The Australian People Should Have a Say on Marriage

The Coalition made it an election promise and the Labor Party want to do everything in their power to break it. You have to wonder why?

On The Bolt Report last night, host, Andrew Bolt revealed:

"Labor now says its research suggests the Plebiscite will actually fail. The public doesn’t want same-sex marriage. So, Labor does not want that public… which is you… to have your say.''

Bill Shorten now claims the cost of a plebiscite has just gone up from $160 million to $250 million but is yet to reveal how he reached the highly inflated figure.

A new video released by FamilyVoice Australia features former homosexual activist James Parker sharing why man-woman marriage is good for our society...

Parliament has rejected 18 gay ‘marriage’ private member’s bills over the last 12 years since a bipartisan vote in Parliament in 2004 defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Parliament has done its job, but gay ‘marriage’ advocates simply won’t take No for an answer. They continue to waste valuable time in Parliament by coming back with new bills.  This strategy has been described a “legislation by fatigue.”

We need a circuit-breaker. A national plebiscite. A vote by the people would have to be respected, whatever the result. It's the only mechanism that can provide a valid, lasting decision on same sex marriage. Furthermore, 70% of Australians support giving the people a say. The vast majority are sick and tired of the issue and want it to go away.

The legal constitution of our country can only be changed by a referendum. Similarly, although not legally required, the definition of marriage and the nature of family, which is the foundation of our nation’s social constitution, should be changed only by the vote of the people.

The actual cost of approximately $160 million is the price of democracy. To put this into perspective, it's equivalent to just a few days of interest on the national debt.

Criticism of the cost is misplaced, given its major benefit of resolving the issue in a way that will maximise the chance of ongoing social cohesion. Whatever the decision, the people will own it and won't feel like it's been forced on them.

Claims that MPs would not be bound to vote accordingly are disingenuous. While no doubt some MPs would exercise their conscience to abstain on a Bill to legalise same-sex marriage if the plebiscite result was in favour, there would be very few MPs who would vote against it if that were the case and legislation to change the Marriage Act would be easily passed by Parliament.

Claims of “hate” speech are just a scare tactic by those desperate to avoid giving the people their say. Australians are a tolerant and sensible and would not support name-calling by either side of this debate.

To oppose giving Australians a say on deciding this issue is elitist and anti-democratic.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

45 Responses

  1. I want a say on banning Christianity.

    • Mmmm. Believe it or not but it appears you’ve just had your say.

      I suppose you would also like to ban all Christian based social services whilst you’re at it? And I’m not just referring to modern day schools, hospitals, welfare etc.

      History (not hearsay) will tell you most social services in this country and many others were kicked off by humble Christian workers who saw a desperate need to serve the population that largely were uneducated and had no access to social services.

      The first schools in this country were founded by God loving Christians…..

      The first hospitals in this country were founded by God loving Christians…..

      I could go on….

      You see Nick, whilst Australia’s early Governments of the day were too insular and focused more on themselves, the Crown and the top end of town, 1st generation Australian Christians saw a need and began laying the foundations of society by educating and caring for the masses and less privileged.

      The main beneficiaries of all this hard work have of course been those who have preceded us by +200 years and of course YOU and ME today.

      So, when you say you want to ban Christians, is it all of Christianity or just the bits you don’t like?

      There’s a lot in Christianity that I personally don’t like but hey, there’s no such thing on this earth as the perfect system where people are involved but on the whole Christians both past and present haven’t done too bad a job, remember Christians only stepped in (and continue to step in today) when the rest of society couldn’t be bothered.

      I can also tell you Christians spend hundreds of millions dollars per annum, both institutionally and personally in supporting and advocating for humanitarian relief for those who have no voice not just in war zones but on this land and in neighbouring islands.

      I guarantee you if you during the course of any year in your life you personally would have relied on a Christian founded institution several times, research the history of the school you went to or you’re sending your kids to, do the same of the hospital you visit.

      So making a broad general statement as you have today smacks of high hypocrisy……just sayin’ : )

      • sarcasm



        the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

        “she didn’t like the note of sarcasm in his voice”

        synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, satire, irony, scorn, sneering, scoffing, gibing, taunting

    • God bless that Mister Parker! I have witnessed this gripping spirit that turns homosexuals against God, against family, and against the moral fabric of Australia. We have a long history of Aussies going through cycles of rebellion then revival – like Israel under King Josiah I pray for a revival now, and for inspiration on ways we can be a blessing to men and women, boys and girls who have come under the Satanic influence of the rainbow agenda. James Parker is absolutely correct: no matter what the law says, we are made in the image of God, and God’s picture of civilisation is that we are the Bride of Christ. To desecrate the bond that God gives to a married couple is to deface who we are as Christians. It doesn’t matter if you are married or not – if you follow Jesus, you are part of the Bride of Christ, and Corinthians gives us an great insight into both human marriage and understanding of our relationship with Jesus. I don’t want people to miss out on the best thing about living because of some flimsy “gender theory” or other nonsense. Yes it is disappointing that the politicians are so afraid of being called names that they are not standing up for the truth – but Jesus Christ is only perfect man to have ever lived – He leads us, we are His church, and He is bigger than anything Satan concocts – He is bigger than Everything! Pray for revival in the secular humanist community – pray that their high places will be pulled down, and that Holy Spirit brings revival to this lost segment of the population!

  2. Thank you for the excellent well reasoned and carefully worded post.

  3. We’ve heard for so long that ‘everyone wants this’ by the SSM advocates. Let’s put that assertion to the test. I believe that the majority of Australian people have the good sense to know what marriage is and that it should be protected. I personally am tired of the ‘tail wags dog’ society we are now living in, with the noisy minority forcing their demands on the rest of us. A plebiscite or preferably a referendum should settle the matter.

  4. Yes, I think we are all VERY tired hearing about this issue. Gay people have all the same rights as married couples. Marriage should be only between a man and a woman.
    About time Parliament focussed on more important issues!

