AMF article in The Australian: Christmas, Nero & Conscientious liberty

DvG image in Aus


The Roman emperor Nero was, until recently, history’s one undisputed example of homosexual "marriage".

In AD64, according to historian Tacitus, “The emperor, in the presence of witnesses, put on the bridal veil. Dowry, marriage bed, wedding torches, all were there. Indeed everything was public which even in a natural union is veiled by night.” He adds, “Disaster followed” — the great fire of Rome. The fire, in turn, led Nero to execute Christians as scapegoats, including Peter, first bishop of Rome.

As Nero’s model of marriage makes its comeback, the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous, is the latest Christian leader to be thrown to the lions.

I have fellow feeling with the archbishop, who is facing the Anti-Discrimination Commission in Tasmania, since I have faced the equivalent inquisition in Queensland, and for the same innocent reason: writing in defence of natural marriage and the child’s right, where possible, to have both a mother and father.

The Catholic bishops in May published a booklet entitled Don’t Mess with Marriage. It argues the traditional case for marriage.

That was unacceptable to Australian Marriage Equality head Rodney Croome, who issued a media release: “I urge everyone who finds (the booklet) offensive and inappropriate, including teachers, parents and students, to complain to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner.”

A transgender Tasmanian Greens candidate rallied to his call, and the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Robin Banks, says the Church has a case to answer.

When I met the archbishop in Hobart I said, “Your Grace, remember that you are not the problem. The existence of laws that suppress free argument on matters of public importance — that is the problem.”

I told Croome on Hobart ABC radio: “You don’t set government lawyers on to people that you disagree with, Rodney. You don’t take the archbishop to the thought police because you don’t like his tone in his book. That is not how men in a free society settle disputes.” But increasingly it is as the homosexual juggernaut crushes foundational liberties of speech and conscience in the name of counterfeit equality.

The week the bishops’ booklet was published, Ireland voted for homosexual marriage while promising to protect religious freedom. That truce lasted six months. Under the Employment Equality Act, a church school can no longer dismiss activists who defy church teaching on marriage, effectively negating the school’s religious character.

As former prime minister John Howard told students at my son’s college in 2011, “Changing the definition of marriage, which has lasted for time immemorial, is not an exercise in human rights and equality; it is an exercise in de-authorising the Judeo-Christian influence in our society, and any who pretend otherwise are deluding themselves.”

Chris Puplick, former president of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board, declared in these pages that the Catholic Church “must stop vilifying opponents”. Among several inflammatory assertions about church teaching, Puplick claims “homosexual people are described as ‘intrinsically disordered’.” That is not so and the booklet does not say that. The official teaching in the Catholic Catechism reads: “Basing itself on sacred scripture … tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.

Only the acts are considered disordered, while homosexual people are “created in the image of God and loved by Him” and “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”.

What is intolerable, I think, to Puplick and Croome is that anyone would dare raise moral concerns. The campaign for homosexual marriage is only a means to the greater end of compelling social acquiescence in homosexual behaviour. This is achieved by silencing dissenters. Only when homosexual marriage is law will the power to intimidate objectors and indoctrinate schoolchildren be complete.

At that point, Nero wins. The moral truth of marriage and family will be banished to the catacombs. The innocence of Christmas, this celebration of the sacred love between mother and baby and devoted dad, will be buried with it. Do we care?

“The darkness falls again,” Yeats said in his poem, Second Coming, “And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”

David van Gend is a GP and president of the Australian Marriage Forum.

December 26th 2015

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

28 Responses

  1. The complaint is absurd, but so is comparing what’s happening in Tasmania to what happened in the Roman Empire, as is linking gay marriage to what happened in the Roman Empire.

    • The fact checkers were refuting Abbott’s point that marriage has always been between a man and a woman by pointing to an example in which it was not. That’s not saying that we should follow Nero’s example. It’s just saying that the example does exist, which the “it’s always been a man and a woman” argument denies, making it factually incorrect.

  2. To say there is no link to Homosexual/Lesbian Marriage to what happened in Roman is missing the point ,it is
    in both situation getting a smiler result .In Sodom and Gomorrah the homosexuality and perversion was so
    great they took control of the town raping men and so today the word Sodom is still in use for the term being
    a Sodomite having anal sex which is total wrong and unnatural ,it happened a long time ago but still linked
    to a event that happened thousands of years ago history repeating it’s self.There is nothing new under the
    sun.The question is will we allow it or stop history repeating it’s self.Yes Jesus died and rose from the dead for
    all man kind and Christians are instructed to Love their neighbour not to get into wrong mind sets or behaviours
    with the neighbour but to help them be free in the Saviour Jesus Christ..

    • admin

      Nick, a tip: insulting people’s intelligence is always more effective if the insult is spelt correctly.

      • Well, John takes seriously a book written 3000 years ago by semi-literate goat herders who believed in deluded fantasies as somehow a good guide for public policy, but please go ahead and tell me about an autocorrect oversight.

