Brutish beasts know better than us

Mark Anthony imageOh dear. Speeches from politicians, keen not to offend any voter, are about to get a whole lot more tedious... It was enough, once, to introduce a political speech with "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears". Not now. Mark Anthony nailed it near the end of his speech, "O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, And men have lost their reason." Because brutish beasts know they only have two genders, as nature made them.


Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

14 Responses

  1. I will admit that this is quite funny. 🙂

    • And better yet all 60 are equally highly esteemed (sehr geehrte)…What more could one ask..?

  2. Biological gender is the only valid way to determine if you are male or female. There are definitely only two sexes. Gender is the state of being male or female. In terms of humans, it only damages people to deny their biological sex. There are so many transexuals who have undergone hormone and sex reassignment surgery who later regret it (and then it is too late). The whole idea that a person can be gender fluid or choose from an array of 60 different genders is completely without logical or reasonable basis and can only cause even more confusion (and more unnecessary political correctness).

  3. Western governments believe the God given rights (Human rights) like male, female, marriage, parenthood and pregnancy which has been given in nature and supported by culture can be exchanged for a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality,” legal abortion, IVF, surrogacy and hormone replacement and surgery. This has allowed courts in western countries to decide the meaning of gender, male, female, marriage – sexual union and parent, and life and death (bodily waste) of a neonate. The Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” removes a male and female sexual union which can create children. Therefore, American courts and other western legal system have legally removed children from their biological parent/s. The people in western countries are deciding to follow God’s marriage or a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality.” There is no unity between these extremely different types of marriages as one is defined by God and nature compared to the other defined by the Government/legal system. The Australian government can’t expect peace over this matter when the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators are demanding to use the word “marriage” which has never been used to define homosexual activities in Australia. Also, the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators want to force religious people to bless sodomy. A music artist can’t be made to play Christian music against their conscience. However, the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators want to gain special rights to make a Christian photographer (artist) perform against their conscience.

    I have witness the start of a civil war in America when I recently visited the USA, and the Brexit has made a lot of comments against “same-sex marriage,” and there has been significant resistant to same-sex marriage in France, Italy, Germany etc. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators try to claim that nothing has happened in countries which have allowed same-sex marriage, but I have lived and travelled across America, western Europe and the U.K, and people are no longer united as a nation. All across the western countries there are churches dividing over the issue of “sodomite” marriage. No Christian church wants to bless sodomy, but some churches are been forced by the government.

    When a body part such as anus, mouth, mind and hand are used against their function this is called abuse. Smoking and drinking alcohol are legal activities, but these activities aren’t promoted by government agencies because of the abuse associated with these activities. Australian law doesn’t make sodomy illegal between consenting adults. However, it is criminal to infect another person with HIV/AIDS without consent. Predominately, homosexual behaviours starts at a young age when they’re unable to consent to sexual activities. My child/teenage experiences of homosexual and transgender are there wasn’t any rules to consent or monogamy. Today, The Guardian has an article on the gay life-style which shows evidence that most gays aren’t monogamous. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators are going to have a fierce battle in trying to pretend the gay life-style is good and healthy like a marriage is suppose to be. Will the next generation want a Humanist “Marriage Equality” if it is as abusive as the gay life-style? This may explain the reason for swedish man-female couples are predominately not getting married. Why would Christian married couples want the Family Law Act of 1975 to define their relationships with sodomy? Christians don’t need to accept this “Mark of the Beast,” as we need to fight for our right not to identify our marriage with a Humanist “Marriage Equality” which has been supported by Michel Kirby. He may have been a judge in the highest court in Australia, but he can’t replace God’s authority on marriage.

