"In an article I wrote some time ago I suggested also that, rather than amend the Marriage Act, why not create a Gay Marriage Act. In doing so this will make clear the difference between the lifestyle and responsibilities that attends on each kind of union."

As far as I know nobody currently getting married in Australia has any legal obligations to adopt any kind of 'lifestyle' or 'responsibilities' whatsoever. If you think otherwise, you need to provide a citation.

In fact you seem to be suggesting a trip back in time to the 1860s (or in space to the Middle East), where failure to observe one's marriage vows was a criminal offence. I doubt very much whether you are going to get much support for that notion in 21st-Century Australia.

Why not simply recognise society's prerogative to use the word 'marriage' in any way that's appropriate at the time, and broaden it as required to take in groups and 'lifestyles' that have not previously been recognised?

The Religious Right doesn't own the word 'marriage', no matter how hard they try to make us think they do.

The author writes: "Not being religious, my opinion is based on the fact that over millennia, marriage has evolved, been adopted by, entrenched and recognised by billions of people in societies across the world as the union of a man and a woman. I see no reason to change it."

The above is only true in some societies. Actually in anthropological terms there are eight forms of marriage. eg the authority figure to children in one form of marriage may be the mother's brother. In Tibet there has been polyandry where one woman can marry more than one man. The author implies that one form of marriage is the same for all types of society. That is not true. He also assumes that the evolution of the social instition called marriage is complete. Evolution is never complete. It continues.

He also questions pride in children that are not created by the parties of a marital union. I know a heterosexual couple who are quite loving and proud of an adopted child.

I am, like the author, a heterosexual male married to a woman. I can't see how same sex marriage threatens my relationship. I expect my marriage to last as long as we both shall live.

Marriage is whatever the law defines as marriage. All human institutions are man made and defined by humans. That is true for marriage as for any other human institution. Different entities in society may define human institutions differently. Religious groups or individuals that define marriage in a particular way may choose who they will marry. They should not have the right to decide about others.

As a once married heterosexual alpha male, I find myself in broad agreement with both Jon and David. Every human being extant on the planet has their sexuality decided for them in the womb and by nature. And for those who care to actually look with open unbiased eyes, irrefutable scientific evidence; plus, many examples in nature.
Moreover, every human being extant on the planet has absolute equal rights in the pursuit of personal happiness.
Perhaps we could find some middle ground or form of words which would satisfy both sides of this incredibly tiresome debate.
Perhaps we could include the words orthodox/conventional for traditional marriage and the coupling to produce children, and the word gay/unorthodox/new age, which precludes children by traditional means or methods.
But, ought not preclude adoption or in-vitro fertilisation; given, many same sex couples; arguably, would provide a better more secure and stable environment; than say, a single parent struggling with economic circumstances, depression or a very abusive former spouse etc/etc/etc!
And forever on the move, suburb to suburb, or city to city, or state to state; or, through a variety of entirely unsuitable male role model replacements etc/etc. And I know that you know what I mean? Rhrosty.

"Finally, few would argue that the marriage of a man and a woman is the basis of a stable society and predates any church rite. Diminishing that stability will also diminish society."

This is from a stable society and predates any church rite… "117. If a man be in debt and sell his wife, son or daughter, or bind them over to service, for three years they shall work in the house of their purchaser or master; in the fourth year they shall be given their freedom."

Them's proper traditional family values, when marriages were 'real' and not the diminished pale shadow of their former selves that they now are!

Hammurabi got it right nearly 4,000 years ago and it's been downhill ever since…

Mind you, The Code doesn't proscribe same-sex marriages.

good to see that some in the medical profession are brave enough to tell the truth. Then again true science is ignored when it comes to the dogmas of those wanting their lifestyles validated.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news-old/victorian-psychiatrist-opposes-gay-marriage/story-fn3dxiwe-1226354167424

My father was a Uniting church minister and used to marry heterosexual couples in our church. My mother would do the paperwork and as a young child I knew that one lot of papers went off to the government and the other stayed with the church. In other words, there was civil recognition of the union as well as by the church. If the church has opposition to the word "marriage" as applied to a gay couple union then let it be. The gay couple can just have a civil union with all the rights attached to it (though I am still queasy about adoption).

Given that marriage is a public commitment to each other, I laughed that some gays did not want to have a "Gay Marriage Act" because that would reveal that they were gay. Hello? If you want to marry, let the whole world know for goodness sake.