  5. Re: the majority of Australian people have the good sense to know what marriage is…

    Sadly not… I have asked everyone around me “why was marriage invented in the first place?” and nobody – nobody – could answer this simple and crucial question. It is, of course, because you need a man and a woman to have a child, but only the woman gives birth. The man has no assurance that he is the father except with the promise of faithfulness made with marriage. Marriage is a brilliant invention, which is why it has been adopted by all societies and faiths. It is universal but it would be absurd to bind a man and a woman together if it were not for children. It is the children that gives marriage its meaning.

    Everyone understand that marriage is first a commitment by a man and a woman to have children exclusively together. And because it is made public, it warns everyone around to keep out of it. This has provided the basis for human progress and stability for all human societies over thousands of years because the only thing that binds a man and a woman together is the child.

    The gay lobby is panicking because they do not want to have a debate on same sex marriage, which they have cleverly disguised as the “marriage equality” slogan, and absolutely refuse to have an open debate.

    If there is no child, marriage is meaningless. Same sex couples simply cannot have children together and they cannot make this commitment. It would be absurd if it was not for an ulterior motive. Same sex couples are now trapped because countries (like India) that previously allowed them to buy children either by adoption or surrogacy, are now reluctant to provide this commercial service to unmarried couples for legal and moral reasons. This is why there is a push to have this piece of paper.

    Many heterosexual couples do not bother with a marriage certificate because the law has been amended in Australia and offers the same protection for all couples – even for same sex couple. So there is no reason for same sex couples to want to get married… except to be able to buy a child. This is morally wrong and should not be legalize through the backdoor.

    Marriage between biological parents is the best protection for children to grow up to become adult and in turn have their own family. We should not legalize deliberately depriving a child of its mother or father. This is child abuse that will haunt them all their life. Everyone should have a chance to know who their parents are. Furthermore, adoption should be strictly restricted – only for the benefit of the child. Overseas adoption should only be allowed in exceptional cases or catastrophe. Surrogacy should be banned absolutely, even non commercial surrogacy, as it is never for the benefit of the child.

  6. ” I have asked everyone around me “why was marriage invented in the first place?” and nobody – nobody – could answer this simple and crucial question.

    I have had the same experience, even with those who are strongly in favour of gay marriage. None of them are able to offer any kind of a reasoned position on this. All they see is that something is denied them, nevermind the WHY!

    This is a clash of traditional moral systems based on supporting social cohesion as the first priority, and making allowances for individual liberties where this is not damaging to society,….
    and the NEW morality, based around elevating the interests of selected ‘oppressed minorities’ above others, REGARDLESS of the costs to society. They call this new morality system ‘Cultural Marxism.’

  7. A well-written article.

    Another example to consider when talking about the cost of a plebiscite – 50 billion dollars for 12 submarines (and maybe a few smaller ships). $50 billion is 50 thousand million! Now we’re talking REAL government expenditure (or borrowing). And a decision made with little discussion, both in parliament or among the public.

    • Chris re the $160M cost of the plebiscite, it is sheer hypocrisy for the same sex lobby to be decrying that one off cost when they have no qualms about the $300M plus cost that the rest of us pay year on year through tax for their HIV drugs. On top of that they are dismayed at the prejudice as they see it of not having on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme the combination drug that would make all gay men immune to HIV no matter how sexually irresponsible they are. That drug would bring the cost to the rest of us of gay men’s sex to a billion dollars a year. If the gay lobby is really so concerned about $160M they might consider that a little more sexual responsibility on their part would save many times that amount.

  8. Td

    Leave marriage as is and save $160 million, simple.

  9. Nick, the issue isn’t about denying same-sex couples their right to publicly express their lifelong commitment to each other. If this is what the issue was about then your implied analogy with religious freedom rights would presumably hold true. However this is not what this issue is about. There is no law that says same-sex couples can’t celebrate their love and commitment to each other in front of family and friends in a public venue. The police aren’t going to issue fines to same-sex couples if they wish to wear wedding rings. What this issue is about is whether we wish to change the definition of marriage in Australian law and culture. This is entirely different from the rights of all couples – opposite-sex or same-sex – to publicly celebrate their love in a ceremony of commitment.

    I think the primary issue in the marriage debate is the question of what marriage is. I believe that in order to determine the equality of marriage we first of all need to come to a conclusion on what marriage is. Indeed, while questions of equality are certainly part of the marriage debate, the central core issue – the main big question in the marriage debate – is “what is marriage?” Almost every Australian, regardless of their views on same-sex marriage, supports marriage equality – we just have different views as to what marriage is. Indeed, when it comes to marriage equality, both sides of the same-sex marriage debate are on common ground – we all support marriage equality! Our point of difference is not over equality – rather it is over the question of what marriage is.

    With respect,

    Michael W

    • Micheal.W

      Christian married couples should understand that the heart of their marriage is a sexual union or a “one flesh” union which can create children. My husband and I only got married for God’s blessing of our “one flesh” union with God’s gifts of love – sexual pleasure, children, family, husband-wife and child-parent relationship etc, and to disobey God is a sin. The consequence of sin is death which Christ death on the cross paid the penalty for all sin. My husband and I didn’t get married for any government benefits so our NSW marriage certificate can permanently stay in the NSW Marriage Registry office as we aren’t ever going to purchase it. My husband and I don’t believe in divorce so we have never discussed divorce and it is never an option for us.

