Suse, Toni,
I was speaking in the third person, read the posts again.
Basically the No campaign need to go hard or go home, so to speak, if they're not willing to call for the destruction of the LQBTIQ movement and work to those ends then they need to step aside and just deal with the changes to the marriage act because their opposition won't play nice and actually do want to destroy all that the "right" profess to hold dear.
From a realistic perspective the lower element of popular culture is already so morally rotten that a few hundred homosexuals pretending to be married isn't going to make things measurably worse.
The "Left" still have their vision intact, they still promote the "new man", the pan-sexual,pan-racial, pan-religious archetype, what's lacking on the right is a competing vision with which to sell their ideas, critique of the Left's manifold and obvious flaws can only take them so far.

AJ,

I've followed all of the current discussion and I haven't yet seen the question answered; I can see no reason why the Marriage Act should be changed so that marriage is no longer defined as it has been for thousands of years.

Is Mise,

I specifically referred to all the discussions on OLO on this topic. Either way, an answer I provided to a different point raised earlier in this thread should have also answered your question: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6879#209775. My first two reasons in response to Banjo, regarding a different point, at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17425#307999 are also relevant to your question.

When discussing equality, the question shouldn't be, "Why?", but "Why not?" Human history is a litany of examples of why equality should be the default until there is a reason to withhold/withdraw it, rather than the other way round. "That's just the way it's always been" isn't a reason for maintaining an inequality in society.

AJ Phillips,
There's no injustice here and no inequality, the Yes campaign are calling for something completely new to be invented, homosexuals have exactly the same civil rights as all other adult members of society.
The real mindset of the Yes campaigners was revealed in New Zealand last year when in a publicity stunt a radio station offered a substantial cash prize to two heterosexual men if they'd get married. The Gay rights advocates predictably hit the roof and screeched words to the effect that two heterosexual men marrying was an affront to homosexuals and demeaned the institution of marriage....sound like anything you've heard before?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/same-sex-marriage-stunt_n_5811310.html

Jay of Melbourne,

Just because "the Yes campaign are calling for something completely new", that doesn't mean that there is no injustice or inequality. Using that logic, one could have argued that there was no in justice or inequality for indigenous Australians before the 1967 referendum because their recognition in the constitution was never there to begin with. But then you go onto mention homosexuals having the same civil rights as all other adult members of society. Of course they do. But they can't get married.

Civil unions (if they're what you're hinting at) are state-based and can differ across the country. They're also not recognised in other countries. But if same-sex couples already have all the same rights, then you should have no problem with them being allowed to marry. It’s interesting that you referred to same-sex marriage earlier as “pretend marriage”. I don’t see how you, as an atheist, can justify that in the absence of any inferred spiritual dimension bestowed upon marriage by a bigoted deity.

The bottom line is allowing some couples to marry and not others is discriminatory and beneath a modern society such as ours. To distract from this you offer up a red herring, implying some sort of sinister ulterior motive to control, bully and destroy society. I'm sorry, but that's just delusional and the story in the link you provided does nothing to support your assumptions about the motives or mindset of those in favour of marriage equality. I thought the stunt was pretty offensive too given the struggles the gay community have been through in having their relationships recognised and taken seriously without being given some shabby, dry, shallow option of a civil union the way a child gives you a half-chewed lolly before they reach for a fresh one.

//I can see no reason why the Marriage Act should be changed so that marriage is no longer defined as it has been for thousands of years.//

Ahhh... the old argument from tradition. I'm not sure if it is an official logical fallacy, but it is obviously poor reasoning.

It was traditional, for thousands of years, for men to be the property of other men. These days slavery is just not illegal in Western civilisation: it is regarded as anathema to basic decency.

No doubt Wilberforce and his cronies had to go head to head with a lot of people saying 'But this is how it always been! People have been keeping slaves for thousands of years, and the classical ideals upon which the enlightenment was founded also advocated the keeping of slaves. I can see no reason why the laws regarding slavery should be changed so that servitude is no longer defined as it has been for thousands of years.'

Wilberforce won. Something for all of the people advancing arguments based on tradition to consider.