    There are Aboriginal children whom don’t have a birth certificate, but no one would try to deny them from being Australian citizens. What country could anybody deport an aboriginal? The only place they have true citizenship is Australia. The birth certificate doesn’t define aboriginal, nor does a state marriage certificate define the purpose of marriage. If the government decides they’re going to create a Humanist “Marriage Equality,” then they will have to define this marriage, the purpose of this marriage and all the laws and regulations to this marriage. Why would any Christian couple want to freely enter this Humanist’s marriage and with the courts making them bless sodomy, and giving the courts the right to legally separate them from their biological children? There is no law in Australia requiring couples to get married. The booklet “Becoming Married” for pre-marital classes didn’t define marriage or give a reason for my husband and I to be married. I could clearly argue in court that I have never consented to having my marriage identified with a Humanist “Marriage Equality.” I can understand my german forefathers reasons for not having anything to do with the King’s state church. They decided to have non-legal marriage instead of blessing the King’s immoral acts, which is no different to blessing sodomy. I have nothing against gay people whom want to live freely in Australia, but they’ll never be able to exchange my true, traditional marriage for a Humanist “Marriage Equality.” We can never be equal on “marriage” because sexual activities aren’t the same as sexual intercourse to be called marriage. If the dictionary described a dog with 5 legs because the government forced people to accept a dog’s tail as a leg, there would be people whom would believe the dictionary was being false in the description of a dog. Therefore, a dictionary may describe marriage with same-sex couples, but there will be people whom won’t believe the dictionary because they understand the true, traditional marriage given by God and nature.

    • Janine, I have many of the same sentiments as you. They are summed up for me by the term homophobia. My homophobia is a strong internal drive that demands that our sexual parts are for union only with a member of the opposite sex and the very thought of sexual stimulation by a member of the same sex causes me visceral disgust, ie stomach churning disgust. There are other people who do not feel that and I accept that they have different sexual boundaries. Visceral disgust occurs in other situations, like when I was in my early 20s and went on a skin diving trip to the Piccaninny Ponds near Mt Gambier in SA. One of the young men in our group who was very popular caught a baby kangaroo and brought it into our camp and let the women members of our group play with it and cuddle it. Then getting out his big diver’s knife he declared that the kangaroo could not survive on its own and took it out and killed it. I grew up in a farming environment and killing animals, sheep, pigs and as a teenager myself shooting foxes, was not traumatic. Fifty years later what he did still disgusts me, yet he was a person whom you could depend upon to save your life if you were in danger. It is visceral disgust that motivates many in the environmental and animal justice movements, I guess, and we don’t label them “haters”.

      Now I would like to put something to you, and to others too, that might resolve the gay marriage problem. The whole conflict over same sex marriage comes from traditional marriage being understood to be a sexual union. It is especially offensive to people like you and me that “disgusting” sexual acts be put on the same plane as male – female union that brings about life. However the claim for same sex marriage has never been based on sexual union. It is based on equal rights to “goods and services” and to full respect for the same sex caring relationship, not the same sex sexual relationship. With that distinction in mind I have the following suggestion to keep everybody happy.

      Let us keep the traditional sexual meaning of marriage but permit same sex marriage as a non sexual union by simply adding it in, like this: “Marriage in Australia means the sexual union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others OR the non-sexual union of any two people for life to the exclusion of all others”. Both forms would be fully equal; male – female couples could choose the non- sexual version if they wanted. Those who want traditional marriage would be in no way affected by the extension of marriage to same sex couples. Churches could conduct only traditional marriages. Wedding celebrants could conduct either or both forms. To not do one or the other would not be discriminatory, just as it is not discrimination to be a business that does only native gardens or one that does only European gardens. With their belief in sexual diversity the gay lobby should jump at this resolution of the otherwise bitter conflict of values. As well it upholds democratic values: the free market, freedom of choice, equal opportunity and letting people vote with their feet. We do not have to have a “one size fits all” definition of marriage.

      Margaret has said that she believes in a new pathway for marriage but has not been able to spell it out. I would be interested in her thoughts on this proposition.

      • Hi David
        As always it’s a real privilege to read your thoughtful contributions to the does concern me that too many people (perhaps on both sides of the debate) immediately deny they have a phobia in relation to this issue (or any other come to that) and move to justify their fear in rational terms.
        I have a close and very dear family member who reacts in much the same way to religious fundamentalism and would be genuinely horrified to be told he had a phobia.When I gently ask whether i as a Christian am ‘included’ he says that no , of course he doesn’t mean me.And I have no doubt he means this, because he knows I pose no threat but genuinely believes ‘others’ do.

