The current debate about same-sex marriage is about a great deal more than two people of the same gender being able to have their union recognised by law in Australia.

While I am not gay and see no merit in marriage, I am an emphatic supporter of allowing same-sex marriages to be recognised in law.

There are two principle reasons for my support. They are:

On the first point, the High Court of Australia once ruled that the Constitution allowed for marriage to be between any two individuals, without reference to the gender of either. It was the Howard government that introduced laws that defined marriage as involving a man and a woman. There is absolutely no reason for it to stay that way.

Read more: Calling out the Coalition For Marriage for what it is

Behind this debate about the legal recognition of gay marriage are four principles that make the debate about much more than two people being able to have their union recognised in law, as important as that may be.

The first relates to what should be the inalienable right of every human being to do whatever they like if it does not affect anyone else.

Setting aside the misleading suggestions in some advertising - which have conflated a range of unrelated factors with gay marriages being recognised in law - two people marrying, regardless of their gender, have no direct affect on anyone other than the two concerned. What right do we have to interfere in the relationship of two other people? Their actions can do NOTHING to others, beyond making some of them happy.

The second of these principles relates to the view held by some that gay marriage is against the word of God. Even if this is true, like so many things that are supposedly against the word of God, this is surely a matter between the individuals concerned and God.

Why would man need to get involved in the matter? If God objects to a person’s behaviour, then it is up to God to take it up with them and penalise them if need be. This is not a matter for me, or you.

The third principle relates to the ethics of denying another human being happiness. I cannot image how marriage would make anyone happy, but I know that marriage makes some people very happy. Further, I just cannot see that I have any right to deny someone that happiness just because something, perhaps marriage, makes them happy.

I am strongly of the view that it is immoral to restrict the behaviour of another just because I don’t like that behaviour, particularly where there is no direct negative impact on me. I believe that in such circumstances, denying happiness is unacceptably selfish.

Finally, there is the inherent stupidity in trying to prevent something that is inevitable.

The dumbest thing I ever heard a prime minister say was: "I know Australia will become a republic, but it will not happen on my watch." 

This was said by the same man who changed the law on marriage last time – proving that an Act of Parliament is all it takes to define marriage.

Australia will become a republic one day and the mature approach is work with this proposition and make sure it happens in the best possible way. Simply delaying it is juvenile.

The same applies to same-sex marriage. The ALP will be re-elected one day (possibly sooner rather than later) and when they are, they will recognise gay marriage – and may do it in a way not ideal for religious organisations.

Is it therefore not smarter for those concerned about gay marriage to become part of the solution, and make sure it occurs with what they see as appropriate exclusions for religious bodies and others.

These issues are all bigger than same-sex marriage, but they in themselves suggest that same-sex marriage is a right and should be recognised in law. They, of course, will not be accepted by the homophobic.