Bait and Switch – What We’re Really Voting For

In September, Australians are going to be asked a seemingly simple question. Something like ‘Should marriage be redefined to include same-sex marriage.’

But that’s not what we’re really being asked.

You can read the wording of Senator Dean Smith’s Marriage Amendment Bill, the most recent one of about 18 to be presented to Parliament over the last dozen years, here.

But here’s the bit they hope you won’t notice:

“The term ‘same-sex marriage’ should be read to include a marriage of two people regardless of their sex or gender, where the union is not that of a man and a woman.”

(emphasis added)
If you haven’t been subjected to the highly controversial Safe Schools Coalition program, you may not be aware that dangerous gender theory is being taught to our kids in schools. It’s the belief that ‘Sex’ is determined by your genitals but ‘Gender’ is determined by how you feel.

This Marriage Bill seeks to enshrine Gender Theory into the Marriage Act. You may think there are two genders but actually, there are around 112.

Here are a few (list available at Tumblr):

Amaregender: a gender that changes depending on who you’re in love with

Biogender: a gender that feels connected to nature in some way

Cendgender: when your gender changes between one and its opposite

Condigender: a gender that is only felt during certain circumstances

Demiflux: the feeling of having multiple genders, some static and some fluctuating

Espigender: a gender that is related to being a spirit or exists on a higher or extradimensional plane

Genderwitched: a gender in which one is intrigued or entranced by the idea of a particular gender, but is not certain that they are actually feeling it

Once gender is enshrined in law as mutually exclusive to 'Sex,' it opens the door to a range of legal issues. Since marriage was ‘degendered’ in the USA and Canada, ‘Misgendering’ is now considered ‘Psychological abuse’ and will potentially earn you jail time in California and it’s illegal in Canada too, where SSM has been legal for a decade.

In London, the home of ‘Ladies and Gentlemen,’ this greeting is now considered offensive since marriage was redefined.

‘Heteronormative’ terms are removed from Marriage Certificates, Birth Certificates, Drivers Licenses and more when ‘gender’ is enshrined in the Marriage Act.

Terms like ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ are now ‘Hate Speech’ and you can forget forget terms like ‘Mother and ‘Father.’

And Sexuality/Gender Theory are now compulsory in these countries. Because once Gender Theory is enshrined in Law, it must be taught as normal. It means handing your children over to schools to be indoctrinated to believe their gender is their own choice, that it is fluid, and teachers are encouraged assist your child to choose and transition to their preferred gender and gender pronouns without your knowledge and consent.

Redefining marriage isn’t quite as simple as it seems, and the repercussions are far greater than they may appear.

But Aussies are smart. Smart enough to see through the Marxist Agenda playing out before us.

In September, Vote ‘No’ to stop the ‘Gender Madness.’

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

70 Responses

  1. very disapointing that our children are going to suffer the most.the bible talks how a child shall lead us it is referenced to saying children arnt complecated they are easy to believe you and take it gospel.what a place to start with the innercent child.we should pray like we havent prayed before.the devil is a live and kicking lets ban him protect our little ones from this evil.

    • “They are easy to believe you” Is that why religious nuts take their kids to church? because it’s easy to brainwash them into nonsense? FFS, let them grow up, and decide for themselves what they want to believe in.

  2. I’m not quite sure why you think our legislation is decided according to Tumblr.

    Also interesting is your insistence that this will be a vote on other issues. If you believe it is, will you believe that in the event of a Yes vote, there is a democratic mandate for Safe Schools/anti-discrimination laws/gay parenting? There wouldn’t be, but that’s the logical conclusion of your argument.

    • Often wish there was a LIKE on this blog.

      Seriously AMF et al : please let us vote on what we are actually voting on.Seriously….

      The respectful and rational arguments against redefinition that were read out to us at church this weekend are so far removed from what you are saying that I often wonder whether we are in the same book. let alone on the same page.

      The rest of the time I’m fairly sure we are not. And I have chosen my book. (hint: it’s the one that often features the words: Be Not Afraid).

      By the way AMF you do realise that under the current law any two people can marry providing they identify legally as being of ‘opposite’ genders?

      • AJ

        Two people of the opposite ‘sex’ are currently allowed to marry, Margaret. If you read the Safe Schools Resources, they’ll explain to you the difference between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’.

        • AJ my understanding is that eligibility to marry would depend on gender assigned at birth unless a legal change had already been made.This may not correspond to their current gender identification but until they have made a legal change they may marry according to the identity assigned at birth.

          • AJ

            Once again, you’re confusing ‘Sex’ and ‘Gender’ Margaret. Sex is biological fact – that is what the current Marriage Act is based upon. It doesn’t matter if you ‘feel’ like a woman, if you have the biological traits of a man, you are a man in Marriage Law. Two people with the biological traits of a man cannot marry each other in Australia. That’s why they want to change the law to say ‘two people’ and introduce Gender Theory into the Marriage Act.

          • I am simply referring to the current legal situation.To my knowledge this does not depend on an examination of biological traits but on the content of one’s birth certificate unless this has been superseded by further documentation.

            Thus Alex, registered at birth as male but now (legally) identified as female, may not under the current law marry Alice.

            Prior to the change of legal identity Alex may however do so. And Alex’s marriage to my knowledge remains valid even subsequent to a change of legal identity.

            Please advise if this interpretation is incorrect.

          • AJ

            God dammit, Margaret.

    • Sue

      Hey, Nick you’ve got it in one!

  3. Many people realising the content of gender theory is as futile as same sex marriage. Build strong families who stay together for successful future.

  4. The first couple we have ever heard about were ADAM & EVE not ADAM & STEVE
    please consider that

  5. I didn’t notice your quote in the document. There is no mention of sex or gender anywhere. Just ‘2 people’ instead of ‘a man and a woman’. Did you actually read the proposed bill? The Marriage Amendment Bill is about changing the definition of marriage, not about giving you the opportunity to go on a disrespectful tirade about how you think gender and sex should work.

    • AJ

      It’s Point 2 of the General Outline Judi: “Throughout this Explanatory Memorandum, reference is made to ‘same-sex
      marriage’. The term ‘same-sex marriage’ should be read to include a marriage of two people
      regardless of their sex or gender, where the union is not that of a man and a woman”
      Can you point out the tirade? Referencing true events that are actually happening right now around the world is merely reporting facts. If you think these happens sounds ‘tyrannical’ vote no!

    • Judi this was taken from a radio interview with Lesbian Activist Masha Geeson, at least she is speaking plainly and truthfully about it. Honestly I don’t think even our Gay community would want to be a part of this plan, they are lied to too, under the banner “marriage equality”.
      When I read the article above I could see why, because they have created something for themselves, it benefits them, covers up things that are not the natural way of doing things so to speak, and are pushing their preference on us, us who are happy with the way things have been.

    • Why only ‘2 people’ , why not include the polygamous , polyandrous or even the bisexual who may wish more than one partner ? Anything but full inclusion of all who wish to wed is simply continuing the discrimination isn`t it?

      • Dear (Anon)
        The possibilities you raise appear to have no value to the community in general and are therefore unlikely to receive community support.

        That is the crux of the matter.Many people consider that granting full legal recognition to stable same sex relationships will benefit the community as a whole.
        Some of us believe there are better ways of achieving this than widening the traditional definition of marriage.

        Perhaps you would like to make a constructive contribution to this important debate.

      • Correction. Bisexuals means you are attracted to both sexes, but has no impact on whether someone is monogamous. Bisexuals are usually interested in a monogamous relationship, but are attracted to both.

      • If you are not religious, you have no legal grounds to say no and it is discrimination. But what is wrong with discriminating against people that want to wed? We discriminate against under 18s, and people marrying their siblings. To the people that argue for marriage equality, against discrimination, giving people the exact same rights, and that love is love, I ask this. If I replace the words ‘same sex marriage’ with ‘family marriage’ are you going to discriminate against me?

