I argue that you are in fact anti-marriage. As you are denying the right of a group of people to share this institution. People who wish to marry someone are in fact supporting this institution not destroying it. Can you answer the following questions?

1. If you are defending marriage because "children have the right to be raised by their biological parents" do you support legislation preventing divorce?

2. If you "uphold marriage as the foundation of society, the right to procreate and have children" then do you support legislation preventing procreation within unmarried relationships?

3. If you are in fact concerned about the health of Australians, then wouldn't supporting life-long monogamous relationships have a positive effect regarding the spread of sexual transmitted diseases, not to mention creating a more stable environment for the upbringing of children.

4. Can you cite evidence that children are disadvantaged in stable monogamous homosexual relationships compared to stable monogamous heterosexual relationships?

P.S. Not only gay activists have called on Professor Kuruvilla George to resigned from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and attacks regarding your motives have not only come from the gay community. I am heterosexual and also a doctor. I disagree with you on both the moral and scientific aspects of your argument.

Perhaps you could give a better answer than Joe Hockey to this personal question asked on QandA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuIbEJz23uY

I support the author of this article and his objectives.

The gay movement has become too extreme, too demanding, too intolerant.

Sociologically, marriage must continue as a union between a man and a woman, one that nurtures the children of that union.

Variations of this may be tolerated but should not be approved of because, to do so, clearly threatens the fabric and cohesion of society!

The reality Doctor is that the hmosexual lobby is Christophic. They detest not being able to create nature themselves. Whenever confronted with the fact that Christ did not design man to have sex with man or woman woman all reason flees and their hate is expressed. Your group expresses what most doctors I know also testify to. You must also remember that our National Broadcasters and other media outlets are far overrepresented with homosexuals than in other professions. Your group is 100% right that fatherhood and motherhood are both extremely important. To deny a child either of these things is to deny their human rights. The homosexual lobby want to continue to bring confusion to young ones growing up getting confused over mixed messages they receive. I suspect want kids to experiment with there lifestyle.

Dr Dunjey,
You have an obligation to rationally review all information about a subject - especially objective information - and discuss the pros and cons of all that information. You have failed to do so.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was produced in 1948, long before homosexuality was considered to be the inherent, innate characteristic it is - God-given, if you like.

Moreover, the UDHRs stipulation for the right for "men and women of full age… to marry and to found a family" does not stipulate for solely heterosexual marriage nor does it counter same-sex marriage.

Your article includes a number of misrepresentations and red-herrings. The few same-sex marriages that are likely to occur if same-sex marriage becomes legal are unlikely to affect heterosexual families other than through perception they might.

You are simply special pleading.

kids with same-sex parents are well adjusted ...
http://theconversation.edu.au/dont-believe-the-hype-kids-with-same-sex-parents-are-well-adjusted-6998?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweetbutton&utm_campaign=article-top

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families:
A Literature Review prepared for the Australian Psychological Society
http://www.psychology.org.au/assets/files/lgbt-families-lit-review.pdf

Conclusions
" ... the literature discussed here indicates that the family factors that are important for children’s outcomes and well-being are family processes and the quality of interactions and relationships. The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families." [cont'd]

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/339.full

"Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized. This applies to all children, whether their parents are of the same or opposite sex. The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the same expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual.1–9 When 2 adults participate in parenting a child, they and the child deserve the serenity that comes with legal recognition."

Doctors for the Family, and a similarly-small break-away US religiously-based dissident doctor group, the American College of Pediatricians, dishonestly cite limited or false information!!

Penny Wong made a good point the other night on Q&A that the reality is that many children are born out of wedlock, but still can be raised by loving parents.

The problem here (seems to me) is that we need to separate the traditional/social/cultural aspects of marriage from the legal/contractual.

A conventional marriage involves a ceremony in front of friends, family, and a celebrant (either religious or civil). It also involves entering into a legally binding contract. De facto relationships are considered to become subject to the same legally binding contractual terms after certain terms are fulfilled.

I'm not sure about this, but if gay couples can enter into the same legally binding contractual arrangements that conventionally married and de facto couples do, then that surely delivers equality.

The problem is that the term "marriage" is loaded with a couple of thousand years of tradition and cultural meaning. Changing legislation will make no difference to that. In time, perhaps, the broad community may accept that term being applied to unions between gay couples.

However, in the interim, isn't the smart move to change the Marriage Act to a) ensure that the contractual provisions apply equally to conventionally married couples, de facto couples, and gay couples, and b) to remove the word "marriage" from the Act.

Separate the legal from the cultural.