If all family types are equal, doesn't that imply that the combination of both male and female characteristics is irrelevant to the upbringing of children?

And if people want to redefine marriage and the ideal family, is it unreasonable that, out of an abundance of caution, they should first present replicated studies which unequivocally demonstrate that same-sex parenting does not disadvantage children? Shouldn't the onus be on proponents of radical social change to base their proposals on sound science?

The fact that supporters of same-sex marriage have not produced such evidence leaves open the disturbing possibility that, for some so-called 'progressives', the interests of children are secondary.

Bill's article is a positive addition to the debate on 'defining family'. Such an intelligent (and unemotional) approach to this issue is refreshing.

David JS, from your postings you seem to have the impression that what's really at the bottom of this debate, is the AFA versus the gay/lesbian community. Perhaps in your mind it's easier to handle the debate if you see your opposition as coming from one particular corner of the ring.

Well, I'm not in any 'group', and I have never personally met Bill Muehlenberg, but his writing reflects the opinion of the majority of Australians on this issue. The avalanche of response to the Senate inquiry into same-sex marriage proves this unequivocally, as does the re-election of the conservative govt.

Bill M's article studies where human beings have come from, in order to understand where they are now, with a view to passing on to future generations the MOST SUSTAINABLE structure for society. If he were a conservationist with this approach, you would applaud him!

Your suspicions about the AFA's research could perhaps have a degree of 'projection' on your part. Statistics cited by the gay community often seem to be grossly inflated e.g. the inflated statistic that 10% of Australians are homosexual, when in fact it is fewer than 1%. Not to mention the over-inflated estimations of crowd attendance at the annual gay/lesbian mardi gras. It's already been proven that the numbers claimed by your community could not physically fit on the footpaths lining the parade.

What we need in this debate are FACTS. And that's what this article has given us.

Marriage is not an institution that has it's origins in Christianity as 2into1 suggests. As Bill Muehlenberg's cited research clearly shows it pre-dates Christianity. Marriage, that is legal marriage in the modern sense, is by definition an institution legislated at Commonwealth level and not a religious institution. Read the Marriages Act 1961. Without government legislation there is no legal underpinning of marriage - all you would have would be verbal agreements. And same-sex marriage, as I've already said, is a reality in some countries - regardless of ideological opposition of religious fundamentalists.

As for those who wish to continue to refer to being gay as a "lifestyle", well I'm obviously not going to convince you. But it does reflect the ignorance of fundamentalist thinking which is completely at odds with the reality of gay men and lesbians' lived experiences. Interestingly, nobody here has referred to Christianity as a "lifestyle" even though one can change from being a Christian to being Jewish, Atheist or whatever. I'm sure if I did refer to Christianity as a "lifestyle" people would be offended. Well, pity you can't return the favour.

Oh, and here are some facts. Nobody knows how large the gay and lesbian community is. Nobody here including myself is arguing that men and women are the same. And finally, if the gay and lesbian community is only 1% then same-sex marriage wouldn't make a jot of difference to marriage per se.

You can't have it both ways - that is, you can't dismiss the gay and lesbian community as insignificant then turn around and decry the possibility of same-sex marriage as a threat to marriage and families. Either we are significant or not. Make up your mind.

David LS

I do admire your courage under fire. Well Done! But still, to refine my point further, the irony is that in the type of society that you appear to advocate the opinions and views of all would be tolerated and accepted, without the vilification of anyone. But of course this only works when such views do not come into basic conflict - then it becomes an issue of who is powerful enough to enforce their view. So in the end the issue will nearly always be one of power, and the ethic of tolerance and acceptance of all points of view will remain an illusion. Hence the bankruptcy of the postmodern view of truth. And apart from an appeal to a higher authority – which I do not expect all to accept, I’m not sure of a way out of this impasse!

David, I readily admit that the position of power in this debate has been resided with the heterosexual view. Along with this has been vilification and all the associated negative elements for the gay community for which I would humbly apologise for on the part of the heterosexual community.

Herr Muehlenberg disagrees with an awful lot of people about what "the family" means, including the United Nations, the Oxford English Dictionary, the "ruling elites", and "our intelligensia". On the other hand he finds comfort in the views of a very select group of elderly, mostly dead, white male cultural anthropologists from the ivory towers of England and America. Cultural anthropology is not a science Herr Bill, its a collection of observations that can be interpreted any way you like, and those observations are themselves culturally conditioned - you see mostly what you want to see. Look for a patriarchal nuclear family set-up in "primitive" societies and you will likely find it, especially if only men are questioned and women and children are ignored, as they invariably were. We can just imagine the polish-born Malinowski, doctor of physics, landing on the shores of the Trobriand Islands in 1916 and discovering everything we ever wanted or needed to know about human sexual and familial relations. Margaret Mead made the same hilarious mistakes later, and she was also trained by a dead white male cultural anthropologist. Malinowski has been described as "a pretentious Messiah of the credulous", say no more. And who is George Murdock? You might well ask. He was also born in the nineteenth century, and invented the term "nuclear family" in 1949, very appropriate for the ensuing Cold War of the 1950s. His Ethnographic Atlas, which Herr Bill describes as "an exhaustive analysis", was mostly done at his desk, using the field observations of other dead white male cultural anthropologists. Peter Laslett of Cambridge? Well, this dear old Cambridge don was an historian of english and french peasant life in the seventeenth century and his most favourite book of all was called "Patriarchia and Other Political Works". He also wrote a book called Bastardry and its Comparative History" and another called "The World We have Lost", so he must have known heaps about the family, and yes, he's dead too. J D Unwin is a bit hard to find much about, except that he wrote a book called Sex and Culture in 1934, and apparently believed that "all civilisations which have arisen have been monogamous and ruled by men - no exceptions". David Murray is equally obscure but apparently is part of a lobby group in public opposition to free needle exchanges to combat AIDS. Well, we know where they are coming from, don't we? In sum, Bill, with this shabby and tendentious array of so-called authorities on the subject of the family, you have proved precisely nothing. You claim to be a PhD student at one of our own universities (full of ruling elites and the dreaded intelligensia?) and it is my earnest hope that you will remain a student until you understand how to argue the toss properly.

In all fairness in this debate - Grace Pettigrew, with all due respect, I dont think personal attacks on Bill are called for... personally, I've never met Bill face-to-face but lets not let a good debate turn into personal attacks, I think the fact (while you are wanting facts) rather than the claim that he is a PhD student has nothing to do with this debate.

May I also add that in light of the recent bill that was argued in Parliament regarding the legislation of same-sex marriages and the amazing response from the public to keep marriage as between a man and woman, what really are we debating about? The public has spoken. We can bring whatever facts we like to the table but at the end of the day, dinner has already been eaten. It is clear to see by the results of the marriage bill and even looking at the election results, to see what the majority of people are voting for. Call me young and nieve but what is the point in arguing about what the public wants when they have already spoken?