      Some Australians want to believe a legal state marriage certificate is the proof of a marriage and it makes a marriage committed, healthy, loving, life-long and stable, but this is a “delusional fantasy.” Marriage is the behavioural practice of a “one flesh” union, and the absence of adultery/affairs and sexless marriage is the real proof of a real marriage. My marriage is recorded in a church, family history books, Family Bible and a church marriage certificate. My religion, family history and culture doesn’t require me to purchase my NSW marriage certificate. The reason the Australian governments got involved with the religious practice of marriage in Australia -1857 was for the illegitimacy of children and inheritance. Some Australians believe marriage is “commitment’ and “love,” but the commitment and love I have for my husband, children, life-long girlfriend and parents isn’t equally the same, and to think otherwise is a “delusional fantasy.” Some Australians believe marriage is “love is love” which means sexual activities (a sexual organ with a non-sexual organ) are the same as sexual intercourse (consummation)-“one flesh” to be called marriage, and this is a “delusional fantasy.” Some Australians believe children don’t suffer harm and pain from been separated from their biological parents, despite all the scientific evidence from the “stolen generation,” forced adoption, children orphanages, children from divorce, single parents, blended families, IVF/surrogacy – anonymous sperm donors. The Marriage Act isn’t going to stop a couple from using their sexual organs for their designed biological function, and if the Marriage Act includes same-sex couples then marriage becomes an “open marriage” or a “sham marriage” or a “fake marriage.” The Australian government can create a “sham marriage practice” which mean only a legal union for both same-sex and man-woman married couples as they can make a commitment to love for a life-time a legal union and exclude all others from this legal union. Then Australians would have to come to terms with acceptance of adultery/affairs and sexless marriage, and divorce is just a legal process of splitting financial arrangements. Same-sex couples have made it extremely clear that this Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” – “sham marriage” has nothing to do with man-woman sex and their children and this is irrelevant when their marriage ends in a divorce which is a “delusional fantasy.”

      Same-sex couples accept the practice of having children whom are legally separated from at least one biological parent. However, the German government are going to make mothers including married women identify their children’s biological father because non-biological fathers/men don’t want to provide financial assistance to non-biological children, despite some being in a committed married relationship. The marriage rate in most European countries is so low and the practice of “sham marriages” will make it impossible for immigration authorities to detect when the government has approved of a “sham marriage practice.” When I have research Iceland’s marriage and divorce laws I am glad that I never trusted my marriage with the Australian government. My 3 children worked out from school that the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” had nothing to do with man-woman relationship, man-woman sex and their children, and will allow all the boys to marry their boyfriends. Therefore, the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” isn’t for my children as it is a “sham marriage” or “fake marriage.”

      All the countries which have accepted a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” have experienced a significant increase of “sham marriages” because the law protects the practice of “sham marriages.” All that is required for 2 people in the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” is proof of a legal state marriage certificate as the sexual relationship has either been totally removed from the marriage law or the British law created “Marriage Inequality” as same-sex couples only have a legal union as the man-woman marriage remains a sexual union. More pregnancies end in abortion in Australia because governments established a legal practice of abortion. Countries which have allowed the practice of legal suicide have experience more deaths of vulnerable people in their society. Do Australian Christians understand the differences between a “one flesh” union and a “sham marriage?”

      • Some good sense there Janine, you got me thinking…
        Marriage cannot be bought.
        It is either an oath to God and a blessing from God, accountable to God .

        … or …

        it is a simply a document payable and accountable to the state.

        There is a big difference.

        • Mikel,
          Thanks! It won’t be long before parents, teachers, and the government are encouraging children/teenagers to “come out” with their feelings, desire and passion to be a prostitute or gigolo when they’re adults. The government will be able to create short-term marriage contract to allow prostitutes and gigolos to have the status of marriage whilst in the sexual relationship and the benefits can be passed between them without paying government taxes as the government extends the “sham marriage practice.” Prostitution is legal in Australia, and is known as the oldest profession in the world. A judge today conveyed the message he didn’t care about the moral law being broken, but the legal law. This is the main problem in Australian society is when people are morally bankrupt they don’t care about obeying the laws.

  10. It could be argued that if you wanted to control the world, you need introduce your laws globally. This would entail changing existing value systems and even laws governing people’s behaviour.

    So, it is logical that your first objective must be to control the media. Not only would you control the people, but you would also control and influence a Government who is reliant on ‘popular’ opinion.

    Tell a person 7 times that what they are doing now is wrong, that yours is a better way, and most would start believing you (an old advertising adage).

    Your second objective would be to silence any opposition to your vision. Besides your own direct media, your employees and ‘converts’ use social media to identify and attack such opposition.

    Is this not what is happening in Australia at the moment? The media have all the say, and the people have none?

    • So true, I agree.
      The media bias is affecting peoples’ attitude.

      I heard (on the Gruen show on tv), that there are more psychologists employed in the advertising industry in order to influence people to buy, than there are psychologists in the field of helping people to overcome personal psychological issues.

      The media creates psychological problems when they create a cognitive dissonance in a person mind, whereas helpful psychologists will try to resolve the conflict in the mind.

      • No doubt the media will start brainwashing us to think and say so…
        They started saying homosexuality was ‘normal’ about 2 years ago, and that anyone thinking it was not normal was abnormal. Hence why everyone is so scared of not toeing the media line.
        Has anyone picked up on how the media are saying homosexuality is natural?

  11. Remember King Henry VIII of England (16th century a.d.), he assumed the title of “Supreme Governor of the Church of England” for the purpose of changing the marriage laws to suit himself.
    I suppose he is a hero of the current movement for mariage reform.

    King Henry VIII,
    to six wives he was wedded.
    one died, one survived,
    two divorced, two beheaded.

  12. This is what is happening already in the USA – don’t be fooled, they are using 17C here to drive the weapon of “Tolerance” in order to stifle democratic process.

    This same-sex marriage issue has less to do with the gays and everything to do with attacking Christianity.

    The Threat

    SB 1146, introduced by Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens), seeks to eliminate the current religious exemption in California that fully protects the freedom of California’s faith-based colleges and universities to operate in ways that are consistent with their religious missions and faith tenets. The provisions of the proposed bill represent a dramatic narrowing of religious freedom in California. It would mean faith-based institutions would no longer be able to determine for themselves the scope of their religious convictions as applied in student conduct policies, housing and restroom/locker facilities, and other matters of religious expression and practical campus life. Though the free exercise of religion is guaranteed by both the U.S. and California Constitutions, SB 1146 would make religious institutions like Biola vulnerable to anti-discrimination lawsuits and unprecedented government policing.