        I also acknowledge a point Mikel made in an earlier conversation in relation to being accosted in public toilets.This is a genuine and well founded fear based on experience, and there would certainly be women who have a comparable fear of men, based on particular experiences.

        Janine too has reflected on her own experiences..
        In addition I’ve certainly known women who might be said to have a phobia about some forms of sexual intimacy with their husbands.

        As you say people do have different sexual boundaries., which may or may not reflect their own experiences. And as per an earlier conversation we would both recognise that these are different for younger people and (importantly) I do not mean by that that younger people are more promiscuous. I think in many ways they have equally strict boundaries but they are significantly different from the ones with which we are comfortable

        I don’t think it is helpful, especially in the current debate, either to deny our phobias or have them automatically labelled as ‘hate’.Far better that (on both sides of the debate) we acknowledge and respect them.

        But having said all of that I don’t see how we could translate any of this into secular law. It is in a sense already enshrined in Christian law on marriage, which though it does not as might be claimed by critics only permit sexual intercourse for the purposes of procreation (thereby labelling many other forms of sexual intimacy ‘disordered [Catholic terminology!]) does consider the capacity to engage in a particular form of intimacy an essential requirement for marriage.A marriage is in consequence not valid if full sexual intercourse is not possible, even in the case of a heterosexual couple.

        In considering your idea I did reflect on the possibility of a ‘distinct’ form of marriage that was not so much non sexual as non procreative. But that is essentially what I would mean by life partnership.And we could not maintain that distinction in the sense of saying a life partnership ‘had’ to be non procreative.

        I do note that the current Marriage Act, even as amended in 2004, says nothing even by implication about procreation or sexual activity (apart from setting lower age limits at the age of legal consent to the latter).Indeed I’ve read in commentary that even pregnancy is almost never accepted by courts as grounds for permitting under age marriage.

        I would also regretfully conclude, having recently followed the debate in social media more closely. that we are having this conversation maybe a decade too late.The debate is now so polarised (on both sides) for anyone but a few to want to consider the bigger picture.

        This is a not very adequate response to the very important and thought provoking issues you raise.thank you again for raising them.

      • David,

        I see your point of view, the reason defacto couples and same-sex couples have got the legal rights as equal to marriage is to have access to all the state benefits of marriage in Australia. However, I believe confusing marriage with same-sex couples whom don’t play by no rules including consent, monogamy or marriage means this Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” will breakdown the traditional understanding of marriage. What has clearly happened in Western countries is the anti-discrimination act has been used against people (particularly Christians) whom don’t believe in homosexual behaviours and practices. When societies can pretend our body parts can be used against their function and don’t label it as abuse, then the significant harmful health and relationship problems get blessed to be called marriage (good for society). All across western countries LGBTIAQ adults are forcing children, churches, governments, businesses, companies, community groups, families and individuals to accept the gay life-style. The anti-discrimination act protects and supports LGBTIAQ people, but doesn’t provide equal protection to children of LGBTIAQ people or religious people whom don’t agree with the gay life-style.

        Governments believe consenting adults have the right to choose to practice sodomy (harm minimisation), but their children often are affected indirectly by their negative behaviours and practices as they’re unable to escape these environments. There have been groups established for LGBTIAQ children to promote the gay life-style of their parents. I can’t imagine children’s groups being establish for other adult negative behaviours and practices such as abortion. Mothers could legally encourage all girls to end their pregnancies in an abortion. The abortion law was never created so that all pregnancies would end in a legal abortion. Maybe the government would change the abortion law when a significant number of pregnancies are ending in a legal abortion. The Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” is been created so all couples can be in an infertile same-sex relationship. However, Australian culture would cease to exist if all adults had same-sex marriage. The adults in my childhood environment including 2 primary school principals had legal pornography, but I was affected by this because their mens magazines got passed around the school when I was 8-10yrs old. LGBTIAQ adults are able to use PReP to have unprotected sex with HIV/AIDS partners, but unprotected sex puts them at a higher risk of STDs like the drug-resistant Gonorrhoea. Children are affected indirectly when adults have shorten-lifecycle or they encourage and promote unprotected sex. Adults might be able to claim they’re not going to die of AIDS, but is the death from drug-resistant Gonorrhoea a better way to die?