  3. admin

    Comment on behalf of SONIA (unable to post directly for technical reasons):

    The Romans persecuted Christians for their beliefs and the very same thing is happening in our society today. Freedoms are being sacrificed on the alter of so called Marriage Equality and Anti-Discrimination law. The health and well being of our society is at stake. If we do not understand the significance of changing the definition of a most basic institution we blindly and perhaps inadvertently embrace the weakening of society. The Roman Empire did indeed fall and the disintegration of social institutions played a large roll in its decline. We must not arrogantly assume that we will not damage society if we change an institution that should never, in my opinion, be changed. Everyone should have the right to voice their opinions in the public square regarding this important issue without being prosecuted for holding various beliefs. Freedom of speech and belief /religion are very precious liberties we enjoy that many in this world do not. I truly hope that Australians will wake up and defend the freedoms that many fought and died for and upon which our democratic society is based.

    • Hey Admin, it’s “altar”, not “alter”.

  4. At the time of this posting, my reply to the Sodom and Gomorrah comment, my comment noting an autocorrect error, Admin’s reply pointing out what they portrayed as a spelling error, and my reply noting the difference between the Sodom and Gomorrah comment and an autocorrect oversight are missing. There are six comments, even though it says there are eight. Something’s up.

    One theory I have is that they wanted to erase any record of spelling errors other than the comment confusing “alter” and “altar” so that my pointing it out seems like it was for no reason, which would make it look silly. It was for a reason because it seemed relevant if we were talking about correct spelling of words. Then again, that’s only a theory.

  5. Framing the battle is “marriage equality” is a fundamentally deceptive – but the mass media is playing along without complaint.

    The real issue is redefining marriage.

    The existing definition has been a standard for ages because it makes good common sense and facilitates a strong society. Changing the definition to include homosexual couples is a pandoras box which will lead to significant disfunction and normalize children being robbed of either a mother or a father.

    I hope Australia wakes up before it is too late

  6. What does emperor Nero in ancient Rome have in common with what’s happening in the western world today with the endless promotion of an unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle which is dressed-up as the solution to “equality” and all the other rhetoric used to shut down those who are not politically correct?
    Quite simply – history is repeating itself again (and again), but those who don’t want to see the similarities and danger signs just keep their heads buried in the sand, while shouting “homophobic”, “intolerant” and “bigot” at anyone who does not agree with them.

    • “Homophobic” and “bigot” can be overused, but someone who wants gay marriage to be illegal is intolerant of it.

  7. Without intolerance standards plummet and anarchy reigns.

    • But you can’t simultaneously have a situation of saying “we should be intolerant” and “stop calling me intolerant”.

  8. Nick I am aware of people’s legitimate concern about the unintelligent ubiquitous misuse of the terms homophobe and bigot. Given that this web site has been established to promote children’s rights and traditional marriage I thought it would go without saying that supporters of these concepts were intolerant of the notion of SSM. I for one have no problem being understood as being intolerant of the concept of SSM coming into law in Australia as I am intolerant of the concept of a doctor being sacked for raising with their hospital Board the health issues the medical staff face that are particular to homosexual lifestyle, men dressed as women accessing female change rooms, kindergarten children being taught about homosexuality as a normative behaviour, fines imposed on individuals who do not address the PC terms being demanded by the LGBT community to appease the sensitivities of their abnormal sexual orientations/behaviours, people being called before a commission for holding traditional views of marriage; (all these and more that are taking place as SSM is used to legally ‘normalise’ LGBT lifestyles.)

  9. You can choose to be intolerant if you want, but don’t be surprised when you get criticized for being intolerant..

    Dr. Paul Church was fired not for what he said about the health risks of some sexual activity, but for saying things like LGBT advocates were promoting “perversion”. His quoting of the Bible makes clear that this was not just about health risks. It’s also a private hospital, so they can do whatever they want. Will you make the same objection to Catholic hospitals that fire gay people? Once again, they can do it, but if you’re going to hold them to the standard you’re holding Beth Israel to, you should object, because both espouse intolerance of difference.

    Transgender women is an issue completely separate to marriage equality.

    Can you please provide evidence for your kindergartener claim?

    I think some things have happened that are violations of free speech, but this is about hate speech laws, a separate issue. They happen for other attributes too (race, religion, etc.) but are curiously only ever invoked to deny gay people equal rights and no one else.