    This bill, if it became law, would diminish religious liberty in California higher education. It would unfairly harm faith-based institutions and it would weaken the rich educational diversity of our state.

    Also watch : The ZIKA virus is an STD, and an horrifying one. None of the media are telling the public to keep it in their pants, and yes the media are spending billions trying to normalise kinky sex and dangerous sex – and to lie to children by telling them that sex is basically just like any other “sport”.

    Sex is sacred. Race is sacred. Christians know this – not sure if anyone else does any more…

  13. What is probably fazing the same sex movement leaders is the realization that if 70% of the population are supporting the plebiscite it is probably because 70% of the population want to say no, a devastating realization after all the years of their brainwashing. The plebiscite is far too big a risk; it absolutely has to be squashed.

    I wonder if the window of opportunity for same sex marriage is closing fast now thanks to the over-reaching of the Victorian Government and Roz Ward.

    The longer that we can hold off same sex marriage being imposed by parliament the more will the ridiculous excesses like you mention make Australians determined to not let them happen here. Forewarned is forearmed.

  14. Here’s a thought,

    Same sex marriage is not the same as actual and natural marriage.

    Gay marriage compared to natural marriage is like in-laws compared to natural kin.
    SSM can only be a marriage-in-law compared to a natural marriage, – just as a father-in-law is compared to the natural and actual father.

    There is a difference.

    • Mikel,

      Everyone understands that same-sex marriage isn’t the same as a man-woman marriage, but it is the marriage status and the benefits of the status which is the purpose for this same-sex marriage, and this is what makes it a “sham marriage.” The government has to get involved to make a legal “sham marriage practice” or else same-sex marriage doesn’t exist in the real world which is like Disneyland before it was created. I have read the requirements of the Marriage Act and it doesn’t define the purpose for a marriage. How will the Australian immigration authorities identify “sham marriages” if the majority of Australian married couples identify their marriage as an “open marriage” or “sham marriage?” The plebiscite is suppose to give same-sex marriage some legitimacy, but when it is forced upon Australian then this will be view by the majority as just a “sham marriage practice” which man-woman couples will avoid.

      • I agree but I’m not sure everyone does understand the difference between marriage and sham marriage.
        I hope most of us do.

        There are defenders of marriage and there are attackers against marriage.

  15. More reasons to stop or delay the changing of marriage laws…

    ‘Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences’
    This study,
    conducted by world renowned Johns Hopkins University scientists Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer and Dr. Paul R. McHugh, is a meta-analysis of data from over 200 peer-reviewed (and left-leaning) studies regarding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” It was published in the fall 2016 edition of The New Atlantis journal and is, far and away, the most objective, exhaustive and comprehensive study on the topic to date.
    The research established, among other things:

    “The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”
    “Sexual orientation” in adolescents is “fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80 percent of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults.”
    “Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse.”
    “Gay”-identified people are “at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes.”
    “Gay”-identified people experience “nearly 2.5 times the risk of suicide.”
    “The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”
    “Studies comparing the brain structures of transgender and non-transgender individuals … do not provide any evidence for a neurobiological basis for cross-gender identification.”
    “[S]ex-reassigned individuals [are] about five times more likely to attempt suicide and about 19 times more likely to die by suicide.”
    “[T]he rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41 percent, compared to under 5 percent in the overall U.S. population.”
    “Only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.”

    ⦁ Lest you buy the left wing talking point that so-called “homophobia” leads to high rates of suicide and other devastating consequences of the “LGBT” lifestyle, a recent study from “gay”-affirming Sweden dispels this myth. The research, published in the May issue of the European Journal of Epidemiology, ⦁ found that people entering into a “gay marriage” were, as mirrored above, nearly three times as likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts.
    “Even in a country with a comparatively tolerant climate regarding homosexuality such as Sweden,” observed the researchers, “same-sex married individuals evidence a higher risk for suicide than other married individuals.”

    Sad isn’t it 🙁

    • Mikel,

      I wish healthcare professionals in Australia could inform the public about our experiences in the workplace because Australians wouldn’t be changing the meaning of marriage. Public Health in Australia came out recently confirming that the PReP drug wouldn’t be available on the Australian PBS because the cost was too high at $700/month/person. This drug allows LGBTIAQ people to have unprotected sex with HIV/AIDS people (majority gays). However, Australian Public Health remained quiet about the STDs which are spread via unprotected sex. On the August 30, 2016 in the article “Gonorrhoea is becoming untreatable, U.N. Health Officials warn,” Rebecca Hershier reported, “We are running out of ways to treat gonorrhoea, the World Health Organisation announced today…According to the WHO, 78 million people are infected with gonorrhoea every year…Gonorrhoea has been plaguing humanity for centuries. But ever since penicillin came along a dose of antibiotics would usually take care of the disease…In some countries, strains of gonorrhoea are already resistant to the newly recommended class of drugs…Syphilis, for example, can be treated with a single dose of penicillin, although there is a worldwide shortage of the drug…Although Gonorrhoea, Syphilis and chlamydia affect both men and women, they can have particularly devastating effects on women if they are not treated. Gonorrhoea can cause pelvic inflammatory disease and lead to dangerous ectopic pregnancies. Syphilis can pass from pregnant woman to her fetus, and chlamydia can make it difficult for a woman to get pregnant.” When is the Australian Public Health going to warn Australians about the serious sexual health and relationship problems by practicing risky sexual activities? Governments use to control people’s sexual activities/sexual intercourse because of the risk of STDs/HPV/HIV/AIDS causing pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, cancers, shorten life-cycle. The WHO only recently came out warning people not to have unprotected sex for 6 months if they have recently visited a country with the Zika virus because it’s a STD causing significant abnormality of the fetal brain and it has been estimated that it will cost US $10 million for life-time care of each baby born infected with the virus.