  6. I don’t know why you insist on suggesting that marriage equality has anything to do with Marxism- you clearly know nothing about Marxism at all – a particularly morally puritanical doctrine. Can you explain why you think ME is Marxist.

  7. Same sex marriage is nothing but another stepping stone in the marxist’s agenda to tear apart the social structureof the West ,, and eventually bring the West to Communism. Vote YES for this , and eventually that is what you will get.
    And for those who live the communist dream,, get some facts, get your heads out of the sand , and show some appreciation for the work and effort that has given you the life you live.

  8. Let’s all just use sign language. That should do it.

  9. Please encourage people to look at the files here: – especially the file “What gay marriage did to Massachusetts”….which now has a Chinese version ….please encourage Chinese friends to check.

  10. Thanks you for clarifying this important issue -there are dangerous times with grave consequences if marriage is changed from between man and 1 woman in Australia

  11. I agree with almost everything on this website and I will be voting ‘No’.

    But I want to comment on the statement, “the Marxist Agenda playing out before us”. I think this statement is very erroneous.

    I studied the writings of Karl Marx in a university class more than 30 years ago. Homosexual marriage was never on his agenda. He was all about the economic structure of society and his agenda was to promote state ownership of the major means of production such as factories. I recall that he did advocate the equality of males and females but that’s about as far as he went on this topic.

    The words that should have been used in the article above are, “the totalitarian agenda playing out before us”. Marxism, as it was put into practice in the Soviet Union, China etc. was totalitarian, i.e., it involved total state control of people’s thoughts and actions. But fascism, for example in 1930’s Germany & Italy was also totalitarian.

    If you look at who is pushing this homosexual agenda today, you’ll see groups and organizations such as the BBC and the Economist magazine in Britain, and the ABC in Australia etc. These groups are definitely not Marxist and in fact are pro-privatization. Therefore, to say that the promotion of this homosexual agenda is a “Marxist Agenda” is very erroneous.

    • AJ

      Perhaps Safe Schools co-founder and Marxist, Roz Ward best sums up the connection between Marxism, Safe Schools & Same-Sex ‘Marriage’: “To smooth the operation of capitalism the ruling class has benefited, and continues to benefit, from oppressing our bodies, our relationships, sexuality and gender identities alongside sexism, homophobia and transphobia.

      “Both serve to break the spirits of ordinary people, to consume our thoughts, to make us accept the status quo and for us to keep living or aspiring to live, or feel like we should live, in small social units and families where we must reproduce and take responsibility for those people in those units.”

  12. Yes, I understand where you are coming from. Organized “socialism” and leftist organizations today have been taken over by a certain political agenda. Vladimir Lenin is reported to have said that the best way to combat the opposition is to lead it ourselves and i believe that’s what has happened to traditional socialism.

    Personally, I believe the current agenda that masquerades as socialism is in fact fascist, not Marxist. To give another quote, Mussolini said fascism is the amalgamation of corporations and government.

    What purports to be socialism today is a distortion of Marxism. For example, the same groups pushing homosexual marriage also push the man-made global warming agenda (hoax). If you investigate the political agenda behind the man-made global warming movement, it leads back to the investment bankers of The City of London and Wall Street.

    I don’t want to turn this comments page into a discussion of political ideologies but I’ll just finish by saying that Marxism was basically an economic theory, far removed from the social engineering agenda that we see today.

  13. Brian Gerrish, in England, talks about much of what I mentioned above in the following video – .

    The video title is, “Brian Gerrish at Bilderberg 2013; Exposing Common Purpose”. I like the way he says, near the end of the video, “Marxist-type ideology mixed with corporatism”, not “Marxist”. His website is UK column News and he produces video reports daily. He and his co-host are on vacation at the moment, for two weeks.

  14. Brian Gerrish, in England, talks about much of what I mentioned above in the following video – .

    The video title is, “Brian Gerrish at Bilderberg 2013; Exposing Common Purpose”. I like the way he says, near the end of the video, “Marxist-type ideology mixed with corporatism”, not “Marxist”. He has a youtube page called UK Column and he produces video reports daily. He and his co-host are on vacation at the moment, for two weeks.


  16. Though they were not the first proponents, (and certainly not the last), to do so both Marx and Engels supported anti-family ideology. Marx saw the nuclear family as foundational to the maintenance of much of what he opposed in western capitalism. SSM is rightly associated with Marxist ideology by those who understand the social/sexual revolution we are suffering. To initiate radical social change the nuclear family must be disempowered and deconstructed.
    The current debate is inclusive of those who can see no further than the expressed desires of a same sex attracted loved one and there are those who wisely look further and see what is really happening; that ‘equal’ just like ‘love’ and ‘phobia’ and ‘hate’ and ‘family’ have been kidnapped and are now showing serious signs of suffering from Stockholm syndrome.

