And black people can never be white, but that doesn't mean they're not entitled to equality. You don't seem to understand the difference between sameness and equality in the eyes of the law.

Rehctub "<...the opportunity is not the real issue here, it's the equality they seek and, so long as a same sex couple CAN NEVER have children together, naturally, then their union can never be the same as a normal couple.>>"

Is that right Rehctub?
So infertile or elderly married couples aren't 'a normal couple' because they can't make children 'naturally'?

AJ Phillips,
See that's the bind the no campaign finds itself locked into, they'll continue to look gutless and ineffectual until they abandon Liberal values and admit that, no actually not everyone should be entitled to the same treatment by the state. The yes campaign know this and they're not bound by the same psychological or intellectual need to show tolerance or to appear reasonable and rational at all times, they can get away with boycotts, hysterical ranting and emotional outbursts whereas the No campaign have to maintain these bogus Liberal standards.
The No campaign, such as it is either need to bite the bullet and abandon Liberal values, fairness and propriety and stop fighting with one hand tied behind their back or learn to live with the conseqeunces of their failure to resist. There's no moral high ground to be taken here, it's a grubby issue fought by grubby people who won't listen to reason and only exploit the concept of equality when it suits them.

Jay of Melbourne,

What exactly do you mean when you say "... not everyone should be entitled to the same treatment by the state."?

Obviously convicted criminals shouldn't be treated the same as law abiding citizens. But somehow I don't think that's what you meant.

Yes ok, you've got me there, might I say that the only possibility of a child being born natually is between a man and a woman and, if the man and woman can't have children then that has to be an exception. Also for anyone to even suggest a gay relationship is normal is dilutional. It's not normal which ever way you look at it.

The other issue with gay marriage is divorce as many would choose not to have children, for various reasons so I can only assume it would be much easier to just walk away where there are no kids involved.

I'm afraid there is much more at stake here than simply amending the act to accommodate these people.

AJ Phillips,
I meant that the No campaigners have nothing to lose by adopting an openly illiberal or anti liberal position on this issue because the Yes campaign don't accept that all viewpoints, lifestyles and ideologies are equal and are vocal in expressing such views. The No campaigners aren't on the same field of play as the Yes campaigners that's why they are losing, if they adopted a harder line and demanded something along the lines of Putin's anti homosexual propaganda laws and bans on public LQBTIQ activism they'd at least have a viable, alternative platform.
The fact is that society has been altered already to a point where personal dysfunction and sexual misconduct are glorified and celebrated, nothing will change one way or another if the vote for marriage equality is blocked, society just remains the same as it is now. If "conservatives" were serious they'd be advocating widespread reforms and restrictions on the promotion of sexual eccentricity and mental illness as acceptable and equal to the globally accepted norm of families of one man, one woman and their children as the basis of a healthy society.