      Australian’s freedom of religion and freedom of speech will be lost if the Marriage Act is changed. Nobody will be able to voice in public that, “marriage is a sexual union between one man and one woman which can reproduce children.” Same-sex couples have been telling Australians clearly that marriage has nothing to do with man-woman sexual union and their children which is a “delusional fantasy.” If marriage hasn’t been at the heart a sexual relationship between a man and woman which can reproduce children (Human reproduction), then it has just been a complicated legal friendship. A man-woman in a friendship marriage (non-sexual) is a “sham marriage” or “fake marriage” as it’s a marriage of convenience entered into purely for gaining the benefits or other advantages arising from that status. Same-sex couples claim that it is their right for the status of marriage and the government marriage benefits including a legal state marriage certificate which means it is a “sham marriage.” The Australian government has to establish a “sham marriage practice” in order to legitimise a “sham marriage” because it is “fake” when compared to a real marriage which requires consummation of the marriage and adultery/affairs are grounds for divorce. The Australian Immigration Authorities will find it extremely hard to detect “sham marriages” when the majority of marriages in Australia are identified as an “open marriage” or “sham marriage.” Would Australian like to experience a 850% increase in sham marriages like recently reported in the UK? If marriage only means a legal state marriage certificate, then there is no reason the government shouldn’t provide the same certificate for a prostitute, gigolo, single person, multiple spouses etc? When a certificate is given to a couple because they believe it is their right for a marriage status, then the government can’t discriminate against others whom believe it is their right for the same marriage status.

      Would Australians believe it to be morally right for a University to equally award a degree to all students even when a small percentage didn’t sit the exam and another small group failed the exam? The University has a right to give out degrees, and all students could claim they have a right to a degree when completing the course, but does the small group whom didn’t sit the exam have the same right as the other students whom passed the exam, or does the other small group that failed the exam have the same right as those whom passed the exam? How would the students whom passed the exam feel if everyone got the degree even if they didn’t sit the exam or pass the exam? Would the employers view the degree as meaningless or pointless if every student was given the degree. When governments believes they can change the rules on a legal state marriage certificates and or birth certificate to accommodate certain behaviours and practices, then this takes away the meaning and purposes for these documents. When the documents become meaningless and pointless it makes it hard for people in authority to identify a “sham marriage.” Unfortunately, once a person believes they have the right to change societies rules for themselves then this follows into our schools, hospitals, government, legal system, churches, unions, companies and businesses etc. Once people believe it is perfectly acceptable, healthy, natural, normal and moral to remove healthy sexual organs, then people start to believe it is the same when a person requests to remove their healthy arm and leg so they can be disabled (this was recently reported in the news).

      Australians would claim the Nazis had an evil mind-set, but the world exposed their crimes, and there were Germans whom were executed for their involvement in the mass murder of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies etc. However, the Victorian government allows doctors and nurses to legally murder unwanted neonate right up to birth. Keli Lane was found guilty of murder in 2010 and is spending time in jail, despite never finding the body of her daughter Tegan Lane so this shows our government does care about certain deaths, but not the deaths of unwanted neonates. The very fact that Australians can get away with murdering unwanted neonates with nobody around the world holding Australians responsible for these deaths is the very reason our moral conscience on marriage, birth, family, parenthood and death are being challenged. We understand the Chinese government dictates to their people on only having at the maximum of two children/ family, and there are severe consequences if people disobeys this rule. The Victorian Labor government has dictated that no person can go within 150 metres of an abortion clinic to provide information or assistance otherwise they get fined/jail. The Victorian Labor government has dictated the Safe (dangerous) school coalition program in all Victorian schools against parents consent. Australians are living in the Nanny state, and we’re losing our freedom in so many ways. I was a “whistle blower” on an illegal practice in a workplace, and my moral conscience made me expose the illegal practice even though I knew I was risking my career. When senior staff told me not to tell others of my employment this made it obvious they were hiding the truth. I have no problem telling the Australian government they’re creating a “sham marriage practice.” William Wilberforce stated, “You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.” Australians man-woman couples need to fight to keep marriage as a man-woman sexual union as it shouldn’t be mixed with risky sexual activities that same-sex couples practice, and Australians man-woman married couples don’t need or want a complicated and meaningless legal friendship like same-sex couples are trying to create for us. There is no discrimination from consenting adults (both heterosexual/homosexuals) from practicing marriage according to the marriage rules, but same-sex couples can’t just pretend that man-woman sexual intercourse and their children have nothing to do with marriage, especially when this is the main or only reason the majority get married. Same-sex couples believe this rule doesn’t matter to marriage and it is the equivalent of stating, “Lungs don’t need oxygen,” “Playing Monopoly doesn’t need the dice,” “a house doesn’t have doors or windows,” or “2+2 = 5.” If Australians start believing in such ridiculous lies then there isn’t much hope for our country, and Australia can expect a Brexist and the rise of Donald Trump or Nazi Party experiences to happen.

  16. I submit that possibly the reason for high suicide rates for people who identify as lgbtqi , is the individual’s conflict in their own mind, not lack of acceptance by the world in general.

    It is entirely an internal conflict, as is the case for all suicides.

    I have been suicidal in the past, and I didn’t require the whole world to change and accept me, — I needed to adjust my own view of the world.

    Likewise, the whole world does not need to condone gay marriage to conform to one small minority of depressed, dysfunctional people.

    We all have our hang-ups in life. We all get depressed and have dysfunction in our lives.
    There’s nothing special about the lgbtqi mob.
    In my opinion.

    • Mikel,

      The recent Swedish research has shown evidence to support your comments on suicide. The Swedish society has been accepting of homosexuals and transgender people for over 10 years, but the suicide rate remains significantly higher for this minority group of people despite them been allowed married life and / surgical removal of healthy sexual organs and hormone therapy. These people have been given a legal state marriage certificate and / changed birth certificate, but this has made no difference in changing their significant harmful health and relationship problems.