    • Nick, If legal marriage is changed into anal and oral sexual behaviours which all couples can practice, then how is consent going to work for heterosexual couples? If a guy wants anal and oral sex and the girl/woman desires a sexual union which reproduces children (the traditional union between a man and woman), how is consent ever going to work, and should girls/women tolerate this sexual behaviour against their sexual desire? The Labor government hasn’t provided answers to this problem of legal consent, but when they inform me then I will tell you. Governments aren’t changing the definition of same-sex marriage which has never been legal in Australia. Australians can not ignore public health care warnings that Gonorrhoea has become drug-resistant in Northern England. The age reported on 29 December, 2015 that Gonorrhoea may become “untreatable” due to growing antibiotic-resistance. Gonorrhoea is the second most common STD in Australia, with the rate diagnosis rising 67 % between 2008 and 2013. It is most prevalent in the homosexual community in Australia. Nick, you can look up on-line, a gay documented his horrible experience with Gonorrhoea and it took him 4 courses of antibiotics to be free of this STD. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has stated over the past few years that if new drugs aren’t developed then Gonorrhoea would become untreatable. The Brisbane Times reported a Syphilis epidemic in Northern Queensland causing congenital blindness and death. Public health has warned of an AIDs epidemic in the gay asian community, and made a documentary on chem-sex in the gay community in London as a result of 5 gays being diagnosed with HIV per week. It costs US$300 000 for a life-time treatment for HIV per person in the USA. Australians can not afford for more people to practice deviant sexual behaviours (multiple partners, sodomy, prostitution etc) because resources are limited (healthcare workers, drugs and money to pay for these services) if we were to treat all Australians with a STD/HIV/AIDS.

      I wasn’t born with heterosexual attraction, and I learnt about sexual behaviours from books, my family , school and community. However, what messages are being sent to children/teenagers if legal marriage isn’t a sexual union which reproduces children? Is the LGBTIAQ lobby and Labor governments wanting marriage to be a sexual union which doesn’t produce future generations? Every country which has introduce same-sex marriage has introduced normalising anal and oral sexual behaviours to all children/teenagers through new sex education programs. However, if heterosexual don’t practice a sexual union which reproduces biological children then Australian society will cease to exist. Marriage wasn’t made up by men and women whom identified themselves as gay/lesbians. Marriage isn’t a private event because our society has encouraged people to marry an un-related person of the opposite-sex.
      Nick, I believe most Australians would like to be tolerant of other peoples’ behaviours. However, I don’t tolerate my children fighting with each other. I am use to my children demanding that they want my behaviour to change, and they definitely find me intolerant of their naughty behaviour. Australian society doesn’t tolerate murder. So who makes the rules of right and wrong regarding acceptable sexual behaviours in a secular society? You may believe I should tolerate Australians practicing any sexual behaviour they like and desire. However, when does a private sexual behaviour become a public concern. Family violence has provided evidence that a private relationship becomes a public concern when abuse occurs and the tax-payer has to provide these people with the resources (legal, housing, education, health and welfare agencies), and this is costing Australians billions of dollars. I am told by government agencies that should stand-up and defend a woman being attacked by a guy. So these same government agencies want me as a healthcare worker to protect innocent children/teenagers from experiencing illnesses and diseases including STDs/AIDs/HIV etc. In order for this to happen I need to speak the truth. Can Australians trust our governments to make legal marriage right? The Guardian reported 30 December 2015, Margret Thatcher attempted to block explicit, public health warnings about AIDs because she feared the proposed description of “risky sex” would do immense harm to young teenagers. She opposed references to anal intercourse in public health material… Children/teenagers will want to know the truth about sex and relationships at an appropriate time, In order for them to make an informed decision they will need to understand the harm and risks associated with sexual practices which will offend the practice of homosexuality. When is the right age to learn about these sexual practices and who decides when it is legal to practice this sexual behaviour? There are gays and lesbians whom are honest to admit same-sex marriage will and has changed marriage for all men and women as it becomes a genderless, meaningless marriage. The change to divorce laws made commitment for life “meaningless.” Same-sex marriage will make the sexual union between man and woman which reproduces biological children “meaningless.” Feminism gave all Australians the Hook-Up-Cultures “friends with benefits” known as the “meaningless sex.” The LGBTIAQ lobby group want to given all Australians a “meaningless marital relationship” which is the equivalent to the “meaningless sex.” I don’t blame gays and lesbians for the deterioration of marriages in Australia, but they don’t have the solution to the sexual relationship problem. The Australian tax-payer has spent
      $4 000 000 changing 85 laws in Australia 2007 so same-sex couples aren’t discriminated against in any civil matter. Same-sex couples can call their relationship a civil union but they can’t call their sexual relationship a marriage. I only have a church marriage certificate and this hasn’t stopped me changing my name and been known publicly as married. Therefore, marriage will only ever be recognised as a sexual union between a man and woman whether this is legal or non-legal (church certificate). Same-sex marriage will only ever be known as same-sex marriage because it isn’t marriage.

      All governments would have to become totalitarian in order to force homosexuality upon every boy/man and girl/woman in Australia. The intolerant thought police will discriminate against any girl/woman and boy/man whom doesn’t agree with the new sexual union in legal marriage. All Australian will have their right to practice freedom of religion and free speech taken away from them. Overseas experiences have provided evidence of religious people have been accused of having a mental health issue because they don’t believe in the practice of homosexuality. Their religious beliefs in the Bible etc are accused of being “hate speech” because it words are against the practice of homosexuality. It is impossible for any person or church to state publicly that marriage is a sexual union between a man and woman which can reproduce biological children. All children have their right to their biological mother and father taken away from them because the government becomes the legal parent in deciding whom children have a right to live with. Should I tolerate the government having greater control over my life and my family? The weakness of government and government agencies are they require people to follow laws, regulations and rules. If Australians don’t identify same-sex marriage as marriage, then it doesn’t matter how much force, incentives and pressure governments and government agencies use it will never work. There is not one country which has introduced same-sex marriage where all people have accepted this to be marriage. In many western countries including Paris, Canada and America there are many groups of people whom are actively trying to reverse same-sex marriage laws. There are many Eastern Europe, Asian and African countries have introduced laws to prevent LGBTIAQ lobby groups from demanding same-sex marriage. The Real Women of Canada group aren’t tolerating the feminist groups which have been promoting same-sex marriage.