  17. WAR AGAINST CHILDREN – sexual education Agenda
    Please encourage people to look at the files here:

  18. Teo

    Russian Bolshevik AND SEXUAL REVOLUTION; Marxist dogmas
    I mention that the translation was done on google
    It is known little or no that the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution established the first sexual revolution known in the history of officially imposed humanity by a state. He demolished, in a relatively short time, the traditional values of family, marriage, and sexuality.
    It was a radical revolution, but fortunately short one.
    After only a few years, the Bolsheviks realized that their experiments with new sexual morals cause social decline and immediately put an end to them.
    In contrast, however, the contemporary Western governments also institutionalize the new sexual order without taking into account its destructive effects.
    On the contrary, transforms the new sexual morals into human rights.
    The Bolsheviks learned their lesson early, and this is also manifested in the official positions of Russian Communists who, in recent decades, have distanced themselves from Marx and Engels’s family and marriage theories, and reject the positions of Western communists on homosexual marriages. They are, paradoxically, a bastion of marriage and traditional family.
    Wilhelm Reich and the Sexual Revolution
    The little-known details of the Bolshevik sexual revolution were found in a book with an equally suggestive title, The Sexual Revolution, published by German Wilhelm Reich in the 1920s and revised in the 30’s and 40’s of the century last. Reich visited the Soviet Union in 1929, being one of the few western psychologists who had the luck to visit the Soviet Union in Stalin’s time, and to see for himself the implementation of the new communist sexual ideology and then its collapse. About the Reich and the Sexual Revolution we intend to write more extensively in the coming months, his book being particularly fascinating and informative and containing particularly interesting data about the 20th and 30th century sexual revolution of the past century.
    Reich devotes more than half of the book to the rise and decline of the Soviet sexual revolution. He begins his observations lamenting that Stalin re-criminalized homosexuality in 1934. The homosexuals, who were more in the Soviet army, were arrested, sentenced and incarcerated. Until 1934, Western sex reformers, carriers of Western Western sexual rebellion standards, praised the Soviet Union for its “progressivism” in sexuality and the breakdown of the natural family. And the abortion. At the beginning of their revolution, the Bolsheviks legalized abortion, but until the years of Stalinism it was increasingly restricted until it was abolished altogether. After the revolution, Soviet women could interrupt their pregnancy at will for up to 3 months of pregnancy. Abortion has become so widespread that, according to Soviet statistical data, 50,000 abortions were made annually in Moscow’s main hospital. Some women were aborted 15 times during their lifetime, and some twice as much as 3 times a year. For the Soviets, abortion had become a contraceptive method.
    Since the 1930s, abortion has changed radically. Soviet ideologues began to call abortion a “criminal and immoral act”, a consequence and reflection of the moral decline and sexual liberty of the 20s. They began to point out the physical and emotional damage to abortion women, to publish statistical data on mortality Abortion women, and warn about the dangers associated with abortion procedures, especially infections and perforation of the uterus. The Soviet woman’s duty, they commented, is to be the mother and to give birth to the children needed to build socialism and communism. The Soviet ideology’s arguments against abortion were also adopted by conservative movements called Reich Reaction Western Europe of the 30’s and 40’s. In Germany, for example, Reich writes, women have collected millions of signatures for a petition against legalizing abortion.
    “Desexualization” of the Soviet youth
    If at the beginning of the Bolshevik Revolution young Russians enjoyed “sexual freedom”, until 1932 this “liberty” was suppressed. A resolution of the Bolshevik Congress of 1932 called for the ” desexualization ” of the Soviet youth. ” Desexualization ” also resulted in banning abortion for the first pregnancy, so that starting with the second Soviet Five-Year Plan, the first pregnancy of each woman could no longer be interrupted. ” Desexualization ” also meant re-penalizing homosexuality. At the time, homosexuality was punished with years of hard work. The Bolsheviks deincriminated it, Soviet Russia being the first country in the world, it seems, that deincriminalized sodomy. Sweden deincriminalized it in 1944. Initially, the Bolsheviks saw in sodomy an act of scientific interest, not immoral or against nature. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia presented homosexuality as a normal act being explained from the perspective of Freud and Magnus Hirschfeld.
    In March 1934, however, sodomy was again outlawed. It was regarded as a “barbaric” act, an example of “lack of culture”, a “clue of degeneration of bourgeois culture.” In January of the same year the Soviets arrested mass homosexuals in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and Odessa. Among those arrested were artists, musicians, playwrights and army officers. Punishment for sodomy has become very harsh, between 3 and 8 years of jail, depending on age. The Soviet press launched a campaign against homosexuality, alluding to “homosexual orgies” in the Western fascist world. Gorky also wrote on the subject, commenting that while in “fascist countries, homosexuality destroys youth and spreads without being punished,” in countries where “the proletariat has come to power homosexuality has been declared a social crime and it is Severely punished “.
    Similarly, if in 1918 the Bolsheviks put an end to “forced marriages”, until 1932 the legislation against them was abrogated. Also, if at the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution schools became responsible for the sexual education of children, by the end of the 20’s sex education became again the responsibility of the parents. So are parental rights. In the early years of the Bolshevik Revolution, the children had been completely confiscated from their parents, their education being in the hands of the state, a slowed practice in the late 20th. Reich concludes that the regression of the sexual revolution has given rise to a moral autoritarianism of traditional values in the Soviet Union. The return of the Bolsheviks to traditional moral values influenced the French communists who in the 1930s also rejected the Marxist dogmas about family and sexuality, emphasizing the French family as a guarantor of German revanchism. Similarly, writes Reich, the Bolsheviks influenced the thinking of the Nazis and Italian fascists, who in turn promoted the primacy of family and natural marriage and the traditional sexual values for European civilization.
    Dissolving the family
    The sexual revolution in the Soviet Union began, says Reich, with the dissolution of the family as an institution. Tsarist family and marriage law was, almost word-for-word, taken from the Bible. The husband had the obligation to love his wife as his own body, to live with her in harmony, to care for her and to help her in case of illness. The wife was obliged to listen to her husband. Parental rights were guaranteed, parents acknowledging the right to children, raising them and educating them. They also had the right to discipline them in case of disobedience, or to send them to the correction school for extreme or antisocial behavior. Adolescents who did not follow the disciplinary measures applied by their parents could even be put in jail for up to 4 months.
    The process of dissolving the family was painful and chaotic. It was launched in December 1917 when Lenin published the pamphlet “About the Family’s Extinction,” and then the pamphlet “About Marriage, Children, and Marriage Records.” Czarist family laws, family relationships, and parent-child relationships have been abolished. Men were deprived of their dominant position in the family. The wife is given the right to determine her own name, domicile or nationality. Reich sees in this the dissolution of patriarchal authority by the Bolsheviks.
    Trotsky discussed the dissolution of his family in a pamphlet written by him in 1920. Divorce was legalized. On demand. Marriage and family formation were no longer public acts but became purely private events. The man and the woman could form a family without the consent of the state. They formed family relationships and they dissolved them without the interference of the state and at their own liking. They were not obliged to register their family relationships with officials. It was a similar practice to civil partnerships that have been legalized over the last decades in Europe, but which must be registered for recognition by the state. The Bolshevik partnerships, however, could be dissolved as easily. If the man no longer wanted to live with the woman, she could leave her, and she did the same without pleading any special reason. Family and marriage were also undermined by the decriminalization of adultery. Sexual relationships with third parties were not forbidden. At the break, the husband was not obliged to pay the woman social welfare, nor did she.
    Adolescents were allowed to live in communities specifically designated for joint life where sexual freedom was provided. In sexual collectives, as they call them Reich, there were no sexual inhibitions. There were no parents or authorities to tell young people that sexual intercourse also required restraints and responsibility from partners. The family was abolished because Marx had asked for it, a prime objective of the social revolution, he said, being the abolition of the family. Sexual life in youth communities has become so disorganized that Lenin is called “chaotic” at some point. Their sexual relations transformed the Soviet Union, he said, into a “bourgeois house of tolerance”. The new normality of Bolshevik youth’s sexual relations “has nothing to do with freedom to love as we understand,” said Lenin, adding that the sexual revolution turned out to be a real “disaster for many boys and girls.”
    Rehabilitation of marriage
    The decline of marriage and family began to recover after 1925. A new legislation on family and marriage was initiated, justified due to the consequences of the social disintegration of the first years after the revolution. Bolshevik Propaganda started action in favor of the family. Young people living in sexual groups began to be told about sexually transmitted diseases and girls were told that abortion is not healthy, involves risks, and that it is healthier for a woman to give birth than to abort the unborn child. Women had to make requests for abortion, and special committees were supposed to approve them.
    Soviet cinema has also come to support the traditional family. There were films that commemorated the conventional family. A special success was the film “Peter Winogradow’s private life” portraying the happiness of marriage life. Pravda, the Soviet Communist newspaper, has also released a series of articles titled “In the Soviet Union family is a grand and serious thing.” Comments like “Only a family man can be a good Soviet citizen” have been published in youth magazines. The notion that family or marriage is a bourgeois institution has been countered. And the role of sexuality in family life has been diminished, the main role being attributed to love. The comments in the press accentuated the notion that the “family base must be love not satisfying sexual needs”. Increased abstinence, monogamy, and natural and normal sexual relationships.

    • Very ineresting post.
      I’ve read that they were the first to allow no fault divorce… and the West followed suit. Since then the governments in the “West” as well as us Aussies in the South East have been weakening the institute of Marriage.

      We could learn from our Russian friends’ experience instead of pushing it further and making it worse..
      They must be laughing at us .

  19. It is time to stop decrying the outcome if same sex marriage wins the vote and instead be thinking about how to ensure that the No vote succeeds. If the same sex lobby claim that 70% of voters support same sex marriage is correct then we have to convince about one third of supporters to change their mind. Time is short and we are not going to change those who are ideologically committed to voting Yes. We have to concentrate on the larger number of people who are simply sympathetic to the equal love plea. A lot of people are in that category in my circle, including my wife and married children and close friends. They would rather err on the side of compassion, and do not think that there can be any harm from allowing same sex couples to marry. Few of these people are church goers. Appeal to the biblical basis of marriage will only confirm to them that religious objections are out of touch with modern life. Similarly, scare tactics will not work; they may even be seen as hatred and bullying. Here is how I would try to get the all important reasonable and compassionate people to think again. It is a car sticker and letterbox flyer campaign. I would have 10s of thousands of us displaying the stickers and putting the flyers in letterboxes in our neighbourhoods.

