"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.

Runner I think you will find that those docters, are happy clappers like yourself.

This is not about Gay couples wanting to be married as most won't get married even if the law was changed. Its about those who see themselves as the progressive Left attempting to hurt the Conservative/Religious Right by tearing down old institutions and disguising it as social progress. Obama was against Gay marriage only last year, so his sudden conversion is simply an attempt to create an illusion that he is adjusting to changes in society while his announcement bears all the hallmarks of a political move of the Left.

The author sees no reason to change a long standing established institution which has been tested over many years and correctly concludes that all the rights of Marriage can be provided for Gay couples without the name. Yet the Gay lobby wants the name as well, suggesting its not just about rights or privileges for themselves its about taking away from others as well.

Should a Gay rights law be passed this will allow an attempt to split the Churches on the issue thus diminishing their power.

Kipp

'Runner I think you will find that those docters, are happy clappers like yourself.'

That may or may not be but at least they are honest in there conclusions unlike the homosexual lobby.

So if an old man kidnaps a young girl and forces her into marriage that is sacrosanct?

When polygamous societys' claim marriage between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman that is OK?

Marriage was an invention of men to steal the estates and wealth of their rich brides and to incorporate land holdings.

Atman says "Split the churches on this issue diminishing their power"
Atman what does that mean, that the church extends the fear it puts upon its "followers" to the general populace of Australia.
Australian citizens died fighting against facism and dictators, and it would seem you are unware of that sacrifice, as we live in a democracy not a theocracy.
The churches are a business with all its wealth and and financial income, yet contributes nil to Australia other than make claims for funding from Australian taxpayers, who are also homosexual, which makes the church hypocritical and a bludger on Australian society.

The disturbing issue as regards these docters, is that they are high Roman Catholic church and religous fundamentalists.
Which puts into question their "professional" capacity as regards in addressing sincerely the medical needs of a homosexual patient.
So are they honest in their professional status, to state publically within their community that they are antigay.
Money is money, even homosexuals are money, and for that moment they'll forget about the "Temple".
Over to you Runner mate!!

no Kipp

'The disturbing issue as regards these docters, is that they are high Roman Catholic church and religous fundamentalists.'

The disturbing thing is that the homosexual lobby and its supporters deny all the evidence as to what is good for kids, what is healthy behaviour and do no more than label anyone homophobic who opposes their warped views. That is disturbing!

btw Your disgusting slur on the many compassionate Christian doctors is typical of the Chritophobic bile that we are getting use to. Is Q & A stacked with your relatives by any chance?

Could the 'Gay rights" advocates posting here please enlighten the rest of us on the future of their movement after the resolution of the marriage debate?
"Gay Rights" is a political program originating from the strategic changes to the hard left platform in the washup of the failed '68 risings.
So what's going to happen if you A: Win or B: Lose?
Could you see a sort of fifth international or another major strategic rethink of Socialism in the event of widespread defeat of the proposal or repeal of such laws that do exist?
On the other hand if the vote is passed in the affirmative then what's the next step toward complete equality for homosexuals?
Furthermore what changes to the law will you be promoting in order to enforce community acceptance of married homosexual couples?
See formalising equality is one thing, substantiating it is quite another.

Hey here's an idea. Let's have a special kind of marriage-like relationship, under different legislation to the marriage act, for the minority. No, I don't mean gay people. I mean that minority of people who are welded on to the idea that marriage is this one thing that existed from about 1960 to about 1980, no earlier, no later, and must never change from that - notwithstanding the considerable evolution in the concept of marriage before that period. Well, maybe 1930 to 1970 for some religious people.

I had been inclined to call these relationships, say, "religious unions"- to reflect the demands of that minority of religious bigots that insist that they own marriage. If they want to insist on relationships that are out of step with community norms, then perhaps they should have their own special kind of relationship, just don't call it marriage.

That, though, would be entirely unfair to the many people of faith who get that they ought not ram their views down the throats of society, or even support and welcome same-sex relationships. And, of course, as this article shows, there are a few non-religious becardiganed old buffers who think that "I just think so" can stand in for rational argument. A good object lesson for those who assume that not being religious automatically provides intellectual superiority.

@ Runner: have you read the letter from the doctors, and the references they rely on for support?