      There is an article in the Guardian today about a lesbian couple having to give back a child to the biological parents. The evidence provided to the courts showed love isn’t enough when compared to the biological relationship of a child-mother-father. It will be interesting in the future the amount of legal cases tax payers will have to fund when adopted children seek compensation for being separated from a mother or father. History is repeating itself with another “stolen generation” and society losing its sexual morals.

      • You’re insane. But anyway:

        1. Marriage equality reduces STI prevalence. I’ve already shown you studies for that.

        2. People won’t stop having children because gay people can get married.

        3. Gay people can have children.

        4. Hate speech laws are a separate issue.

        5. Are you saying that unless every single person in a country supports marriage equality, it shouldn’t be enacted?

        • Nick,
          You’re not a doctor so you can’t diagnose me with insanity. I have spent a life-time caring for people’s health so I am not going to stop caring because you don’t see the negative impact of legal marriage becoming “a meaningless marital status” or “marriage for benefits” club for all men and women. I don’t want to tolerate our government having a greater control in my life and my family. Marriage Equality hasn’t reduced STDs in Western countries, public health authorities around the world are concerned about the increase of STDs/AIDS/HIV for all people including men and women whom identify themselves as gay and lesbian. Every western country is having a problem with a negative birth rate which countries like France is trying to provide incentives for women to have children. Western Europe are concerned that their culture has changed because of low fertility and high immigration. All fertile boys/men and girls/women can have children, therefore men and women whom identify as gay, lesbian, adulterous, prostitute, “friends with benefits,” murderer, drunkard, drug user etc can all have children. When does a private sexual relationship become a public concern? Marriage is a public matter because our society encourages people to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex. Australian society will find it harder to encourage and promote this sexual behaviour because it offends homosexuality. Men and women whom identify themselves as gay and lesbian have “marriage equality” as there isn’t a law which discriminates them from marry a person of the opposite-sex. However, no man or woman in Australia has been allowed to marry their girlfriend or boyfriend of the same-sex. There are millions of Australians against changing legal marriage because it will decrease the protection of friendships and sexual relationship for all Australians. There are many groups of people in Australia whom are actively against same-sex marriage for all men and woman including those whom identify themselves as gay and lesbian. When there are large groups of people whom are against same-sex marriage then it will never be accepted by society. Same-sex marriage will always be same-sex marriage but never marriage. Our government has introduced laws against murder, drugs etc but this has never stopped these behaviours from happening in Australia. Does our government/society want all Australians marrying their same-sex friend? The only relationship which reproduces children is a man-woman sexual union. If this sexual union isn’t encouraged and promoted by our society then it ceases to exist. The public has no interest in any relationships which doesn’t reproduce children unless abuse is occurring in them. Therefore, men and women whom identify themselves as gays and lesbians are free to develop the relationships they want unless they identify them as abusive. However, the public has no interest in them because these naturally don’t reproduce biological children. Therefore, there is no joining/marrying between same-sex couples. People can pretend that there isn’t anything different between same-sex and heterosexual couples. However, the lie has been exposed with “friends with benefits” aren’t the same as sexual relationships with intimacy. If men and women have children in same-sex relationships they are protected in other laws – divorce, defacto, adoption, surrogacy, IVF etc.

          • Marriage equality has reduced STIs. I’ve already shown you that, so I won’t again. Ignoring the studies so you can make the same point is insane, but anyway.

            France has marriage equality and the highest fertility rate in Western Europe.

            You mentioned the increase in STIs in Asia. Not a single country in Asia has marriage equality.

            Millions of Australians might oppose marriage equality, but even more millions support it. In a democracy, they get their way.

  10. Nick,
    The LGBTIAQ lobby demand is changing legal marriage for every man and woman not just for those whom identify as gays and lesbians. It is because of Australia’s democracy that same-sex marriage has been rejected for the past 30 years. Legal marriage will only change in Australia when the majority of Australians view marriage to mean a genderless “meaningless marital status” or a “marriage for benefits” club. Gays and Lesbians already have “marriage equality” in Australia as they are not discriminated against marrying a consenting, unrelated person of the opposite sex. Public health authorities are stating across the world that STDs are increasing and these will become untreatable if new drugs aren’t developed. You keep referring to studies that believe same-sex marriage may decrease STDs/HIV/AIDS in the gay community. However, less than 10% of same-sex couples have married in countries which have allowed them to marry. The statistics of these married same-sex couples have shown the majority have had other unprotected sexual relationships including with the opposite-sex in order to have children which increase the risk of STDs. The “risky sexual behaviours” expose both partners to STDs, diseases and a shorten life-span even in monogamous relationships. There are reports that same-sex marriage has encouraged more boys/men and girls/women to identify with a gay/lesbian lifestyle which has actually increased STDs/HIV/AIDS because they want multiple partners, and most never want to live in a committed relationship to one person. If the change to marriage makes all boys/men and girls/women to have “risky sexual behaviours” then governments won’t have the resources (health care workers, drugs and money to pay for these services) to treat STDs/AIDS/HIV, diseases, self-harm, infertility etc.