        Could the Marriage Act support two extremely different meanings of marriage? The Family Act of 1975 would have to change to reflect both these marriages as one. The courts will have to treat children from nuclear families as the same as children from same-sex marriages. This means the court will decide the best interest of the child and this won’t necessarily mean biological parents. The State will become legal guardian of all children and will decide the parenting of these children. The courts have removed God/nature which has put parents with responsibility of their biological children. This effectively means that children lose their legal right to be raised by their biological mother and or father. The legal system can force children to attend school which teaches homosexuality and transgender theories as normal. Parents will lose their right to decide the education for their child. There has been a loss of Religious freedom and freedom of speech in many of the Western countries. The sex education in America teaches children/teenagers that anal and oral sexual activities are the same as sexual intercourse. Therefore, no one should be surprised with people presenting to health services with sexual health and relationship problems. When we mix hot and cold water together it is called lukewarm. The Bible clearly teaches Christians to not be lukewarm, otherwise we will be spat out of God’s mouth. It is impossible for Christians to sit on the fence as we understand the sin of sodomy, and the Bible teaches us the wages of sin is death. God sent his son Christ Jesus to die a horrible death on the cross for all of our sins so we can live for eternity.

        I have to reject this Humanist’s “Marriage Equality,” and I will put my trust in God’s marriage which is defined in nature and has been supported in culture. My german forefathers survived with their non-legal marriages because they refused to bless the King’s immoral acts in his state church which is no different to blessing sodomy. I have had personal experience with homosexuality and transgender and I definitely understand these have nothing to do with marriage. Peter a disciple of Jesus denied knowing Jesus three times before Christ died on the cross, but after he had witnessed Christ resurrection, Peter had complete understanding of his faith in Christ and died for his faith. God has made it clear to me that I entered this world with nothing and I will leave this world with nothing, and I can trust God to protect and support my family. The government may try to persuade me to purchase my state marriage certificate from the NSW marriage registry office for the state benefits of inheritance and property for my children. However, I will refuse to identify my marriage with the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality,” and there are plenty of Christians around the western world whom have been jailed, fined, lost jobs or businesses because they have refused to bless the sin of sodomy. Christ didn’t store treasures up on this earth so I shouldn’t store up treasures on earth for my children.

        David, I appreciate your level of thought on this matter. It is coming down to the fact that all people should be treated with dignity and respect including people whom murder. However, we have never treated all behaviours and practices as equal. Until it is possible to pretend an anus and mouth’s function is for penis (Sin of Sodomy) and these sexual activities are equal to sexual intercourse to be called marriage, then there is going to be division at every level in western society. The traditional culture of marriage is fighting the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality.” Tonight, there is a program on T.V about “Naked dating,” this is the level of sickness (mental illness) in our society when strangers are viewing naked genitals for a mate. I read recently in the Guardian that “our world is going to Hell in a basket.” Australian history clearly shows evidence that couples married for a religious belief in marriage. Australian culture had changed so much that the Howard government had to define the traditional marriage into the Marriage Act. The Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” could change legal marriage to only mean a legal contract between any 2 people (business partnership). However, I don’t trust a government that can ignore God teachings in the Bible and decide for itself what is right and wrong.