    My sticker would proclaim:

    “YES! to same sex unions. NO! to same sex marriage”

    My intention is that this will act as a lead in to the letterbox flyer. The flyer would be:

    “YES! to same sex unions. NO! to same sex marriage.

    A photo of a traditional bride.

    Marriage has for all time past meant the union of male and female that passes on life to future generations. It is what parents look forward to when their children marry. Those who do not want to unite with the opposite sex and pass on life should also have their unions legally and equally recognized. And they can. In 2009 the Australian parliament amended 85 laws to give same sex couples full equality with marriage.

    So why do those who do not want to unite with the opposite sex and continue human existence demand the word that means what they do not want? To do so would take away the meaning that marriage has had across all cultures since the beginning of civilization. Should marriage officially have nothing to do with the fact that men and women pass on life when they unite with each other? Why do that when so many laws have been changed so as to not disadvantage same sex unions?
    A photo of a mother , father and children and grandparents.

    Marriage is more than just the love of the two people for each other.

    YES! to same sex unions. NO! to same sex marriage”

    My logic is that the same sex marriage lobby is led by aggressive male activists who do not want it known that perfectly adequate legal recognition for their unions exists; they will fight tooth and nail against that path. I want to break the grip that they have on marriage as the only option for recognition of same sex unions. I think that if it were not for the aggressive male activists, civil unions introduced in a matter of fact low key way would have been welcomed by many people in same sex relationships.

    I would donate $2000, perhaps more, to such a sticker and flyer campaign.

    • Thank you!
      As always…

      I wanted mine to say EQUALITY NOT MARRIAGE. But i prefer yours. And I also understand that mine would simply trigger yet another set of not especially relevant arguments.

      Seriously one of my local church leaders, a man of extraordinary intelligence and wisdom (sadly the two do not always coincide) first suggested in mid 2015 that the solution was to lobby for civil union legislation.

      Sadly I have felt like a voice in the wilderness in promoting his idea.Nor do I feel able to provide further amplification of his name and position on this site or similar sites, which is perhaps even sadder. Or even to provide any further identification of myself or the organisation in which I have been trying to promote the idea.

      The response from Chris Green is entirely predictable and what I would have feared. To him I would say that preserving marriage does not mean bottling it in a hermetically sealed jar and placing it on the pantry shelf as a reminder of our own moral worth.It means cherishing it so that it can be passed on to our descendants as we received it. Maybe a little scratched and dented, but only because we love it and value it for what it means to us in everyday life.

      My own colleagues are not in any sense of the same mind as Chris, but they feel themselves powerless and afraid.Defensive perhaps…

      I am sure you are right about the activists, though i see this mainly as male warrior logic (we must in principle WIN this battle). Sadly the same applies to ‘our’ side too in many cases.The constant change in tactics is part of this mindset.

      I also observe daily on social media that even on ‘our’ side there is almost universal support for the solution you propose, and that in the marriage equality camp (sorry…) the emphasis is consistently on equality rather than marriage (predictably very little reflection on what marriage actually means at a deeper level and j=how sad it is that we have done nothing to fill that void).

      I feel real grief at the way in which defenders of marriage have conducted and continue to conduct the campaign. Fear is rarely a good basis for a campaign that succeeds in the long term, and for Christians it is a very strange tactic indeed. I am constantly reminded of propaganda films from WW1 in particular, and we all know that did not ‘end well’ in the longer term.

      Thank you again.

      PS I have a strong suspicion you are not a naive teenager.Me neither…Though in celebrating my 50th wedding anniversary shortly I do claim to have been a child bride.

  20. To Davis S:

    I think you misunderstand the mentality of the majority of the people who read this website. I’ll speak for myself but I think many other readers would agree with what I will write.

    Legalizing homosexual marriage is much more than simply a matter of “love”. That’s probably what teenagers think this is all about. It’s about much broader and deeper issues of changes to our society including the compulsory education of our children in public schools. One major issue is that legalized homosexual marriage will encourage and facilitate babies to be born specifically for adoption by homosexual couples. It is my view and that of most other readers here that to bring a child into the world for this purpose and to bring them up in such a situation is an unkind act to commit on another person. Not only that, we believe it WILL weaken the traditional family values and family structure of our society, especially over a time scale of several generations.

    You suggest we have stickers that say, “YES! to same sex unions. NO! to same sex marriage”. Who are you trying to fool? We recognize the reality that some homosexual couples form long-term unions and it is simply a matter of fairness to afford them the same legal benefits that laws such as taxation and inheritance laws give to legally married and de-facto married heterosexual couples. But few readers here would feel like enthusiastically shouting from the rooftops, “Yes! to same sex unions!” We recognize reality but we are not going to actively promote it!

    It’s quite suspicious that you quote your little sticker slogan at least three times. I am not a naive teenager and I imagine most other readers here are not, either.

    • Chris you may well be right that both David S and I have mistaken the mentality of the majority of people who read this website.

      Can’t speak for David but I for one am weeping over Jerusalem.

      Peace and blessings

  21. Margaret hi,
    Long time since we crossed keyboards! I hope you are well!
    Margaret not much has changed in our positions. You see mentality, I see reality. You see scare I see aware. You speak of a wise man but in the current social climate ‘wisdom’ it could be argued, is analogous to whoever tickles one’s ear. I have no doubt that any attempt on your behalf to enact civil union legislation would see you on the nasty end of the ‘mentality’ of the LGBTQI movement. They are not interested in civil union legislation, they are after marriage. They are after destroying everything it stands for and as we have seen with our Parliament doing their job and voting on this issue 16 times already, they will not take no for an answer. This is a social/ sexual revolution! Nice is nice like love is love…..puerile platitudes!
    You weep over Jerusalem. I weep over the children who will reference that book you mentioned and realise that whilst preaching ‘love is love’ the state removed their equality, their right, to uphold or transgress like every other child against one of that book’s commands….Honour your mother and your father!

    • Good post Tony, you got me thinking. To honour your father and mother is one of the bases of human society, as we would not exist without our parents union.
      But how does a person honour their mother and father if they are a product of a various parents, I wonder? I know it’s a problem already in broken families, foster children and adoptees, but there is no need to encourage it. And now they are trying to tell us we should honour our mothers and fathers (plural) and honour a future state legislation that they think will eventuate, where having multiple parents is the norm.

      We all know every person has one biological mother and one biological father.
      The lgbtq mob can’t (or refuse) to see the difference.

      I think it is telling when the activists like Bill Shorten say, “SSM will be accepted”, instead of letting us have our own opinion on the matter. So what he is saying is,- if the majority vote NO, he will push it through anyway through his government

      • I think gay marriage should be legalised

    • Hi Tony
      Good to meet again…
      With respect I think i may be the realist here. We cannot win using the tactics we have collectively adopted.Just possibly we might win this phase of the battle but tomorrow…

      Victory in our time: well I guess we thought that in 2004.

      And as for the war as a whole: I think not.

      Could we have won with different tactics? I honestly believe we could. Of course I take your point that civil unions would have been perceived as unacceptable by activists.But surely it is’t the activists we were ever trying to convince. We were trying to convince members of the LGBT community (and there is clear evidence that many would choose civil unions for themselves even if they claimed the right to marry)..And we were also trying to convince members of the general public.Quite frankly i think we have now lost their respect

      And if we had copped the ‘nasty end’ of our opponents’ mentality: well with due respect why not? Isn’t that what we are told to expect as Christians? I really do not understand why that point is ignored, or why we should expect favoured treatment from the rest of society.

      As to who reads the book: well obviously not many.And in particular not many of the children of the parents who now marry in purely civil ceremonies.On 2015 figures that is at least three quarters of those who choose to marry at all, and the figure is rising every year.

      I’ll be delighted to meet you back here next year and be told i got all this wrong.

  22. DAVID S.
    Are we losing the battle? We need stickers everywhere with plain messages.
    What do you think of this one?