    I am ignoring your reference to “insane” because I am the healthcare professional, and you have no professional degree in health. If you’re a wise man hopefully you might think about the public health warnings – Gonorrhoea, and one day you might be thankful that your life was spared by not suffering the pain and embarrassment of this STD by changing your sexual practices. The LGBTIAQ lobby group do not represent the majority of men and women whom identify as gay/lesbian or children of gay/lesbian whom don’t believe in same-sex marriage for themselves or parents. These people are demonised by the LGBTIAQ lobby group and have even experienced threats made against them in losing their employment/business etc. Some LGBTIAQ people are extremely concerned that same-sex marriage has been focusing on the conservative/religious part to marriage, and they feel a failure because they could never achieve a committed, monogamous relationship. The Age reported yesterday of long-term defacto couples were now defending their lifestyle because they didn’t believe they needed to get married, even when they had children. Same-sex couples look down on defacto relationships as not equivalent to marriage is insulting to defacto couples. You mentioned that no Asian country has “marriage equality,” but every consenting man and woman can marry a person of the opposite-sex. However, men and women have never been allowed to marry their friend of the same-sex until 15yrs ago, however this is still called same-sex marriage and not marriage. The public isn’t interested in friendship relationships which can’t reproduce biological children. Public Health isn’t encouraging or promoting same-sex marriage as the solution to the AIDS epidemic in the gay asian community. Same-sex marriage in France wasn’t accepted by the majority of the people, it was the government whom changed laws to allow this practice. There continues to be a huge resistance against same-sex marriage in France, and now they are experiencing a new culture of terrorist attacks. The reports in the Guardian believe that western Europe is now going to have to deal with terrorists for many years. The French government had to provide incentives for women to have more children because of a low birthrate and this has improved the birthrate. You tried to correlate Marriage Equality in France with the highest fertility in Western Europe but you have failed to mention the cost to the society.

    Millions of Australians actively oppose same-sex marriage, but aren’t against gays/lesbians having “marriage equality” by marrying a consenting person of the opposite-sex. They don’t discriminate against gays/lesbians having biological children to a partners of the opposite-sex. They wouldn’t support parents using IVF technology or abortion in the future to screen and abort embryos/neonates if they could be identified as gay/lesbian. Many Australians whom support same-sex marriage don’t understand that marriage will change for all men and women, and that it causes inequalities for the rights of children. The majority of Australians are like the Irish that didn’t vote on the same-sex marriage issue because marriage doesn’t mean anything to them. World-wide there are more people whom oppose same-sex marriage than are for it. The highest European court ruled same-sex marriage isn’t a human right and decreases the rights of a child. There are Eastern and Western European countries like Russia, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Austria, etc whom have rejected same-sex marriage. Even the Germans have rejected same-sex civil unions been called marriages. A democracy only works when people vote, and the problem in Australia is that fewer younger people are putting their names on the electoral role. The younger generation in Australia may say they support same-sex marriage because they don’t understand how legal marriage is going to change and the negative impact on children. However, they’re less likely to vote because they can’t be bothered to put their name on the electoral role for this issue, especially as more view themselves as not wanting to be married in the future. The majority of voters in Australia are older and have traditionally held conservative views, especially regarding marriage. This is the reason the LGBTIAQ lobby group are extremely worried that same-sex marriage won’t ever be accepted in Australia, and there is no legal discrimination in Australia, however same-sex couples can’t call their civil partnership a marriage.

    Unless conservative christian voters decide to believe that their legal marriage should change to be recognised as an anal and oral sexual union which doesn’t reproduce children and whom all couples can practice, then same-sex marriage won’t be accepted here in Australia. According to 2011 census 61.1% identified themselves as christian, and 94% of christians married someone of the same faith. 0.7% of couples identified as same-sex, and 0.01% of children live in a same-sex family with more than 50% being an only child. Marriage has been decreasing in Australia, and it is believed that only religious people will get married in the future because it has become more accepted to live in a defacto relationship. Democracy may continue to reject same-sex marriage forever in Australia, as Australians hate corruption and deception more than any western country in the world. We punish governments and politicians whom act deceitfully and cause harm to people. If there is an epidemic in STDs like AIDS in Australia 1984 then Public Health will be forced to encourage and promote health for the majority of Australians which will mean same-sex marriage won’t be mentioned for years because of the “risky sex.” With a very low percentage of men and women in same-sex relationships and the majority of these relationships are childless, our government is extremely reluctant to change legal marriage to no longer mean a sexual union between a man and woman. This is the only sexual union which reproduces biological children (next generation), and if this sexual behaviour doesn’t continue then our society will cease to exist.

