At present, I'm in the process of writing a book about my family history. A lot of old photographs go back to when one of my grandparents was young, through to their old age, before passing away.

Research and travel will be time consuming, but enable me to come closer to my "home roots" and where I had come from regarding family connections. I've been told some interesting stories and this is a good framework to start writing such a story for myself and others.

But watching the Q&A program last evening, one woman asked a question about same sex couples having children, taking in thoughts to IVF and surrogate mother programs overseas.

A response given, was this already occurs and raising a child is all about 'love'. For myself, 'the rights of the child' is also important.

A future generation of people, may be brought up in a nice 'loving' environment, but with no connection to their family heritage, love alone may not be enough.

Many people adopted from overseas, are now, looking excessively for their biological mothers, parents and families and I feel many couples in the western world show little respect in that context.

But how is this related to the 'Yes' vs 'No' debate?

Whether or not children live with both their parents has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not their parents have a piece of paper with a government stamp that claims that they are "married".

IVF was never intended to legalise gay marriage: but this is how it's being used.

Yeah, what Yuyutsu said. Gay couples are already having children. Same-sex marriage isn't going to change that. Marriage equality would at least help the children of these families to feel less stigmatised and promote stability within their families, so the 'Won't somebody please think of the children!' argument used in opposition to same-sex marriage doesn't work.

perverting the marriage act will just encourage more into the homosexual lifestyle as has the putrifying of kids minds through garbage like 'safe' schools. More kids will suffer and suicide rates will continue to rise with this regression to sodom and gomorrah. As usual the complete dysfunction the regressives create will then be blamed by the ' hatred' of those who warned against the consequences.

Dear Runner,

The "Marriage Act" is already so perverse that it can hardly be further perverted.

Since marriage is declared in heaven, how possibly can secular human clerks decree whether a couple is married or not?

I will vote 'No' because I hope that by rejecting the proposed change, pressure will rise to repeal the Marriage Act altogether.