The USyd 'report', even though it was (I understand) funded by the ACL, doesn't even support the position claimed of it. The relevant section (about p48ff if I recall correctly) is about the effects on children of marriage breakup. It is not about heterosexual vs non-heterosexual couples. Bottom line: there is no good evidence that non-heterosexual relationships are bad for kids. If you think differently, feel free to provide citations of evidence for our delectation. A quote from George Pell or similar is not evidence, by the way.

On which point, some of the references to the letter are not evidence but just opinions! Ref 6 complains that if gay marriage is allowed, then people won't be able to criticise it as much! And ref 7 talks about the terrible things that happened in Massachusetts when gay marriage became legal. What were these terrible things? Well, gay people started to get married! And people started talking about the issue, and even in schools it began to be recognised that gay people exist and are not evil( shock! Horror!) This just underscores the irrational and biased position taken by the authors of the letter.

Some background on the doctors:

http://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/doctors-for-the-familys-hidden-religious-agenda/

wearestardust

I think you need to reread the letter and notes. Among them

'
The rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men was 44 times that of other men and 40 times that of women,and primary and secondary syphilis rates were 46 times that of other men and 71 times that of women, according to data presented atthe 2010 National STD Prevention Conference in Atlanta.http://www.infectiousdiseasenews.com/view.aspx?rid=61780 CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Menhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrelease.html see alsohttp://www.drugs.com/news/number-partners-doesn-t-explain-gay-hiv-rate-9307.html

The evidence is clear that homosexuality is not normal and definetly not healthy. Given that under 8 % yes 8% of homosexual relationships last less than 4 years one wonders who is driving this nonsense.

From my reading of the "evidence" cited by these doctors, it seems that the data supports stable two person relationships for the well-being of children. As none of the studies specifically compared stable hetero vs stable homo relationships, then the conclusion is that allowing homosexuals to marry would actually benefit children.

Btw, what type of sex do you have runner? Have you checked that it is approved by the majority of society?

runner

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, of which your advocate, Dr Kuruvilla George, is a member, often cite a similarly-small break-away religiously-based dissident doctor group, the American College of Pediatricians, who also dishonestly cite false or limited information!!

McReal

No amount of evidence will convince those blinded by their ideology. You would think disease statistics alone would speak for how unhealthy anal sex is. All those who think will be bludegeoned out of the debate and jobs just like the warmist tried to do with thinking scientist. As with many you demonise the doctors but are unable to refute their clear evidence and conclusions.

Kipp, falesly claimed "The churches are a business with all its wealth and financial income, yet contributes nil to Australia other than make claims for funding from Australian taxpayers, who are also homosexual, which makes the church hypocritical and a bludger on Australian society."
Obviously he is totally ignorant of how Churches raise money.

wearestardust, The exclusive sexual relationship of marriage between a man and a woman is the order and design of family (procreation) and has been around since the first humans. Again it shows you complete ignorance of biological fact, to imagine it is a 20th century construct.

runner,
anal sex and STDs has nothing to do with parents interactions with kids (well, virtually nothing, other than through deviant adult behaviours).

What is/are "the doctors ... clear evidence and conclusions" that you assert, barely? You have a moral obligation to properly outline them and arguments for them.
.....................................................................

""The exclusive sexual relationship of marriage between a man and a woman is the order and design of family (procreation) and has been around since the first humans....""
Posted by Josephus, Tuesday, 15 May 2012 2:46:06 PM

1. "The exclusive sexual relationship of marriage..." - Hardly.
a. Not all sexual relationships take place within marriage. :/
b. Not all marriages are sexual.
c. Not all marriages are exclusive.

2. Not all sexual relationships are between a man & woman ...

3. None of these really is "the order and design of family"

4. If marriage has been around since the first humans, it is not primarily an institution of the Abrahamic religions, is it??

Obama barracks for same sex marriage

And has just signed his own death warrant. As far as his presidential future goes I mean.

Some opinions are best kept to yourself.

rehctub wrote: "Some opinions are best kept to yourself."

If a politician risks re-election by stating an opinion that may hurt him electorally it looks as though it is more important to him to state that opinion than win the election by keeping quiet.

I see that as evidence of moral courage. Since I am a citizen of the USA living in Australia I can vote in the USA by absentee ballot. I have sent for my absentee ballot so I can vote for his re-election.

McReal, claim that sex is not exclusively between man and a woman is the way family is designed. Would someone tell him the facts of life.