Nathan I suggest you read the marriage act. It reads 'Marriage, according to Australian law, is the union of a man and a woman ...

Maybe would could charge $10 tax everytime somoene has sex to raise money. Your rant about raising money from marriage is a mute point. What don't you understand about the Marriage Act?

Marriage was originally intended to form a binding arrangement to protect children when life spans seldom passed 40. That the laws in Aus now protect children and spouses whether married or not, legal marriage has become little more than a symbol of devotion.

I personally have no objection to same sex marriages or even polygamous marriages as long as all the participants are willing.
Given the cost of divorces, I see the main beneficiaries being the lawyers.

Saying that, I have been happily married for nearly 30yrs and am having to deal with the kids leaving and making their own lives. It is like a second honeymoon where the participants are decrepit.

Marriage records are of inestimable value to those doing family research and no less so in tracking and avoiding hereditable disease, for the latter reason alone there needs to be official records.

I don't know where the University of Qld got their figures from but based on what happened in Ireland, there won't be many same sex marriages at all.
In the 12 months following the referendum in Ireland only 412 same sex couples married. Given their population is quarter the size of Australia that equates to 1,200 marriages.
That's a huge difference in numbers. And it's supported by figures from other countries where same sex marriage numbers are low, making me wonder what all the hysteria is about when it appears few gay couples actually want to marry anyway.

Big Nana,

Because the number of same-sex couples wanting to marry is irrelevant.

<<That's a huge difference in numbers … making me wonder what all the hysteria is about when it appears few gay couples actually want to marry anyway.>>

What matters is that they should be allowed to if they want. There is no reason to deny them the same benefits.

It’s called equality.

An Adelaide man is fighting to keep his pregnant Russian girlfriend in Australia but immigration officials have rejected her pregnancy as a reason for a visa extension.

Single father-of-two Robert Pitt, 38, from Paradise, and Russian national Natasha Zaydenberg, 36, plan to marry (2013) after a whirlwind romance that started in March but have been told that "pregnancy is no grounds for a waiver" on her three-month tourist visa.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaide-man-fights-to-keep-pregnant-russian-girlfriend-here/news-story/c672b57a92ab9d30034f3b9e72392eb4?sv=29ca5443d3cbe594ee37dd1f2fe7e73

You will need to type in: Adelaide man fights to keep his Russian girlfriend here to read the story.

This story does not take into consideration any element of equality, economic activity, parental status or any other element of society.

Elements like "What matters is that they should be allowed to if they want. There is no reason to deny them the same benefits." are also not considered in the case I have just highlighted.

If there is going to be any acceptance of what has occurred in the case I have mentioned, legislation will not help this couple. The community at large may help or the couple in question will have to look at a range of options to determine their own future in terms of maintaining a sound relationship.

Marriage or legislation will not make a difference.