A number of comments seem to think that marriage is a religious or explicitly Christian institution. That is very ignorant.

Marriage is evident in every society from earliest history (with rare aberrations that prove the rule) independent of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Ancient legal codes of Hammurabi in Babylon around 1750 BC, or King Dadusha in the same region a century earlier, elaborate social conditions for valid marriage similar to our own. For example, King Dadusha's specification of the need for a formal contract and public ceremony as well as obtaining consent from the in-laws is much the same as ours. If Dadusha could have attended the royal Wedding he would have understood the Bishop of London’s three-point rationale, dating from 1662, for the institution of marriage:
"First, it was ordained for the increase of mankind... Secondly, it was ordained in order that the natural instincts and affections should be hallowed and directed aright... Thirdly, it was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort that the one ought to have of the other."

Note that the basic rationale is anthropological, offering nothing theological other than the word “hallowed”. And even to the theologically indifferent there is something about marriage that can hallow, or sublimate, our simple mammalian needs into an honourable and ineffable thing. Anthropology and ancient common sense understand that marriage exists to nurture a new generation, to discipline the feral instincts of males to constructive ends, and to be what John Locke called “the First Society”. Throughout history, until about 5 minutes ago in the decadent West, "homosexual marriage" has been an incoherent concept. And it still is.

jason84:

No, not against free speech so much as against the ABC lining up a bunch of "Milk-Sops" for a debate that will concentrate primarily on gay marriage, nicely supported by an audience of homosexuals on a mission, and served-up as open debate; but in reality will be "staged" support, and follow the official views of the ABC as it continually throws its hand in on the side of free-range homosexuality.

@ diver dan

Well if your against Q&A on ABC having a debate on gay marriage then your against free speech pure and simple. Now why don't you have a rant and complain that Fred Nile was on Q&A? Come on...

@ David van Gend

Its Australia 2013, not Babylon 1750 BC.

@ Jason84

Get real. Marriage is not a fad, not something society creates; it is something society recognises in nature and reinforces with all our laws and customs, for the sake of social stability and for the sake of any child that is created. We are as much mammals now as we were in 1750BC; the pair bond of male and female is as much a reality now as it was then, and the human trinity of mother-father-child remains "the natural and fundamental group unit of society" as per the UNDHR as much now as then.

You must be a Green supporter to be so out of touch with nature.

To David van Gend:

How does a same-sex couple go about creating a child?