give me a straight answer.

Now Playing: Mean by Taylor Swift (I bet you got pushed around, somebody made you cold, but the cycle ends right now because you can't lead me down that road)

There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage.

Religion seems to be the main argument that keeps popping up. It's a combination of magic and mysticism and the sheer power of bigotry that seems to have its way in our secular country with our supposedly secular laws. But yet when you try and ask a religious person to justify their anti gay marriage stance, they can't. They tell you they don't want to talk about it, can you please move on, it's not a big deal, etc.

Wrong. It is a big deal. And it's an even bigger deal that you can't even justify your hate and your discrimination. If people are going to turn gay marriage into a 'debate', well, fucking debate me.

Australia is and always has been a secular country. We have no state religion and there is supposed to be a distinction between church and state. Even though 60% of the population identify as Christian, even if 100% of the population identifies as Christian, our country and our law is secular. Our law does not discriminate based on colour, sex or religion and applies to all, regardless of colour, sex and religion. So this theologically based discrimination in our secular law affects everyone, theists and atheists alike. And that is not fair.

Marriage is a legal institution. It is the legal binding of two people to provide access to specific rights and responsibilities. You are legally married from the moment you sign the dotted line until the marriage terminates either through death or divorce. Marriage in Australian law is not a religious rite. There is no God involved. And nobody can tell you who you can and can't marry.

The religious marriage ceremony is optional. There is no law saying that marriage only counts if its between two religious people married in a place of worship by a religious leader. Even religious ceremonies must have the legal 'signing of the register' or it is not valid before Australian law. Similarly, all marriage ceremonies are valid if there is a) a certified celebrant and b) there is the signing of the registry. Regardless of what religion or lack of religion, the concept of marriage applies to all.

Saying that marriage in Australia is purely a Christian issue is a violation of religious rights. It's saying that Muslims and Hindus and Jews don't have the right to marry according to their customs, and it's saying that atheists don't have the right to marry at all. It's implying that the only reason why other religious marriages and atheist marriages are 'legal' because they follow the Christian definition of marriage, which is a load of bullshit. In no way is a Hindu marriage ceremony remotely reminiscent of Christian doctrine. Marriage is a universal concept. Imposing the Christian definition of marriage to our multi-faith and multi-cultural society is a violation of religious freedom.

Legalizing gay marriage is a secular issue. It is the amendment of the Marriage Act 1961 to remove the discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgender, transsexual and intersex people from access to marriage rights. It preserves the religious freedom of religious leaders and institutions to refuse to perform marriage that are believed to be against their faith, but provides every couple with access to civil marriage. Religion has no part in this.

I have the right before Australian law to a civil marriage ceremony with a celebrant with no religious affiliation. I have the right to all the privileges of marriage with or without religion. I have the right to marriage, to the married life, to be a married woman. I don't see why I am only given these rights if my spouse is a man and how all of this can be taken away if my spouse is a woman.

The root behind the anti-gay sentiment is ignorance. It astounds me that most people have no concept of civil marriage. It astounds me that people actually think that Australia is a Christian state. It astounds me that people think that marriage didn't exist without Christianity and so Christianity controls what is and isn't marriage.

And it astounds me when people just assume that Christianity is against gay marriage.

The Bible is a text. There is no one meaning to any text, and it is reader context and not author intent that drives our interpretation of any text, including the Bible. Putting the word 'Holy' before it doesn't negate this rule. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself said that the verses of Sodom and Gomorrah are against promiscuity and non-consensual sex acts, not necessarily homosexuality in itself. There are 16,000 signatures on a petition started and circulated amongst Christians in support of gay marriage - Australian Christians who believe in equal rights, Australian Christians who reject the ACL as an appropriate representative of the Australian Christian community. And at any rate, the Bible has so many twisted definitions of marriage - one man, multiple wives, one man, a wife and a concubine, a man and his slave, a rapist and his victim - the Bible is an ancient text, a snapshot of particular social conventions of a time and place completely removed from the here and now. We have to move on from the fear and ignorance of the past. Religion has to change with the times.

Christianity is not homophobic in itself - it is only interpreted as such by homophobes. The proof? There are churches with gay members, with gay pastors and priests. There are churches that conduct and accept gay marriage. There are churches who don't believe that we have the right to discriminate against people and to violate their religious and sexual rights. There are churches that believe 'love thy neighbour' is a healthier Christian message than 'kill fags'. There are churches that recognised that the Bible does not explicitly condemn homosexuality or gay marriage. So why do people continually use religion as an excuse for discrimination?

As for proponents of "civil union" and "civil partnerships", they're not kidding anyone with their pretence of tolerance. "Different but equal" was the ideology behind the Jim Crow laws, which are undeniably racist. "Different but equal" is not equal at all - and denying people civil marriage in favour of civil unions is undeniably homophobic.

I don't accept 'being Christian' as a legitimate excuse for being a bigot, for discriminating against anyone based on sexual preference. Being Christian means nothing more than 'being Christian' - it is not excuse or justification for the blatant lies and fear and hate and discrimination that fuels the anti-gay sentiment in this society. If you have an opinion, fucking justify it. Don't avoid questions, give me a straight answer and fight for what you think is right, whatever that is. By hiding behind a book or a religious institution you're accepting that your argument is weak and your opinion is wrong. By claiming that being Christian justifies being homophobic is to insult Christianity and your fellow Christians who don't buy into the bigotry of sex discrimination. Homophobia is not rooted in Christianity; it is rooted in fear, hate, discrimination that is somehow accepted under the guise of spirituality. And as an atheist, I have to draw the line between tolerating religion and endorsing bigotry.

The straight answer on the gay marriage debate is that there is no reason why gay marriage should not be legalized. I have facts and reasons to back me up. What do you have? All you have is one specific interpretation of a book.