      The Guardian reported today on a number of female celebrities whom are currently in a same-sex relationship, but they had spent up to 18 years married to a man with children. These women now identify themselves as “Lesbians,” despite spending a significant amount of their life living as a heterosexual female. When a man in his 60’s like Bruce Jenner changed his sexual orientation to identifying himself as the opposite sex he has to deny all past experiences of identifying as a man whom was once married three times to women for over 20 years and they have had children together. These mind-sets feel so real for them that they demand governments to change laws so they can have a legal state marriage certificate and/ birth certificate which reflects their reality. They use these legal status of marriage and/ transgender dysphoria to gain government marriage benefits and / state health services for surgical removal of healthy sexual organs and hormone therapy. The Western governments around the world have been prepared to change the legal regulations and practices for people whom identify as LGBTIAQ, aged, sick/ill and disabled, drug addiction, criminals, and/ women whom have identified their pregnancy as an unwanted neonate. However, if the majority of Australians identified with these mind-sets, then health services wouldn’t be able to provide the services for the demand.

      The Australian government should encourage couples to develop healthy sexual relationships which their body parts don’t go against their biological function. Therefore, a marriage based on sexual intercourse -“one flesh” union which can create new-life should be the only sexual relationship which governments protects and supports. The government doesn’t stop consenting adults from practicing certain legal abusive practices for harm minimisation such as sodomy [sexual activities – (a sexual organ with a non-sexual organ) – anal and oral sexual activities, masturbation – hand sex, pornography – mind sex, robotic sex toys/dolls, pretend sexual organs, chem (drug) sex], but these should never be encouraged and promoted to be mixed with sexual intercourse (“one flesh” union) because of significant harmful health and relationship problems.

      The Australian government can give every Australian a legal state marriage certificate and birth certificate, but these can become meaningless and pointless if government allows changes to reflect people’s “delusional fantasy.” The government can create a legal state marriage certificate to only mean a complicated legal friendship and the sexual relationship is no longer a legal requirement of a marriage, but people will abuse this practice. This is equivalent to a University giving a certificate to students whom exercise their right to enrol in a course, but they don’t do any work or exams. Then overseas students abuse this practice because they apply for this course to use it for the purpose to gain legal access into Australia in order to gain other benefits such as purchasing a property, job, affordable healthcare and legal services and welfare benefits.

      • Hi Janine, apparently you used my user name as yours in the above post. I agree with what you are saying, but just to clarify: I am not talking to myself ! 🙂

        We are in agreement, but from different points of view.

        Thank you for your posts, you make good sense and I hope the pollies are reading this too.

        • I mean “Politicians”. – to be clear.
          I suppose “pollies” is offensive too.

          People are so easily offended these days.
          What’s up with that?!

          • Mikel,
            The Australian Marriage Equality only got 55 000 signatures to support the parliament to vote on same-sex marriage. In countries against same-sex marriage they got well over 100 000 votes per country. This is the reason homosexuals don’t want a plebiscite as they don’t have the community support which they need to make marriage no longer mean a sexual relationship between a man and a woman which can create new-life (human reproduction). The majority of Australians understand children need and want their biological parents, and they don’t want children to have a second-best relationship with their biological parent/s and for the government to be forced to protect and support them. The majority of Australians don’t want a meaningless and pointless legal state marriage certificate and birth certificate to reflect people’s “delusional fantasies.” Christians can’t pretend sexual activities are the same as sexual intercourse “one flesh” to be called marriage. The majority of Australians don’t want the government dictating and controlling their children’s sexual education by exposing them to the depravity of sexual activities of same-sex couples, transgender dysphoria and the gay life-style. The majority of Australians enjoy the Australian life-style and have never had to think about the gay life-style until it was forced by the media, government and the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators. They can back-off because their “delusional fantasy” is going to be exposed in a “sham marriage practice.” Same-sex couples can spend their millions of dollars on weddings in New Zealand or other parts of the world which practice a fantasy marriage.

        • Mikel,
          Sorry! I didn’t mean for you to have a conversation with yourself. I do hope Australians realise that certificates (State Marriage Certificates, Birth Certificates, University certificates etc) have a meaning and a purpose, but when the government or the education institutes create “sham” or “fake” practices then they become meaningless and pointless. I used your username accidentally, but we agree with each other from a male and female point of view. However, same-sex couples want to use the username of “marriage” intentionally by stating they have a right to purchase the marriage status and are entitled to the government benefits from having this marriage status which is the definition of a “sham marriage,” and their sexual relationship is extremely different to a “one flesh” union which is the only way to consummate a marriage creating new-life (human reproduction). Australians should understand that our culture will cease to exist if we can’t defend natural human reproduction.

    • Mikel,
      The Daily Mail has reported in the UK there are websites called and which now have more than 100 000 members. Azad Chaiwala runs both sites and he claimed on Good Morning Britain (Sept 6, 2016), “Polygamous men are born that way just as homosexuals are born gay.” He stated, “There’s an institute in this country called marriage and we must admit it breaks down because of infidelity and there are a lot of men, decent men who it’s hard for them because of the advertising and the media, and they don’t want to have affairs but they have an urge. It’s just like we say that a person is born gay and comes out at some point. I believe that I was born polygamous and I came out and I am giving everybody strength to be that.” Mr Chaiwala claims that people can have second wives in faith based services or civil ceremonies, although they will not be recognised under UK law. He is looking for a second wife and that his current bride is “not entirely happy about the idea.” The secular UK government hasn’t got an argument against polygamy because the British Marriage Law has made same-sex married couples only a legal union between any 2 people because their is no requirement of a sexual relationship in law. Therefore, what makes 2 people any more special than 3 or more people? When gender doesn’t matter to secular marriage, then the amount of people shouldn’t matter if they’re all autonomous and consenting adults involved. Does the government care if people are “committed” and “love” 2 or 3 or more people? If Australians accept same-sex marriage they have to accept polygamous marriage because there is no logical or rational argument against it. Same-sex marriages are a type of “open marriage” which is equivalent to polygamous marriage – “open marriage.”

