No your position is not logical, you haven't actually said what the difference is. Do you mean Children?
I'm married to a female and have no interest in having children does that make my marriage less the a couple that has children? What about couple's that adopt is that different kind of married to one that has kids naturally? What about IVF? your on a slippery slope here.

Finally the author goes for that "oh its only 3.5% of the population"... so does that mean we can ignore minority issues from now on? What percentage of the population must an issue effect before we believe it's worth looking into?

This is a moderate and sensible discussion, but it does not solve the problem. It seems to say that we ought to have a Marriage Act and a Same-Sex Marriage Act. That is like saying we should have a Carnivores Act and a Vegetarian Carnivores Act or a Funerals Act and a Living Persons Funerals Act. There is nothing to stop two gays living together, declaring their love and commitment, having a ceremony, having a celebration, getting presents from friends, being recognised as a couple and so on. But the union of a man and a woman is a different thing from the union of a man and a man and of a woman and a woman. Why should the language be deprived of a word that means the union of a man and a woman? Why should husband no longer mean a man with a wife? Why should wife no longer mean a woman with a husband? I have never seen an argument presented to justify any of this.

Marriage grew organically. Gays should be able to come up with a word to describe their unions.

Anyone who does turn up to vote in this plebiscite should be ashamed of themselves for participating in this farcical waste of taxpayer funds.

By participating you are implicitly agreeing with the government that it is worth spending 160 million dollars just so same-sex couples can have the possibility of obtaining a certificate that gives them nothing that they cannot already have except a piece of paper. It is one of the most selfish demands ever made by any group in Australian history and the fact that the government has caved into these demands to the extent of allowing a plebiscite is a disgraceful indictment on our politicians.

There are groups in society with very real needs and genuine demands on the public purse that have far better arguments for money to be spent on them than same-sex couples. Each couple that applies to be married will also be guilty of participating in this wilful waste and should look on their marriage certificate as a sign of their disregard for their fellow taxpayers.

Same-sex couples are not to be disdained because of their homosexuality but because of their utter selfishness and their contempt for their fellow citizens with needs far more worthy than their own.

Interesting piece. I suppose whatever happens with marriage it needs to be arranged in such a way as to drastically increase the Australian birthrate as there is only 3 people per sq. kilometre at the moment, and lots of older people but hardly any young people.

Of course the relationship is different. Firstly, biologically different. One is heterosexual, the other is homosexual. Heterosexual unions have existed for thousands of years, developed as a way of ensuring a mans children were his own, to provide protection for his children and to have heirs to pass his estate on to.
A homosexual Union is a sterile one. All the IVF in world can't produce a child who is the product of both partners. A third person always has to be involved, and in the creation of this child artificially they are condemning a child to be raised without the love and nurturing of at least one biological parent. The International Bill of Rights of the Child says that all children have the right to know, and be raised by their parents,,where possible.
As for childless heterosexual couples, well they still represent the purpose of marriage. The family!

" the question will possibly be something like: "Do you agree to the alteration of the definition of 'marriage' in the Marriage Act 1961 to include same-sex unions?"

Yes or no might be too simple for a lawyer, but it is the best way for everyone else. Simple and to the point. You do or you don't. Nothing else is needed.