Should the federal government ban gay marriage?

The amendment [to the constitution to ban gay marriage] should fully protect [heterosexual] marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

...marriage is between a man and a woman. And I made that commitment before the last election. We will honour that commitment. We support the removal of discrimination from same sex couples and from de-facto heterosexual couples when it comes to basic, basic arrangements in terms of tax, superannuation and the rest, and also a nationally consistent relationships register. But [...] civil unions mean the effective amendment of the marriage act, and that is something we don’t support.

We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples.

I’m against [gay marriage]. Liberals do not understand the point of marriage. The point of marriage is not for society to understand the strong feelings people have for one another. It is to raise children. It’s to harness men’s natural promiscuity and to direct it toward one woman and one set of children.

Besides the slippery slope argument (which I believe is a legitimate one in this case, opening the door to polygamous arrangements), gay marriage undermines the procreative justification for marriage. Western companionate marriage is as much about kids as it is about love. Scrap the one reason and it’s harder to justify getting married for the other reason. ... Now personally I couldn’t care less if gays get married... this post is a primer for society, not for my own hedonistic pursuit.