  23. Marriage “equality” …thanks to those writers who remind us about the current laws that already exist regarding same sex unions & the equality it ALREADY provides a same sex couple. Sticking to the topic of the plebiscite!

    If a same sex couple believe “love” is “love” then why not sign up, commit to be united as one!
    Have a celebration, adopt, organise a surrogate… who knew that it is already legal to do all these things.

    Oh, you want more….marriage-No.
    “Marriage” by definition is uniquely designed for male & female as God intended in his creation.

    In 6 of our 8 states & territories there are already laws/Acts that give same sex couples ALL the privileges of a married couple ….by registering their relationship.
    In QLD it is a Civil Partnership & other states there is a relationship register, which then also enables adoption & surrogacy.
    The Northern Territory & Western Australia same sex couples are covered by proving a de facto relationship!

    So…. who knew these equalities already exist?
    Why isn’t this broadcasted?

    Can this organisation highlight the facts that already exist for registered same sex couples- BEING, They can formally have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple.

    Would you please educate all Australians on what some of these laws/Acts are regarding same sex unions, that have already existed for years?

    Why vote yes? I can only vote NO.

    • Donna to cut a very long story short: we need a national scheme.
      And it needs to give the same level of recognition as is afforded by the ACT civil union scheme and the Queensland civil partnership scheme.

      Australia currently fall short of the level of recognition that is recognised internationally (eg by the European Court of Human Rights) as a human right.

      And our failure to acknowledge and remedy this is going to cost us dearly.

      Even if not in December 2017 in a very few years..

      It did not have to be this way.

  24. Chris, thank you for your strong critique, at least it lets me know that I am not talking to thin air. I did wonder whether the stickers should have the No part first or leave out the Yes part altogether. But I wanted to lure the target audience, those whom I call the reasonable compassionate people who on balance would vote Yes because of the years of pleading the equal love case. Having got their attention I want put into their minds the question why people who do not want the prime function of marriage should have its title, especially since so many laws have been changed to give them “marriage equality”. Finishing the flyer with a photo of a family from grandparents to grandchildren and a caption saying “Marriage is more than just the love of two people for each other” was to reinforce that marriage involves much more than the life-long mutual admiration pact between two people (teenage love as you term it) that seems to be the same sex idea. Anything suggesting the intense disapproval that you have would be an instant turn off to the people whom I am trying to communicate with.

  25. Margaret, thanks for once again supporting my ideas. I am not at all surprised that you had a go at the same thing. We seem to have the same balance between marriage to be preserved as the most important institution in civilization and respect for other relationships. I really do think that we should be putting up suggestions as to how to win the vote. We need a whole range of tactics, mine is just one. I tried to approach the task logically. We have to assure the support of the middle ground and forget about arguments that appeal to those who are immovably committed either way. Another sticker and flyer campaign that could contrast the difference between marriage and same sex unions is the sacrifice that a woman makes in marrying and bearing children. At the height of her health, beauty and opportunities in life she undergoes disfigurement of her body, risks her health and her life and endures pain and discomfort. Without that self sacrifice, human existence would cease in a generation. That is a sacrifice for the sake of the human race that a man cannot cause to happen to another man or a woman cannot cause to happen to another woman. In other walks of life we eulogise those who put their lives at risk for the sake of others. Bringing a child into the world should be no different. Keeping the word marriage to mean male – female union carries with it the expectation of and reverence for commitment by a woman to self sacrifice in childbearing. Contrast that with male homosexual couples who clearly regard the sacrifice of a woman’s body irrelevant to their acquiring children through surrogates. Yes, I am no teenager. We had our 50th wedding anniversary years ago and perhaps my earliest memory is of my mother standing near the foot of the stairs and looking over the banister and wondering to me whether it was better to leave the beds upstairs or to bring them downstairs if we were bombed during WW2. So, I am 10 or more years older than you.

    • Thanks David.
      To be honest thinking of the issue tonight I am feeling something far too close to despair for comfort. The tactics being advocated by most cannot possibly succeed and I almost think do not deserve to succeed. And then what…?

      So we lose marriage in the sense we understand it. Perhaps that is no more than we collectively deserve. I do not think the emerging definition is entirely without merit but what I see has been lost is in a way closely linked to what you are saying. The sacrifice of which you speak (which is mirrored I would say in the commitment of a man to his family) comes from one ‘moment’ of pledging, of passing from one ‘state of life’ into another.

      In marriage we enter church in one state and we leave it in another. From observation that is not at all how even heterosexual couples now view the marriage ceremony, even if it is a religious one. Instead they celebrate and publicly witness to an existing relationship.
      There is value in that, and I do see comparable value in a genuinely committed and faithful same sex relationship and think it merits full legal recognition. But it is not marriage.
      To see a marriage ceremony as a matter of acquiring a licence for certain behaviours was never in my view a very positive view of marriage (though probably fairly standard in the era in which I married). So in that context the view we have of the morality or otherwise of certain behaviours may not be as defining an element as we think.

      “Losing” marriage is bad enough, but what I now fear perhaps even more is the consequences of the tactics we have chosen. I think Tiernan Brady made a very telling point in that recent interview also featuring Lyle Shelton and felt sad when Lyle said something to the effect that it’s not primarily about marriage. Can we really not make a case for marriage that stands on its own merits? Do we have to rely on raising secondary issues?

      But now those secondary issues have been raised, I think there is a strong possibility of a self fulfilling prophecy. Religious freedom in terms of the rights of Churches and ancillary institutions to employ staff are the main danger area. Teaching programs and enrolment policies worry me less in the short term because they are more generally accepted as legitimate areas of decision for schools. But clearly since schools cannot run without receiving most of their income from public sources there is a long term danger there too,

      None of this was necessary. A very different campaign could have been run. Maybe it would not have succeeded, and maybe its success would have been only short term. But I believe we would have retained public respect, something we have now in my view lost.

      Not something we can regain. A sad legacy to leave to our children and grandchildren.

      • Margaret, and David S,

        The Australian Federal Parliament may decide to deregulate the civil “registered marriage” practice to include legal sodomy practice for a civil “registered marriage” as the marital act and this will support the scientific experimentation of human reproduction by normalising the placing of children with unrelated adult/s and children like in the “Handmaid Tales.” Christians and conservative married people don’t need to defend, maintain, support nor protect a deregulated civil “registered marriage” practice as this can become as immoral as the legal prostitution practice which registers sex workers and government authorities regulate the paid sex work for clients. The NSW Marriage Registry history showed evidence that the Australian parliament forced the Christian ministers to register all marriages in the NSW Marriage Registry in 1857 in order to keep accurate records for the illegitimacy of children and inheritance. Therefore, the the civil “registered marriage” practice was established to protect Australian communities from the harm of adultery, divorce and death because the breakdown of marriages and families are a massive cost for government, society and children suffer the most. However, progressive people believe “marriage isn’t about children” and only 0.01% of children live in a same-sex household according to the 2011 ABS census so a deregulated civil “registered marriage” practice hasn’t the fertility rate to survive into the future.

        Christians and conservative married people are wanting to understand the impact of deregulation for a civil “registered marriage” practice in Australia, and the way this will give them the freedom to separate from this practice by identifying as an “independent marriage” (ABS census – “separate but not divorced” – separate from a civil “registered marriage” practice but not divorced from a “one flesh” marriage). This will enable Christians and conservative married people the freedom for their marriage to not be regulated by the state so they can have their right to defend and maintain their public commitment to a lifelong, faithful “one flesh” marriage between husband and wife as they can naturally procreate, nurture and raise new-life (natural human reproduction). They want to support their spouse, children and family without welfare benefits, nor gain access to the Family Court as a legal divorce doesn’t deal with the harm of adultery. Also, they don’t need the status of civil “registered marriage,” nor do they believe natural human reproduction should be contaminated by scientific experimentation of human reproduction, and they don’t want a paper marriage nor a paper family. They want to protect their “one flesh” marriage and husband-wife-family from the harm of coveting-adultery-divorce as this leads to marriage/family breakdown which can cause family violence, corruption, dishonesty and even murder.

