Tony,
The countries in the Commonwealth who do not respect homosexuality. Why do they not respect homosexuality? Is there a religious component?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations

The penalties for private, consensual sexual conduct between same sex adults remain harsh in a number of Commonwealth countries. They include 10 years imprisonment and hard labour in Jamaica, 14 years in Kenya, 20 years plus flogging in Malaysia, and 25 years in Trinidad and Tobago. Bangladesh, Barbados, Guyana, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Tanzania and Uganda have a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, while in the 12 northern states of Nigeria the maximum penalty for male homosexuality is death. In some countries such as Cameroon, arrests and imprisonment for acts that indicate homosexuality are frequently reported. In Uganda and Nigeria recent legislative proposals would significantly increase the penalties for homosexuality.

At least in Australia they can be respected without being criminalised.

//The countries in the Commonwealth who do not respect homosexuality. Why do they not respect homosexuality? Is there a religious component?//

Probably. Mind you, all the ones I looked except for Bangladesh had a Christian majority.

What does this have to do with gay marriage in Australia?

Josephus excuses marriage discrimination by comparison with how consenting homosexuality is punished in a list of countries run by tribal savages.

A more relevant comparison is with relatively civilised countries. How does Australia compare with Britain, Ireland, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Sweden, the USA, Germany, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Austria, Czech Republic, Italy?

It looks like some people here are having a party, vicariously enjoying the explicit, but irrelevant, discussion on homosexual activities.

Let me remind you that SSM does not require homosexuality.
Legal marriage does not require any sexual act or even a proof of sexual attraction.

So why would two people marry if they feel no sexual attraction to each other?
Well, they don't even need to actually marry if their goal can be achieved just by SAYING that they want to marry.

Scenario:

Two school-friends (same-sex) chat: "did you see this fat old disgusting religious baker? Let's book him!"

As they enter the bakery the owner asks: "How can I help you Sirs(/Madams)?"

- "We would like to order a 3-storey marzipan wedding cake."

Now they don't really want and can't really afford this cake: had the baker simply answered: "That would be $75", then they would break the world record by running out and being 100m away from the bakery in 9 seconds. But as planned, the baker falls into their trap and asks:

"And whose wedding would I have the honour to adorn?"

- "Us two!" (with great effort not to burst in laughter)

The baker raises his walking stick and shouts: "Piss off, you scoundrels - Out of my shop!".

This is all filmed, the baker is sued and taken to court:

"Boo-Hoo, Boo-Hoo, this baker spoiled our wedding; Boo-Hoo, Boo-Hoo, he traumatised us; Boo-Hoo, Boo-Hoo, because of him we became hooked on drugs/alcohol".

Elsewhere, a wise judge would ask the witnessing complainants: "Will you demonstrate to the court how you lovingly kiss?", which would immediately cause the duo's faces to twitch in embarrassment and pain, disclosing their true scheme, but Australian magistrates are not allowed to act wisely, they must rather follow the laws.

Don't forget the extremely important word 'equality' which is what this is all about, marriage equality.

It would appear from what ive seen the vote is going to be close. Now if it is a 'yes', then rest assured a larger number of yes voters would have voted than the no's, quite simply because some no voters could not care a less. However, should the MP's vote yes, this does not ensure marriage equality, it would simply mean the marriages are equal in law. But this is not about law, it is about marriage equality and to be accepted as equal, one must gain the acceptance of the masses and many no voters will never accept that.

I just wonder if successful, those marrying under the new law (hypo) can. Personally, I doubt it otherwise they would have accepted that finding another word would have saved millions and no doubt some lives.

My wife and I and everyone we encounter accept without demur the validity of our marriage. If there were any turds who didn't I would certainly draw attention far and wide to their turdity. The same applies to any adult marriage entered into with unforced mutual consent of same or different genders.

Any organised movement to deny the validity of any unforced adult marriage certainly needs to be identified as a turds' brigade.

As an aficionado of the ABC soapie Dr Blake's Mysteries I was very pleased to see this week that the character Jean told the Roman Catholic priest who said if she went ahead with a marriage to a divorced man the church would excommunicate her she replied that it was no longer her church.