    Governments are extremely concern about changing legal marriage because of its long history with religion and this will affect people’s morality. If our government no longer believes in the truth of marriage in the Bible then this becomes meaningless to swear on in court when telling the truth, no point opening parliament in prayer or telling countries our prayers are with them in times of terrorist attacks. If people become confused about the truth then they can’t serve as a witness, jury duty, healthcare worker, teacher, law enforcement work etc. The Australian census will mean nothing if people don’t tell the truth, and democracy will cease if people no longer vote because they don’t believe this society is real anymore. The fantasy world some people are trying to create is one where we can get to live the life we desire without any consequences. Same-sex marriage is a part of this fantasy, but this relationship is a lie because it doesn’t reproduce new-life, but causes illnesses, disease and death. Democracy won’t change legal marriage it will be the government and legal system whom will force homosexuality upon everyone in society just like USA, Canada, France etc. The Roman Emperor Nero created a fantasy in same-sex marriage, but the people understood the lie and never encouraged their children to practice this sexual behaviour. Roman society doesn’t exist today so let this be a lesson to Australians because history is repeating itself.

    • No, you are insane. So now gay marriage is to blame for the massacre of 130 people by Islamic State in Paris? That’s insane. Blame the Religion of Peace and the people who did it and planned and organized it, and nothing else.

      I’m not saying that marriage equality has caused France’s high fertility rate. I’m saying that given their high fertility rate, it obviously hasn’t reduced it either.

      Can you please provide me with these “reports” that it has increased STIs? Because if I remember correctly, it was at its worst in the ’80s, when gay people did not have equal rights.

      If STIs are increasing in Asia, and Asia has no marriage equality, then obviously marriage equality can’t be causing it.

      • Nick,
        When I made the comment the Guardian reported Europe is having problems dealing with terrorist attacks and this is likely to continue into the future. You jump to the conclusion that same-sex marriage caused 130 people to die in Paris, as I explained the terrorist attacks as cultural change right across Europe. These aren’t the same thing, like anal and oral sex isn’t the same as a sexual union which reproduces a biological child. Pretending these sexual behaviours are identical and should both be called marriage is a lie and makes people foolish. I will continue to ignore your accusation that I am insane as your attacking me as a person rather than dealing with the issue of same-sex marriage. Also, attacking a person automatically means you have lost this debate. I respect you as a person, and don’t ever want to label you with any negative words. However, same-sex marriage is a lie because a minority of LGBTIAQ people pretend it can exist and will attack anyone that doesn’t agree with them including those people whom identify as gays/lesbians/children of same-sex relationships. The majority of LGBTIAQ people aren’t interested in marriage for themselves. So the LGBTIAQ lobby group are pretending to represent a majority of LGBTIAQ people whom hate the institute of marriage, would prefer marriage never existed, and are against the conservative/religious marriage as they never want a committed, monogamous relationship. The label of “bigots, homophobic, insane etc,” doesn’t support a case for same-sex marriage, and the courts will find it impossible to charge an offence of “hate speech” (discrimination) against a person whom identifies as LGBTIAQ , but disagrees with same-sex marriage. LGBTIAQ people and their children whom are against same-sex marriage are exposing the lies about same-sex marriage, and I am agreeing with them.