        David. S please don’t waste your money defending a civil ‘registered marriage” practice which was forced upon the Christian churches as this isn’t our “one flesh” marriage nor is it the foundation of our husband-wife-children family. A legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding ceremony has never been enough evidence for a genuine bonafide marriage but this will be the only evidence in a deregulated civil “registered marriage” practice. The Australian government authorities won’t be able to detect “sham marriages because they have rejected the genuine marriage as a relationship and living arrangement of a husband and wife because it is completely different to same-sex partners. The Australian Federal Parliament will eventually realise that there are more independent married couples who’s marriages aren’t regulated (controlled) by the state including their children and they can reject the deregulated civil “registered marriage” practice because it sodomises all civil “registered marriages.” People don’t belong to any legal practice when they don’t identify themselves with the behaviour practiced.

        Margaret, I don’t believe we’re leaving our children and grand-children a sad legacy because we’re exposing the misleading and dishonest sexual behaviours currently in the civil “registered marriage” practice which has encouraged and promoted fornication, adultery, sodomy, and the merry-go-around divorce which means multiple sexual spouses (a from of prostitution and serial monogamy). God created Adam and Eve and united them together in a “one flesh” marriage with no legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding ceremony. Please remember a civil “registered marriage” practice can only define a civil “registered marriage” as it doesn’t define a “one flesh” marriage nor a husband-wife-children family as this has been registered by the church and regulated by God’s word (The Bible).

        • Janine as noted in earlier discussions it is certainly possible that churches may choose to withdraw from acting as marriage celebrants on behalf of the state.
          It is also possible I imagine for an individual to ask their faith community for a ceremony that represents their being married in the eyes of God but does not actually qualify as a legal marriage.Originally marriage simply involved an exchange of vows before witnesses.

          However if they are not legally married my understanding is that they will be counted as a de facto couple. Certainly not as separated if they are living together.

          A couple choosing this option would certainly need to be aware of the possible complications, if not for themselves then for their children.

          None of this is my view absolves us from our responsibility as citizens and community members to engage in public debate and if appropriate give money as well as time to a cause that is of such significance for the future of our society as a whole.Even if we do not want to avail ourselves of the option of a legally recognised marriage or other form of relationship recognition we cannot simply withdraw from the debate on the basis that we believe we have found a solution for ourselves.

          • Margaret,

            My marriage is registered in the NSW Marriage Registry so I can’t claim to be in a defacto relationship but I can choose not to identify my “one flesh” marriage with the civil “registered marriage” practice by identifying as an “independent marriage” (ABS census – “separate but not divorced” – separated from the civil registered marriage practice but not divorced from my “one flesh” marriage) as I don’t have to defend, maintain, support nor protect a deregulated civil “registered marriage” practice which believes “marriage” has nothing to do with children, the marital act is legal sodomy and encourages a scientific experimentation of human reproduction.”

            The Australian Federal Parliament forced the Christian ministers to register all marriages so it is obvious that Australian citizens don’t have a duty to defend this practice as this practice is in the governments best interest even if citizens don’t like it. The Australian Federal Parliament will be monitoring any changes to the practice of the civil “registered marriage” practice via the ABS census and if they find millions of married couples have separated from the civil “registered marriage” practice then this will be of serious concern to the government because this will indicate they have lost control over regulating and registering marriages which naturally procreate, nurture and raise children. The government will then have to discuss with church leaders of ways to legitimise “independent marriages” from the civil “registered marriage” practice because these practices are extremely different.

            We can observe other practices such as nursing where the government had to change the regulations of practice in order to attract permanent registered nurses in order to protect the public from harm. There was a period of time when the Victorian government spent $20 000 000 on agency registered nurses which the state couldn’t afford. The Victorian government were desperate to get registered nurses to become permanent staff in a hospital network by improving staff to patient ratios and encouraged them to pickup extra work rather than the hospital had to pay for an expensive agency registered nursing staff. The Victorian government doesn’t own registered nurses nor their professional skills and knowledge but nursing authorities regulate a nursing practice by registering nurses. The Victorian government are considering the legal practice of assisted suicide/euthanasia by allowing registered nurses and medical doctors a legal right to kill patients/clients with their legal consent under Victorian law. Registered nurses and doctors understand this isn’t care nor treatment because if they did this practice to their own family members they would be charged with murder. The Victorian government wants to regulate the practice so registered nurses/doctors put the person’s terminal illness as the cause of death. The government doesn’t want the lethal drug being recorded as the cause of death despite the medical history shows the truth as it must give account for the drug which clearly documents that the healthcare practitioner legally killed the patient/client. It is impossible for the Victorian government to force healthcare practitioners to falsify medical records as these can be used in a Court in Australia. The Victorian government is extremely concerned about this impact of legal assisted suicide/euthanasia will have on the practice of nursing and medicine and especially the impacts on retaining and recruiting healthcare practitioners as they protect the public from harm.

            The government has got the Australian citizens worried about the deregulation of the civil “registered marriage” practice but they should be the ones worried because they’re losing control of the people as they go their own way and no longer follow the regulations because these no longer apply to their behaviour as I don’t want a paper marriage nor paper family.

          • Janine I don’t mean to be pedantic but separated means living apart.
            If you are living together you will officially be a de facto couple. A couple in fact but not in law (ie not in a legally recognised marriage).

            The government (NSW or elsewhere) did not force the clergy to register religious marriages.They offered to ministers of religion the opportunity to have their religious marriages automatically counted as legal marriages.In a country like France a religious ceremony has to be followed by a civil ceremony for a couple to be legally married (as in Australia they may of course simply choose a civil ceremony).

            I’m saying all of this not to be pedantic but simply to illustrate the point that there would be no problem at all in a particular church or denomination giving up their right to provide legally binding ceremonies. But people would need to know that they were not legally married and act accordingly.

            I don’t see how this would worry the government any more than other de facto relationships.

          • Margaret,

            I can’t claim to be in a defacto relationship because I am legally married as my marriage has been registered in the NSW Marriage Registry. I can choose to become separated or divorced. However, if the Australian Federal Government decides to deregulate the civil “registered marriage” practice in order to change it to legal sodomy for all civil “registered marriages” as the marital act then I have a right to separate my “one flesh” marriage from a deregulated civil ‘registered marriage” practice. The word “separated” currently means “living apart” but in a deregulated civil “registered marriage” practice it can mean “separated from this regulatory practice.” Same-sex partners identify as “husband and wife” on the ABS census and we’re constantly told words change their meaning. However, the word “defacto” are a couple who have never legally formalised their relationship so I can’t identify my legalised marriage with this definition. However, I agree with you that the government should be able to recognise a religious marriage which is totally separated from the civil “registered marriage” practice. The NSW Marriage Registry Website recorded the history of marriages in NSW which I believe is more accurate than your comments about the church ministers were offered to have religious marriage automatically legal as this doesn’t make any sense. The only marriages recognised were religious marriages and these were all legal under British law. The establishment of the NSW Marriage Registry was to keep accurate records for the illegitimacy of children and inheritance. Therefore, this civil “registered marriage” practice wasn’t established to create a religious marriage practice which would be treated as legal because these had been treated as legitimate marriages but it was established in order to protect society from the harm of adultery, divorce and death including suicide because the breakdown of a marriage and family is a massive cost for government, society and children suffer the most.