  17. There is definitely a slippery slope that has already been happening since the past couple of generations regarding marriage laws :
    No fault divorce, easy abortion, and now this gay marriage, and then what?.

    As you say, Janine, (to put it simply), the future will be further denigration of marriage.

    The meaning of marriage is in the process of being destroyed completely.

    Yet there will always be a fundamental difference between natural born children living with their biological parents, and any other relationship.

  18. After watching Question Time today, I notice the Opposition immediately brings a child of a lesbian parent to invoke sympathy.
    To use an innocent child who doesn’t know any better, is emotional blackmail.

    Eddie wants to know how WE can vote on how HE lives because he has a lesbian mother. In truth, there will be no change to how he lives.

    Labor is saying they don’t want to make this harder for gay teens, and at the same time making the issue all about emotional appeals to sympathy.

    Can we stick with the facts please. And keep emotions out of it?!

    • Mikel,

      I totally agree with you. Adults can make an informed decision about the gay lifestyle, but children are indirectly affected by the sexual behaviours and practices of parents, adults, teachers and other children because they’re unable to escape their environment. Children can be groomed for sex by adults. Same-sex attraction isn’t like a race of people because all homosexuals would have children whom are homosexuals. Also, it would be impossible for the celebrity women whom were once married to a man for up to 18 years with biological children and had lived a heterosexual lifestyle to change their identification as a Lesbian and live in a same-sex relationship. Has Eddie’s 2 mum’s groomed him to be gay? The reason I have “come out” with my childhood/teenage experience of homosexuality and transgender dysphoria is to help intelligent people get past the personal emotions and to focus on a nation of people.

      The government doesn’t create a legal state marriage certificate or a birth certificate for personal reasons. The University doesn’t award a student a certificate for a personal reason so they can put it on their wall. Same-sex couples are totally arguing their case for the status of marriage and the legal state marriage certificate based on individual experiences which has nothing to do with the meaning nor purpose of the government being involved in the marriage practice. A person isn’t discriminated against by a University if they didn’t meet the requirements for the course to gain a certificate. A same-sex couple isn’t discriminated against by a church and the government when they don’t meet the requirement of a sexual relationship which is a “one flesh” union able to create new-life (human reproduction) in order to consummate a marriage and gain a legal state marriage certificate and have the status of marriage. Is a disable person discriminated against competing for the Olympics? Why does governments and human rights allow separation of able and disabled athletes for the Olympics? Same-sex couples need to realise they’re unable to perform a man-woman sexual relationship which can create new-life (human reproduction). Same-sex couples will have to realise they’re like able athletes whom have to compete separately from man-woman married couples which are like the disabled whom have an Olympics created for this second-class group of people. Man-woman can be in the second-class group and same-sex couples can be in the first class group, but their sexual relationships are extremely different so they can’t be treated the same because there are significant harmful health and relationship problems.

  19. This is not about marriage. Once marriage becomes law then will follow adoption. Once that is done then schools will have to teach that crap. They can marry or do whatever they want aslong as i am not forced to accept it and aslong as i can be allowed to teach my child that this thing is unatural.

  20. Janine and Mikel I am following your discussions and as I have mentioned a few times before my concern is how to get the sexual basis of marriage into public discussion. None of the main groups against same sex marriage, including AMF who provide this very valuable blog site, seem to see the simple legal impediment that sexual intercourse is to same sex marriage. If from the very start all the Church and family groups had flatly refuted the equal love argument and asserted that marriage is a sexual union the equal love misinformation that has now become conventional wisdom would have never got off the ground. Instead these groups persisted with Bible and family based arguments that were easily ridiculed as inculcated bigotry. So, how to now get the sexual basis back into people’s consciousness. The message has to be short, 100 words. 1000 words of haranguing language will be written off as just the hurtful bigotry that the same sex lobby claims will cause already vulnerable people to feel more ashamed of who they are and even commit suicide. I have an idea for how to get the subject into public discussion soberly, inoffensively and cheaply. It is to use the Public Notice columns of the daily papers to put a succinct message that marriage is faithful sexual union and that meaning will be lost under same sex marriage. Nothing more, because surveys of Australian men and women show that sexual fidelity is overwhelmingly expected in marriage, especially by women. Here is my 92 word Public Notice.

    “Marriage Definition

    Faithfulness in sexual intercourse is the foundation of marriage in our culture. That is what the words union and exclusion mean in the current definition of marriage. Sexual intercourse cannot be described for a same sex couple. Because of that a universal definition of marriage that is gender free cannot mean faithful sexual intercourse. It is a serious legal ramification. If you support same sex marriage then you also support the loss of faithful sexual intercourse from marriage. Ask the Attorney General.”

    I am identifying my “organization” with the name “Marriage Concern” and giving a post office box. I pondered using “Marriage is not love” for the organization name to be challeng-ing to the “equal love” basis but decided it would be too aggressive. If people contact me I have a more extensive pamphlet that I would send to them.

    Mikel and Janine, and anyone else, do you have any reactions to my “public notice”?

    I am in reality not sure that same sex marriage is incompatible with male – female marriage being based on sexual fidelity but I cannot get any clear answer. There may be some sophistry in wording that would allow same sex marriage. I wrote a month ago to George Brandis but have not got any reply, not even a simple acknowledgement.

    • David.S

      Yes, I agree with your idea as it is extremely important to tell people that at the core/heart of marriage is a man-woman sexual relationship based on voluntary faithfulness to sexual intercourse for life – “one flesh” union. The purpose of marriage is for natural human reproduction as it is the only way to consummate a marriage which can naturally reproduce new-life. Adultery/affairs and sexless marriage break the basic man-woman marriage agreement resulting in a divorce. Changing the legal definition of marriage will have a significant negative impact on the health and relationships in our society including Christians being forced to go against their moral conscience and accept, celebrate, educate and participate in the abusive practice of sodomy and this will impact on Christian organisations. Unfortunately, money will be wasted trying to defend marriage as a man-woman sexual relationship and their children or creating a new marital status called “one flesh” union.

