Here's a few bad ones:

- Marriage is a religious rite between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is sacrilege.

Hogwash. Marriage is a social convention that crosses the religious and secular divide. It may hold religious meaning to some, but not to all.

A man and woman require no religious faith to legally marry in this country. That fact alone is proof enough that marriage in this nation is a civil right not a religious rite. The small matter that the marriage act is enshrined in civil law is also a thorn in the side of this argument.

- Marriage is for raising families. Gay couples cannot naturally concieve, therefore their marriages are unnatural.

And what of those men and women whose infertility makes conception an impossibility, are we banning them from marriage too?

What about married couples who choose not to procreate?

Under this definition shouldn't gay couples who have children be more entitled to call themselves married than heterosexual couples who are intentionally or inexplicably barren?

We don't bar the latter from getting married, so why the former?

- A gay marriage can't be a real or traditional marriage because there is only one form of marriage and it's between a man and a woman.

Tell that to the polygamous ``fundamentalist mormons'' of Utah. Their's is between a man and many women.

The fact is ``traditional marriage'' is a misnomer. By definition marriage from just a century ago looks nothing like what we view as marriage today. Divorce, contraception, shared property rights between the sexes, the change of the standing of the position of wife from dependent to equal, the elimination of the parents' right to choose the marriage partner of their child - these are just a few of the ``traditional'' aspects of marriage that have changed.

The concept of marriage has changed dramatically throughout history, like all social institutions. And it will continue to change, like it or not.

- It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Gay relationships are not natural and underserving of the institution of marriage.

A sadly homophobic position and one our nation long ago left behind. Our legislators recognise homosexual relationships in the same way they recognise de facto partnerships. That means, whatever your moral view point, in legal terms Adam and Steve are well on their way to being every bit as legitimate a couple as Adam and Eve - until it comes to marriage, that is.

Blocking gay marriage is pure and simple discrimination. By not allowing such a union, politicians are trampling on the individual rights of members of a minority group to protect the sensibilities of religious groups, moral crusaders and those who are frightened by or would prefer not to think too deeply about the fact that there are those who are different to themselves.

- The Tasmanian Greens today tabled a bill package to establish a same sex marriage system in Tasmania.