      • Margaret, when you say “We” have handled this debate wrong, I have to wonder who you are referring to as “WE”.
        You certainly don’t speak for me.
        You say it didn’t have to be this way. I think pining for the past will not help.

        You appear to oppose gay marriage and at the same time have a defeatist attitude that you have lost.

        Most posters here have not given up.

        • Mikel by ‘we’ I mean those of us opposed to the redefinition of marriage.
          We are collectively responsible for the tactics used .If only because we have not been sufficiently proactive in suggesting alternatives.

          I firmly believe that different tactics would have been more successful.And more honest. and more just to the community as a whole.
          The response here to David’s suggestion (and I respect his many contributions to the debate over the past year or more) has been very telling.

          As to whether I have (now) given up: I am in spite of what Tony may think a realist.

          Even if the NO vote prevails the chances of a Coalition victory in the next election are diminishing weekly.

          An ALP victory assures the introduction of SSM, probably with far fewer safeguards for religious freedom than we would achieve with a Coalition Bill. By our tactics we have now forfeited any real possibility of being able to exert an influence on the debate.Some of our tactics (and i am not referring to AMF here) have been morally reprehensible.

          If it looks like defeat and smells like defeat…it probably is defeat.


          Of course i freely admit I may be wrong.

  26. John, I think the battle is on a knife edge, we could easily lose and that is why I would like to see everyone suggesting brief messages that we could display in the 10s of thousands on our cars. We absolutely have to be equally visible for the general population to see that it is not only “bigots” and “haters” who oppose same sex marriage. I hope that the Coalition for Marriage are going to be sending out stickers. Yours is too long. I know what you want to bring home to all who see it.

  27. Janine, I certainly do not intend advocating same sex marriage with my sticker/flyer! I just want to let it be known to people sympathetic to same sex marriage that the Government has already done a great amount to give same sex couples equality with marriage, so why should same sex couples have the term marriage when they don’t want the core function of marriage. I think now that my sticker and flyer give a confused message.

    • David S,

      I believed Bob Katter summed up how you and many other Australian people like myself feel is that the LGBTIAQ party activists have stolen the word “gay” and the “rainbow” and now they demand the word “marriage.” The word “marriage” has never described the sexual behaviour between 2 men nor 2 women so it doesn’t make any sense. I want you to spend your money on your own marriage and family because the government owns and regulates the civil “registered marriage” practice like it owns the legal abortion practice and the legal prostitution practice. The Australian Federal Government decides what natural human behavioural practice it is going to regulate by registering people in order to protect our society from harm. I believe it is our responsibility as citizens to debate the issue but it is the responsibility of government to protect society from harm. Today (24/8/2017), The Age reported on a case where a step-dad has been sentence for a minimum of 15 years jail for debauchery of his step-children which has only been reported as an adult. The Judge claimed it was the worst case he had heard in over 30 years and declared the step-dad was “evil.” Unfortunately, the normalisation of placing children with an unrelated adult/child via the paper marriage and paper family means our society is going to witness more “evil.”

      Healthcare practitioners have to identify patients/clients who are in control of their mind from the patients/clients who are not in control of their mind in order to protect themselves and protect the patient from themselves and protect the public from harm. The LGBTIAQ party activists are behaving like patients/clients who aren’t in control of their mind such as psychosis/delirium. It is impossible to have a logical and rational debate with LGBTIAQ party activists as they’re like the psychotic or delirious patient who insists on their demands even if they don’t make any sense. It is impossible to convince them that 2 + 2 = 4 because they strongly believe it is 5 and everyone has been wrong since the beginning of time. A society which believes that psychosis or delirium should be included as a natural, normal and healthy experience means every sane person has to experience the insanity of patient’s/client’s psychosis/delirium. The mentally ill were deinstitutionalised and many were re-institutionalised so nobody should be surprised that the LGBTIAQ party activists are demanding the institute of a civil “registered marriage” practice. I have never experienced psychosis/delirium but people have told me that they felt quite scared by the experience as they were suicidal but they weren’t in control of it. It is extremely important that healthcare professionals never become manipulated and controlled by a psychotic and delirious patients/clients. Therefore, it is extremely important to separate from a deregulated civil “registered marriage” practice which has been established for LGBTIAQ people in or to speak the truth as this orientates them to reality. The LGBTIAQ party activist claim nothing has happen in the countries which have included a legal same-sex marriage, but they ignore the problems of Brexit, Donald Trump and the immigration problems throughout the western countries. People have claimed that they no longer recognise their own country. Also, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the AMA want doctors to regulate the health of LGBTIAQ people in a civil “registered marriage” practice because they believe stigmatisation and prejudice has been the main cause of LGBTIAQ people’s poor mental behaviour so they will be able to focus on other areas of their health. The LGBTIAQ party activists have absolutely refused other names because they want the word “marriage” for themselves.

      I believe, citizens of Australia like myself are extremely concerned about the state of our country and we want the best for our children and grand-children. We must continue to tell the truth in love as there are plenty of misleading and dishonest practices in our world. The Australian government will want to know why my family, extended family and community don’t want to be regulated by a deregulated civil ‘registered marriage” practice just like the Victorian government want to know why registered nurses weren’t applying for permanent work prior to the government introducing mandatory nurse/patient ratios.

  28. I am late to the party on this page. Interesting discussion on civil unions, but we need to remember that the LGBTIQ party is run by people closed to reason, who reject the self-evident witness of their own bodies, spurning the union of male and female DNA that’s literally written all over them.

    Trying to negotiate with dictators is futile. The policy of appeasement was a total failure. LGBTIQ dictators won’t be satisfied by civil unions, just as Hitler wasn’t satisfied with bits of Czechoslovakia. LGBTIQ dictators will never regard a civil union as equality, even if it has the same legal status as a civil marriage. Their LGBTIQ predecessors in Sodom were never going to satisfied with the offer of Lot’s daughters, even though they have the same body parts the mob wanted to abuse, as those of Lot’s male angel guests.

    Whatever laws Parliament makes, it’s our job to keep on strongly and effectively speaking the truth in love, and living it out in our own lives.

    God has already shown us the mental state of those screaming ‘homophobe’ and ‘bigot’. When the Yes vote won in the Sanhedrin, before they dragged Stephen away to stone him, and covered their ears and yelled at the top their voices (Acts 7:57) to stop themselves hearing the truth. When the Yes vote won at the riot in Ephesus, crowds were shouting, Great is Artemis of the Ephesians, but most of the people didn’t even know why there were there (Acts 19:32). When the Yes vote won on the first Good Friday, the mob shouted “Crucify him!”. When Pilate asked, Why, what crime has he committed?, they just shouted all the louder, “Crucify him! His blood be on us and on our children”.

  29. Karam, consider this: Eve was made from Adam’s rib (cloning) which would make her genetically a male… Or is it due to artistic license that we can call Eve female?

    • Michael

      Consider this: The Bible teaches that only descendants of Adam can be saved. For the purpose of salvation, Eve is a “descendant” of Adam too, because God made her from Adam’s side. There is no theological or scientific reason why Eve would have to be a clone of Adam, any more than Adam would have to be clone of the ground from which he was formed.

      Even if Eve were a clone of Adam, this wouldn’t make her male. Genesis 2:22 tell us that God made a woman from a piece of Adam’s side. To clone a female counterpart from Adam, God would have taken the existing genome of the male “rib”, removed its Y chromosome, and doubled its remaining X chromosome. Then Eve would be a clone of Adam, while also being the opposite sex.

      How does evolution explain a male and a female evolving in the same place at the same time to get the human race started? “Artistic license”, perhaps?

  30. What is not made clear in any of this discussion is whether or not the proposed changes to the Marriage Act will result it making it illegal for any person to say publicly that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
    Many people, probably millions, have believed all their lives that marriage is only between a man and a woman and the proposed change to the marriage act will not change their beliefs. Will the proposed changes to the Marriage Act mean that these people can no longer express their beliefs publicly (including social media) without breaking the law? If so, then we will have fixed one injustice by creating another. This will especially be the case if there are penalties for breach of the proposed changes to the Marriage Act. Do you know the answer to my question above?