        The conservative, educated people have become more active against same-sex marriage because they understand the reasons it doesn’t work for a healthy society. The World Congress of families are against same-sex marriage, and there are hundreds of groups around the world whom are actively against it. If you want to ignore all the public health warnings which have recently been published in the Age and Guardian on STDs and AIDS then this is your choice. Public health has warned of an epidemic of AIDS in the Asian gay community, I never mentioned the heterosexual Asian community, and Public health hasn’t suggested same-sex marriage would solve this problem for the gay Asian community. Same-sex marriage doesn’t exist in Asia so no one is blaming it for the increase STDs rate in Asia. However, if the legal marriage changed, and as a result 99% heterosexual Asian community are encouraged and promoted to choose “risky sex,” the rate of STD/HIV/AIDS, diseases, cancers, infertility, death would increase. This becomes a problem for all societies as they have limited resources available to treat health and relationship problems. When there are less financially stable families with children the government collects less taxes or they have to introduce new taxes to pay for single-parents which don’t make enough to support their families or broken-families which don’t have enough money to operate 2 separate dwellings. Therefore, governments don’t want to change legal marriage so couples no longer get married. Men and women whom identify themselves as gay or lesbian already have “marriage equality” as they aren’t discriminated from marrying a consenting person of the opposite-sex. However, you suggest marriage equality is only for same-sex couples which is another lie because all Australians will for the first time get a legal right to marry a friend of the same-sex. Does our government want to encourage and promoted all Australians live a life-time commitment in a marriage relationship which can never reproduce biological children? The obvious answer to this is “NO.” The reason I am discussing STDs/AIDS/HIV is because same-sex marriage changes marriage for everyone, which means 99% of heterosexuals may expose themselves to more “risky sex,” which causes significant, harmful health and relationship problems. I mentioned a decreased fertility because this can lead to cultural change and governments are required to spend large amounts of money to correct the negative changes because a smaller young population is unable to support an older generation with welfare benefits. Also, less money to pay for healthcare, education, legal system and government. No research is suggesting same-sex marriage is going to increase fertility rates for a society because the majority of same-sex couples don’t have children (Only 0.01% children are in same-sex relationships in 2011 Australian census). Your trying to argue “same-sex marriage” as if it has its own separate laws in Australia. Same-sex couples have civil partnership/defacto which entitles them to all the legal benefits of marriage in Australia. However, same-sex couples can’t identify their relationship as legal marriage. It will even become worse for same-sex couples self-esteem if it is legal for a person to marry a person of the same-sex and people refuse to recognise it as marriage. This is one of the reasons the government and legal system are extremely concerned not to force homosexuality on Australian society because it will never work. The debates on abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, drugs, gun ownership and same-sex marriage continue to exists despite being legally practiced in some countries. However, these practices will never be accepted by the majority of people around the world because of the significant harm it has within society. President Obama has been unable to decrease massacres while Americans have the right to guns. The Australian government doesn’t want to changed legal marriage into a sexual union which doesn’t reproduce children because “risky sexual behaviour” will increase illnesses, disease, cancers, infertility, STDs/HIV/AIDS and death. If governments are unable to encourage and promote a sexual union which reproduces biological children then our society ceases to exist. When governments can work out the legal consent between a guy whom wants anal and oral sex with a girl/woman that wants a sexual union which can reproduce a biological child, then we’ll have the answer to the same-sex marriage debate. Can society pretend these sexual behaviours are the same so no one gets hurt?

        • I respect you as a person. I don’t think you’re a bad person. But I do think you’re insane. There’s no malice in it, just pity. I feel sorry for you.

          Marriage equality will not make anyone want to have anal sex when they didn’t before.

          If you’re worried about low fertility rates, you should be in favour of gay couples having children.

          I’m not saying the sexual behaviours are identical. I’m just saying it’s no reason to deny equal rights.

          Gay couples will be able to have biological children in a couple of years, thanks to stem cells.

          Encouraging gay people to form straight relationships is morally wrong and practically one of the worst ideas any government could have, short of things like authoritarianism and genocide.

          • Nick,
            I am going to continue to ignore your comment of “insane” (madness, crazy). If the debate about same-sex marriage can make health professionals “insane” then this should cause governments to panic because health professionals care for patients. You shouldn’t pity (feel sorry) for me as I am not suffering by debating same-sex marriage. I don’t agree with your arguments for same-sex marriage because men and women whom identify themselves as gay or lesbians have the same rights to marriage as all men and women which is to marry a consenting person of the opposite sex. The different sexual behaviours between same-sex couples and the sexual union which reproduces a biological child is one of the main reasons I am against changing marriage. These aren’t the same sexual behaviours and have different outcomes. Same-sex couples can only expect anal and oral sex in their relationships. It doesn’t matter if science ends up creating a baby with the genetics of two dads or two mums because it is impossible for this to happen without the huge expense of science. How many discarded embryos and aborted neonates have been used by science for stem cell research? If science offered same-sex couple the ability to experience a sexual union like a man-woman should our government encourage, promote and support this new practice? Would it be acceptable for parents to change the sex of their child if they were developing same-sex attraction?

            The behaviour of humans these days is quite sickening when people will do anything to get rid of an unwanted baby or to have a wanted baby. Yesterday, the Guardian had an article about poor Indian women arguing that surrogacy was important for them only because they needed money for their families. They would never consider been a surrogate for a stranger if they had enough money. I have never read an article about a wealthy woman whom had decided to practice prostitution for pleasure or had an abortion because she had too much money to look after a child. Nick you are so lucky to be born a male because women predominately have been treated as second-class citizens to men. It is not uncommon in social media for women to be attacked personally by men and are called all sorts of negative names including “mad witch.” I am against the lie of same-sex marriage as it creates families without a mother or a father. There is far too much evidence that children love to live with both their biological mother and father, and our governments have no right to legally separate a child because of adults fantasy that love is good enough.

