In their own words,

<Homosexual activist says gay ‘marriage’ isn’t about equality, it’s about destroying marriage

Johanna Dasteel

May 1, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Conservative pundits are saying that a homosexual activist exposed the hidden agenda behind homosexual “marriage” when she told an audience last year that the movement is not seeking equality but rather a total dismantling of the institution of marriage itself.

Masha Gessen, a journalist and author who campaigns for homosexual 'rights', made the comments last May in Australia on a panel at the Sydney Writer’s Festival. She said:

It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.
Providing her own life as an example for her advocacy to do away with marriage, Gessen described the complex family structure in which three children whom she parents live: one of them is adopted with her ex-partner, another - whom she birthed – has a biological father in Russia, and the third is the biological child of her current partner and Gessen’s brother. These three children have five adults in parenting roles, but not all five adults parent all three children.

“The five parents break down into two groups of three,” she said. “And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”>
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-activist-says-gay-marriage-isnt-about-equality-its-about-destroy

and
Why get married when you could be happy?
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506

Aidan, if its about values and not rights, as you say, then why not simply come up with a word that describes their union. After all, are they going to be married as two people, husband and husband, or wife and wife. Of cause not, just find another word and its all settled.

Its so ridiculous to think we have a huge jobs crisis looming, housing affordability issues ( although I question that), debt that I doubt we can ever pay down and both parties seem willing to allow hundreds of thousands of refugees in yet the big issue here is gay marriage.

I just don't get it. Find another word and move on.

It is not families that want change to the social structures formed between man and woman, husband and wife or children and mum and dad; It is the Pornography industry and the "free love" activists.

We have a few evangelists here who passionately believe the politicians should change the definition of marriage to mean any sexual relationship because they are not happy when previous politicians clarified the definition of marriage to be the social norm. I note the Greens and Labor want to tamper with social normality to pander to a few while discriminating against a large percentage of the population who uphold the marriage is the exclusive bonded relationship of a man and woman. Can the Greens be taken seriously? I note the Greens placed the "Pirate Party" number "2" in N.S.W. Senate. From my understanding pirates plunder and rape woman, so is this their support base? No conscience and no mutual marriage.

//I note the Greens placed the "Pirate Party" number "2" in N.S.W. Senate. From my understanding pirates plunder and rape woman, so is this their support base?//

Yes, Josephus, because it's still 1693 and buccaneers are still plundering the Spanish Main.

https://pirateparty.org.au/faq/

A J Philips:

OK let us focus on the here and now. You are here in this thread arguing in favour of a change in legislation to allow same-sex marriage. You would not be doing that unless you agreed that the government has the authority to define the relationship between same-sex couples as a marriage if they see fit to do so. Why does the government need to define the relationship of any couple? They have the right and freedom to define their own relationship. They can define it as a marriage without ever having anything to do with the government. If they can already have what they say they are seeking then why do they want government involvement? Why do you agree with them that they should seek government involvement?

It is a simple question which you seem hell bent on avoiding. Why do you think that governments should be involved in defining marriages here and now? If you think they should be then it would be logical to continue arguing for a change in legislation. If you do not think they should be involved then it would be logical to cease arguing for a change in legislation since it is not necessary in order to define your relationship as a marriage.

So if you continue to argue for a change then it is obvious for all to see that you believe in government involvement – there is no way to escape that conclusion. If you do not think they should be involved then the only logical course of action for you is to stop arguing for a change in the way the government involves itself. You may say that you are undecided but your actions do not concur with your indecision. You have made a decision here and now, in this thread that you agree with government intervention.

Why have you decided that it is appropriate for the government to be involved?

Yes Tony I know they are pirates of other peoples research and art. Similar to the Greens in that they are the extreme socialist left who steal property and rights. Associated with Marxist philosophy to destroy Western culture and values, especially the exclusive bonds of marriage and family.