    GULP, I sure hope that I am covered by ‘FREEDOM OF SPEECH”

    OKAY – SURE! the question asked of us is:

    “They claim that nothing major will change! rEALLY?
    JUST THINK … KEEP THINKING … a little more thinking ….. YES, SAW THE LIGHT BULB? E V E R Y T H IN G W I L L C H A N G E !
    The domino-effect of saying yes to this question goes for miles!!
    An end to many things as we have known for millenia … not a “doomsday, four white horses with riders” type of end, but a physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, moral sense.

    Heterosexual couples would probably all welcome the word MARRIAGE to continue to mean a union between naturally born male marrying a naturally born female.
    (Further to this, naturally reproduced little humans born out of this heterosexual couples unit, should/could/would continue to remain to be known as “children”.

    After all, it’s only the heterosexual couple that can actually MAKE and raise little humans …. and other-than-heterosexual-couples can only ACQUIRE and raise little humans.
    Heterosexual couples’ little humans can continue to be called “children” …. and perhaps, other-than-heterosexual-couples’ little humans can be called “offspring” …

    “Children” and “Offspring” will learn about all the differing types “Human Relationships and Interactions” … how all the differing types of “Human Relationships and interactions
    they go about things from GOOGLE first, ofcourse! … and then learn some more when they get to school.and then k …. apologies! Amazing thing to be inter-NETTED!

    Why should homosexual (GLTBQ) couples who want to unify, steal that MARRIAGE title, anyway?
    They are unique! Clearly they are are NOT THE SAME as a heterosexual couple …
    They’ve got a special unique flag with special colours already to show they are different … maybe heterosexuals should get a special flag too?

    I believe it would be a great idea for all types of human unions to have their very own special title/name/word to define that union.


    … a new name/title for male with male union,
    … a new name/title for female with female union,
    … a new name/title for transgender male with transgender male union,
    …a new name/title for transgender female with with transgender female union,
    …a new name/title for homosexual male with a transgender male union
    …a new name/title for homosexual female with a transgender female union

    ……… It’s not a “game”, but can you add to this list? it is getting tricky. There’s probably a few more combinations.


    … ALREADY TAKEN!!: The name/title for naturally born male with naturally born female is MARRIAGE
    … a new name/title for transgender male with transgender female union,
    … a new name/title for transgender female with transgender male union,
    … a new name/title for homosexual male with transgender male union,

    …….. Beginning to feel like A “game”, because it’s getting trickier, more complicated … There’s probably a few more combinations



    … father or mother with son relationships
    … father or mother with daughter relationships
    … uncle or auntie with nephew relationships
    … uncle or auntie with niece relationships

    ……. Better say “Game stops here” …


    and if so … accept the hundred, maybe thousands of laws that will need to be revised, re-written (as well as new ones added)
    and if so … accept to comply with these new laws and therefore be subject to primary, secondary and third degree consequences, including jail term?



    Is the planet heading for “no-one’s got a sex/gender” one … to prove that YES! WE CAN! be all EQUAL?
    The only way we can get this happening is if all humans wear a head-to-toe uniform where only the eyes show … and have our Human Number on a lanyard so other
    people recognise you!! Truly a stupid idea, because then we’d be arguing over what colour the lanyards should be.

    Hey, last thought …
    Let’s get rid of another thing (while we’re thinking about whether we should pull down some more historical statues).
    Instead of the flags for each COUNTRY, we could have planet COMMUNITY flags for each “RELEVANT” RELATIONSHIP/UNION.
    BUT ALREADY TAKEN!!! The Rainbow Flag.

  32. The majority of people who vote YES, would either be gay themselves, or, have no family, no children. This is a fact, no argument here. Same sex marriage is a stepping stone to other things, like the OP mentioned. Open your eyes people, think of the future, not just what the same sex marriage bill is about. Think further. Imagine in a few more years/decades, human-animal marriage is approved? Beastiliality is legal? Or what then, humans and robots? If people can marry same sex, why not animals? This is the same concept.

    Say NO, and leave it the way things are. Why care about the fragile human emotions? If its not meant to be, then its not meant to be. Humans were created with 2 different sex orgrans to reproduce, not 2 sticks, or 2 holes. Why legalize the holy act of marriage for something that cant consummate and produce offsprings?

    • you literally just compared two men or women in love to animals, and robots?! r o b o t s
      sorry if I didn’t know any better robots cant feel love or y’know any emotion ?
      just because people are gay doesn’t mean they’re animals. this actually disgusts me lol

      • All you YES voters fail to see the future impacts that SSM can bring. Yes Adam have over-exaggerated it a little, but does not mean it wont happen. 10 to 20 years into the future and things wouldnt seem so impossible.

        So, you are disgusted at the fact that humans and animals cant be together, it disgust more heterosexual people that same sex couples can even exist!

      • Michael

        Australian law no longer recognises biological humanity as a criterion for personhood. This is demonstrated by abortion law, which denies human rights to unborn human beings, because according to the law, they lack personhood. The amended Marriage Act allows any “2 people” to register a civil marriage, where “2 people” really means any two entities with personhood. Any two things which parliament endows with personhood, can be married. This would include robots, yes r o b o t s.

        Many Australians feel love or y’know, emotion for their robotic sex toys/dolls, which they find more exciting and satisfying than human partners. So why can’t an adult consenting sexual relationship between a human, and a humanoid sex doll, be granted marriage equality?

        You literally just denied marriage equality to men and women in love with animals and robots?
        Sorry if I didn’t know any better, but love or y’know, emotion, isn’t a legal requirement for civil marriage.
        Just because animals aren’t human doesn’t mean they’re gay. This actually disgusts me, lol. 😆

  33. –Please note that this is my personal opinion–
    Same Sex marriage will not change any thing. Same Sex marriage is just giving same sex couples the right to legally call themselves married. If we vote yes then we are setting up the children of our century the right to marry whoever they want when the are older. I know some may argue that if we have same sex couples then their children will also be part of the LGBTQI+ community however, as a member of the LGBTQI+ community I must say that is not right at all. My parents are Heterosexual. My sister and I are not. Let me ask you this my fellow humans, are we all humans? Shouldn’t we all have the same right to marriage? Don’t you want the same rights as the people all around you?

    I don’t care if you disagree with me but you need to hear OUR side too.
    APRIL 🙂

    • So the government just wasted millions of dollars on this survey, countless of hours of politician hours, and media resources, just so that the gay/lesbian people can feel good about getting married? Tell me i am wrong but dont you already have the defacto relationships under the Family Law Act for any legal purposes?

      At the end of the day, Australia has just made a worse decision for the sake of a community to feel good about themselves, WITHOUT considering any future implications this will have on the whole country.

    • Michael

      –Please note that this is my personal opinion–
      Harlot marriage will not change any thing. Harlot marriage is just giving same sex workers and their clients the right to legally call themselves married. If we vote yes then we are setting up the children of our century the right to marry whoever they want when the are older. I know some may argue that if we have sex worker and client couples then their children will also be part of the Harlot community. However, as a member of the Harlot community I must say that is not right at all. My parents are Heterosexual. My sister and I are not. Let me ask you this my fellow humans, are we all humans? Shouldn’t we all have the same right to marriage? Don’t you want the same rights as the people all around you?

      I don’t care if you disagree with me but you need to hear OUR side too.

  34. […] on in the campaign, we pointed out that the proposed Dean Smith bill actually included writing ‘Gender Theory’ into … and also did not provide adequate protections for freedom of conscience, religion and parental […]

Leave a comment