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

Yes, how DARE they want equal treatment! But you forgot one: 'too uppity'.

But the test of the sincerity that 'Doctors the Family' is simply rising to the defence of marriage that you say is being attacked is negated by the fact that you are doing no such thing.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: the right for "men and women of full age… to marry and to found a family"" – no change proposed.

Happy yet?

"But we should not tamper with the ideal…" No one is tampering with your ideal – please carry on as before.

Happy yet?

But if you were genuine you would be agitating – and would have been agitating and so lobbying for a long while now – to rescind any and all statutes that permitted heterosexuals to have and raise children other than in their biological mother and father's single home.

That sound of crickets chirping is how much noise Doctors for the Family have made in caring about 'rights of the children' given the existing situation of families and marriages and child raising… You know, the ones that don't actually involve same-sex marriages.

Please demonstrate your genuine concerns by dealing with the current realities.

"…just because it sometimes falls down." Sometimes! Getting on for a majority of cases, depending on how you measure it, would be more accurate.

Your disregard and inaction to redress what might be categorised as 'non-ideal heterosexual marriages' speaks volumes.

Nor am I interested in being pursued.

I agree Herbert. However, I do not know of any religious group (or politician) that would support ending government regulation of marriage.

In my opinion this would solve many problems, as churches would be able to marry any people the deem "worthy" and the government could not prevent them from discriminating.

However this also means that the churches could not prevent any other group (church or other) choosing to marry people based on different values. This is the reason religious groups want government regulation of marriage - to enforce their policies of discrimination on groups within society that do not share their values.

Dear Dr Lachlan Dunjey,

I read your article with interest and I am sorry
that you have had abuse hurled at you and your
colleagues. That seems to be part and parcel of the
society in which we currently live where - reasoned discussion
degenerates into hurling abuse and screaming matches
about issues that people feel passionate about.
Instead of arguing the pros and cons - even politicians
seem to prefer slanging matches. A pity - because
nothing constructive gets achieved.

Of course we should respect opposing points of view.
A healthy society is not one in which we all agree.

Perhaps this particular issue - of same-sex marriage
could best be resolved by allowing a "conscience vote"
in Parliament by our elected representatives.
That would be a fair way to go in a secular
society such as ours and seeing as the majority of Australians
do support same-sex marriage. Possibly decades from now -
we shall all wonder what all this fuss was all about.
As they say - the only constant in life is change.
Difficult as it may be for some to accept.

Hi Lexi,

Would you also recommend a 'conscience vote' on whether women should receive equal pay for equal jobs, or whether Aboriginals should be required to sit at the back of the bus? A government that claims to support equal rights for all should have the guts to back it up officially with party and Cabinet policy. And a PM who claims to be an atheist should grow a spine and stand up to the nonsense 'arguments' of the religious right.

Lexi, you say: "seeing as the majority of Australians
do support same-sex marriage."

Let it be put to a referendum then. Surely that's the only way to test such spurious, wildly-exaggerated claims.