Yes indeed, it's LEXI's comments that seem to make the most sense to me.

Her remarks apropos permitting a conscience vote in Parliament, are most reasonable I believe. An issue seemingly as controversial as this should be decided by a vote. Allowing politicians to exercise their true beliefs without pressure being applied by their respective leaders.

Personally, I'm of the view that marriage should be between a man and a women, as it's always been. There again, I'm often described as a dinosaur. But I manage to get by. My view though, it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm wrong.

When I first donned 'blue', we often locked up those who engaged in certain homosexual practices, as well as those who were soliciting for these practices.

Then the law changed, homosexual behaviour became legal, provided it was between consenting individuals. Therefore, I don't really understand why it needs to be formerly ratified, by the ritualistic processes of a formal marriage rite.

Providing all the necessary legal measures are observed to ensure that a gay couple may enjoy the same legal remedies, that are ordinarily accorded to married folk - Including where necessary, the lawmakers making adjustments and amendments to some of the more complex legislative protocols that can be found in matters similar to that of succession and family law. I don't quite understand why it's necessary at all, to recognise such a union by some formal ritual ?

Or is it just a case where there're some who wish to be recognised as the third, gender demographic, within mainstream Australia. Will we see in our schools of the future...male, female, and homosexual ?

On the radio recently I heard a gay person describe (modern) homosexuallity as being normal. How so ? I accept, most humans possess the emotional proclivities of committment, love, companionship etc. All quite normal. Beyond that, I'm not so sure ?

If I'm seriously in error, help me out please.

o sung wu, you missed out love and commitment, and to have that legally and publically recognised by same sex couples, contributes to that same sex couple, the foundation for love and happiness for their lives together.

This isn't about Gays seeking equality,as much as its about the Left's attack on what it sees as the institutions of the Right, and particularly an attack on the religious Right. The fact is that only a minority of Gays will even seek to marry and very few have ever considered a formal union necessary in any way...until now. Really, does anyone believe that Gays have always needed their unions somehow legitimised by formal marriage?

Gays want the title of 'marriage' and hence the institution of marriage rather than just the legal privileges and rights which go along with it. This suggests that it is about more than a 'need to be treated equally'.

Thank you so much Dr Lachlan for you inspiring article. There are not many professionals speaking out against same sex marriage because its not trendy or PC.
Your argument that its not about hating the gay people but about the importance of marriage between man and woman is brilliant.
My congratulations to all of those who signed the submission in support of traditional marriage

"By definition 2 men = a motherless family. If two men set out to INTENTIONALLY acquire ... a child; they are absolutely specifically setting out to deny that child their biological mother. This is just a biological fact. 2 men can not produce a child."

Posted by DPE1978, Thursday, 17 May 2012 6:13:11 PM

If a man or 2 men raise a child, for some or all of the childs up-bringing, in a household without the biologicsl mother in the household, that does Not mean they are denying that child their mother!!

* The child and mother may still have regular loving contact,
* The mother may be dead, or unknown or not available to the child for a number of reasons;
etc.

Your black and white proposition of heterosexual parenting or no mother is a black and white fallacy; it is a false dichotomy!!
..........................................................

Dr Jereth Kok MBBS, Thursday, 17 May,2:46pm

Dr Steve Hambleton of the AMA is implying sociological & psychological research is far more important than base assertion and opinion, especially biased opinion.

It is true that "there is no evidence children raised in a homosexual household are worse off" - the so-called research of Robert Lerner and his wife! Althea Nagai, mostly commissioned by the biased Marriage Project, is disputed by many.

It would be more appropriate for you to comment on the articles & conclusions by reputable authorities that I posted above @ 9:14:36am

Thank you Dr Dunjey for your article and standing strong on the issue of same sex marriage.

Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. While it's true that marriage was around before Christianity, God created marriage and when he did so it was between a man and a woman, it's only through the evil schemes of man that same sex marriage has come about.

Every child deserves a mother and a father, we can not allow these basic rights to be overtaken or perverted.

It's time for all Christians to take a stand and defend the sanctity of marriage.