      *Infertile man-woman couples meet the criteria of marriage because they can have faithful sexual intercourse “one-flesh” union, and they’re not discriminated against for not consummating the marriage or reproducing children.
      *A married man-woman couple whom met the criteria for marriage and later decided to “come out” as an “open marriage” is known as a “sham marriage.”
      *An athlete whom meets the criteria for a race in the Olympics isn’t discriminated against because he doesn’t receive a medal or he doesn’t start or complete the race.
      *Same-sex couples don’t meet the criteria of marriage because it is impossible for them to have sexual intercourse – “one flesh” union like a man-woman because they don’t have the complimentary sexual organs of a penis and a vagina which can naturally reproduce new-life (natural human reproduction).
      *Universities don’t discriminate against students whom don’t meet the criteria of a course.

      Wishing you all the best in getting the truth about marriage into the general public discussion, and I agree with you about keeping the message short, but giving accurate details when asked for more information. Australians hate corruption and deception more than any other western country. The Australian parliament have rejected 16 times different proposal for “same-sex marriage” and this doesn’t include the Hon. Bill Shorten or Adam Brants recent proposal of amendments to the Marriage Act last Monday. Therefore, the Australia government hasn’t given same-sex couples their demand for “same-sex marriage.” Therefore, marriage is now given to the Australian people to make their decision if it should change into a “sham marriage practice” or will Christians decide to continue practicing a faithful “one flesh” union as a new marital status regardless of the decision made by government? David, I appreciate your level of commitment to get the truth of marriage into the minds of the Australian people as the next generation need the opportunity to develop a healthy, loving and respectful man-woman married relationship.

    • David.S,

      The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators tell all Australians that religion supports their right to marriage. However, the truth now is revealed on their website that they don’t want a plebiscite because the groups which are going to run the “No” campaign they claim have “access to large amount of non-taxable funds” and can preach to their members each week. Therefore, the LGBTIAQ lobby dictators believe the biggest groups of people opposed to “same-sex marriage” – homosexuality and transgender dysphoria are Christians and the Christian churches/organisations.

      The history of sodomy being made a crime has had a lot to do with the Bible teaching the act of homosexuality is a sin, as the practice of polygamous relationship was made a crime by Roman authority.

      The practice of marriage is the message of the Bible from the beginning to end so it shouldn’t surprise anybody that homosexuals want to change the gospel, and there is now a “gay” Bible with a rainbow cross with the scriptures changed to support the practice of homosexuality.

      The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators don’t like the wording “same-sex” because it doesn’t include all LGBTIAQ people. Are they suggesting bisexuals should be allowed to marry a man and a woman making bigamy no longer a crime???

  21. Love is the most intolerant of states/emotions.

    “Love may, indeed, love the beloved when her beauty is lost: but not because it is lost. Love may forgive all infirmities and love still in spite of them: but Love cannot cease to will their removal. Love is more sensitive than hatred itself to every blemish in the beloved… Of all powers he forgives most, but he condones least: he is pleased with little, but demands all.”
    ― C.S. Lewis

    Lets not forget that the Greeks has 4 words for love – and the version being bandied around is eros, and a warped one at that.

    “The problem of reconciling human suffering with the existence of a God who loves, is only insoluble so long as we attach a trivial meaning to the word “love”, and look on things as if man were the centre of them. Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake. “Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” We were made not primarily that we may love God (though we were made for that too) but that God may love us, that we may become objects in which the divine love may rest “well pleased”.”
    ― C.S. Lewis

    Save the children: stand against changing the meaning of the word “marriage”

    • Harry,

      The Age reported today that scientist believe they can create a baby using a sperm and skin cell with removal of half the chromosomes in order for 2 guys can have a baby, but they need a female surrogate womb. Today, we live in a very sick world where there are women whom are aborting neonates and another group desperate for neonates that they’re willing to have scientist believe they’re God. When I was single, if a guy told me he was created by two dads and a surrogate woman this would be a deal breaker in having a relationship as his mind would be totally abused by adults desires. I do believe in “save the children: stand against changing the meaning of the word marriage” because scientists wouldn’t be even investigating this ridiculous idea of having 2 dads and a female surrogate womb if it wasn’t for the selfish sexual behaviours and practices of gays. The Guardian recently reported, “The world is going to Hell in a basket.”

  22. I do not understand why the mere fact of biological sex is not enough to retain the meaning of marriage. There is no need to redefine it at all. It is not a human rights issue, as all same sex couples already have all the human rights of heterosexual couples and any other person in this country.

    David S, I agree that we need a succinct message to explain the differences between Marriage and gay marriage. Your proposed public notice sounds reasonable to me, well said.

    If only the general public were not so easily influenced by the media bias, including popular tv programmes and hollywood movies, (not to mention the news broadcasters).
    God forbid we become like America. We need to appeal to the common sense of Australians.

    And yes to Harry, simple erotic love (or lust), is not grounds for a marriage.

    I’d like to know the real reason for the demand to redefine marriage, rather than having an obligation to defend it. (and being called a bigot, in the process of debate.)

    It certainly isn’t equality.
    Demeaning marriage will not bring about sudden equality. Men do not have uteri and women do not have testes.

    It takes one of each sex to create life, naturally.

    Let marriage remain as it is.

    • A man does not have a right to experience nine months of pregnancy. A man does not have a right to personally experience penetration and conception and the birth process. Those experiences are impossible for men, and vice versa for women.
      The same is true for SSM.

      I refuse to pretend otherwise.
      I refuse to accept smut and lewd behaviour should be encouraged by law.
      Otherwise, where will it end?!
      Anything and everything is acceptable in this egotistic generation I suppose?
      That attitude is unsustainable.

Leave a comment