            Nick, surely your not going to be against men and women whom identify as gay or lesbian and deny them their right to have a married relationship with the opposite-sex even if same-sex partnership is available to them. I can’t imagine you’d be against them having biological children to a spouse/partner of the opposite-sex, even if it was possible for them to have a baby using stem cells of a same-sex partner. The Australian government doesn’t force any gay or lesbian to enter marriage as all marriages are entered into freely by choice. The Australian government changed all 85 laws to give gays and lesbians the same equal legal rights to form a committed, life-long relationship being the equivalent to marriage. Marriages in NSW were happening without the law from 1788-1856 as all marriages were recorded by the Church of England or other denomination. The government only created a registry to prevent illegitimacy of children and inheritance. Therefore, if same-sex marriage was a real marriage it would happen naturally without the requirement of the law. However, same-sex marriage makes all marriages about the law which is exactly the opposite to religious marriage. My culture, family history and religion had never required me to get legally married. I have my church marriage certificate and have changed my name etc so I have no plans to get my legal married certificate from the NSW registry. I don’t want our government having a greater control over my life and my family. The amount of men and women whom identified themselves in a same-sex relationship in the Australian census 2011 was 0.7%. The Australian government has never suggested improving the fertility in same-sex couples will improve Australia’s fertility rate. However, changing marriage for all men and women to practice “risky sexual behaviours” can increase illnesses, diseases, STDs/HIV/AIDS, infertility, cancers and deaths. Heterosexual couples can practice anal and oral sex and or a sexual union which reproduces a biological child. If a guy wants anal and oral sex and a women wants a sexual union which reproduces a biological child then consent and respect is never going to happen in a married relationship. A guy will argue, “I gave her anal and oral sex which is the equivalent to same-sex marriage.” If the law believes anal and oral sex is the equivalent to a sexual union which can reproduce a biological child then the woman would get hurt by the new meaning of legal marriage, as she can no longer expect a sexual union which reproduces children because this is irrelevant and only optional. It is only your idea that same-sex marriage won’t encourage and promote anal sexual behaviour, but I will degree with your opinion because this sexual behaviour everyone can learn. This sexual behaviour is natural for some people and not just people whom identify as gay, however on-line there are gays whom give details on over-coming the fear of anal sex.

            The reasons same-sex marriage is being debated in Australia is because the divorce laws were changed to a no default divorce which has resulted in the high divorce rate, and contraception which gave women the control over reproducing children. No one at the time predicted that same-sex marriage would become an issue as a result of changing divorce laws and promoting contraception. When IVF was introduced it was only allowed for married couples. People argued at the time that society would never change to allow single people, non-married couples access to IVF, and no one even predicted same-sex couples would use it. The laws on abortion were suppose to protect aborted babies being born alive and body parts not being sold. However, profits made from aborted body parts have been too tempting for abortionists in the USA. If science developed technology which could accurately predict a homosexual baby would parents have the right to discard or abort these embryos/neonates or use them for scientific research? Laws are suppose to protect the criminal, disable, aged and sick, but some people believe these people are becoming a burden to society, and it is sickening the ways people are suggesting of ending their lives. Would it be right for people whom identify themselves as gay or lesbian to have access to active euthanasia only because they identify themselves as homosexual? It is now possible for a healthy older person or a sick child to end their life in certain countries which allow active euthanasia, and it there are innocent people whom have been executed. Nick, you could attempt to reassure the world that nothing is going to change if same-sex marriage becomes legal in Australia. However, there are men and women whom identify themselves as gay or lesbian whom have been honest to admit marriage is or will change because the conservative/religious marriage doesn’t describe their sexual relationships with multiple partners and children from different relationships, and they don’t believe in lying that marriage won’t change. They aren’t even against multiple partners been allowed to be married to each other.

            If governments allow same-sex marriage then governments are discriminating against other people whom have an equal right to love the person or animal they choose. If marriage no longer means a sexual union then there is nothing to stop people marrying multiple partners, child, mother, father, sister, brother, pets or animals. Every country which has introduced same-sex marriage has formed groups which continue to actively oppose the practice. Nick, I am never going to blame men or women whom identify themselves as gay/lesbian for the destruction of marriage in Australia. The Royal commission into child sexual abuse and family violence has shown evidence that not all sex and relationships are respectful and healthy. The only way for boys/men and girls/women to develop a respectful, healthy, sexual relationship is to be able to describe one and practice it. Unfortunately, the media, music videos, sexting, pornography, lad culture, hook-up culture “friends with benefits” etc are making it difficult for people to choose a respectful, healthy, sexual relationship. The advice a person gives to their own child on a healthy, respectful sexual relationship may not even be the same to the one they have lived because people often learn from their mistakes. I will continue to wish you all the best for your future, and I will continue to respect you as a person, despite not holding the same beliefs and values as you do on same-sex marriage. I strongly believe men should stop calling women degrading names as our genders are complimentary, but not the same. No doubt we’ll continue to debate the topic of same-sex marriage, and we should never attack the person because this automatically proves we have lost the debate. The rules of debating in public or on-line are the same. Same-sex marriage doesn’t change the debating rules.

  11. There’s not much point continuing this discussion. I disagree with everything you’ve said, and I’m never going to convince you otherwise.

  12. Admin’s reply to my insult of John’s intelligence has been restored. I said:

    “Uh oh. Looks like the single brain celled organism followers of the AMF escaped from the loony bin again.”

    Celled was autocorrect by my stupid iPad to called.

  13. Now it appears that admin restored my response to them once I pointed out that they restored their response. You’re not fooling anyone, admin. It will be interesting to see what you do now.

Leave a comment