        The Australian government has to decide we want to recognise the religious/traditional marriage in Australian laws? Is marriage for a nation of married couples or a private relationship? If marriage is a private matter, then it would be removed from all legal documents, only biological sex education would be taught at school. If marriage has a meaning and purpose this needs to be clearly explained because “love is love” and “commitment” doesn’t explain marriage to the next generation. I have come across too many people that live in some fantasy world as they believe it is their right to listen to loud music in a four-bed room and have no consideration for the other people in the room. I have had parents that believed in Dr Google and their own feelings and have denied their child/ren medical treatment. I honestly believe that some same-sex couples want marriage to force Christian churches to bless the sin of sodomy. The main churches in Australia have indicated they would hand back their state marriage licence. The Christian churches are unable to find Biblical support to bless the sin of sodomy, and they believe when they’re unable to teach the truth in the Bible, then there is no point of fellowship in church. Marriage would be divided into religious/traditional and civil marriage which is similar to the situation my german forefathers experienced. The government would recognise the civil marriage, but this would come in conflict with the religious/ traditional practice of marriage. Christians and people whom believe in the religious/traditional belief of marriage need to support and protect the current Australian Marriage Act. There will be some Christians whom believe they should love their neighbour as themselves, but they forget God’s first commandment is to love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and this includes the wages of sin is death and God son dying on the cross for all of our sins. There will be Christians whom will be deceived by the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality.”

        David, I am aware the government isn’t going to care about my religious beliefs on marriage, but they only established the NSW marriage registry in 1857 to protect and support the religious practice of marriage. Some people believe it is the State marriage certificate which makes a committed, loving and stable marriage, and this is putting the cart before the horse. Unfortunately, the level of education in Australia has been decreasing and our brightest students are not achieving anywhere near their ability. I am hoping that in the lead up to the plebiscite on the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” there will be the opportunity to educate the next generation on the history of marriage, the meaning and purpose of marriage, and the reason for the Australian Marriage Act to remain the same. I understand your compromise to same-sex couples, but I see this will have a similar effect as divorce or passive smoking had on children. It will be years down the track when we can clearly see the enormous impact these negative behaviours and practices have had on people’s lives. I do enjoy reading your thoughts on this matter because you spend time making a very logical and rational argument. I am also interested to read Margret’s ideas on this matter because she brings experience and wisdom.

      • Hi David,
        good to hear your point of view, but I don’t think I can agree with your suggestion :
        **”Marriage in Australia means the sexual union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others OR the non-sexual union of any two people for life to the exclusion of all others”. Both forms would be fully equal; male – female couples could choose the non- sexual version if they wanted. **

        What circumstances would lead to a man and woman to have a non-sexual marriage? A marriage of convenience I guess.

        Everyone knows why males and females mate with each other,… and that is the physical and biological compatibilty of the two sexes.
        Homosexual union is a far cry from that true and accepted fact.

        It seems you are suggesting that friends have the same right to a have a marriage of convenience like some heterosexual marriages already do.
        I disagree. Marriage has been debased enough already. Marriages of convenience are fake and need not be encouraged..
        I’d prefer to stay with the original meaning, not create a new meaning.

        • Mikel,

          I agree with you. It is interesting that people in America believe the USA will become a “slave nation” if attacks on “religious freedom” and the “rule of law” continue. The first freedom is religious freedom in the U.S Constitution, and this is foundational to the American way of life, if it goes, everything goes. Americans believe they need to stand-up for religious freedom or shut-up and become a “slave nation” as the rule of law is at grave risk.

          The gospel of Mark12:17 – Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.
          It is clear that a “one flesh” sexual union between one man and one woman which can create new life (child/children) this belongs to God as it is defined by God word in the teachings of the Bible and given in nature. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators have imagined a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” which is only a legal contract between any 2 people for the purpose of harm minimisation.

          I have contacted the Human Rights Commissioner in Australia to try and find out the truth about the Anti-discrimination Act for past and present LGBTIAQ people, LGBTIAQ sympathisers and children of LGBTIAQ parents. Are they all treated equally the same or different? Can a person who has identified with homosexual experiences for 11yrs as a child/
          teenager, but completely rejects their past behaviours and practices, can they be given the same legal protection from the Anti-discrimination Act to defend themselves from a person who had decided to identified as gay for the past week, but had previously lived a heterosexual life-style?”

          Premier of Victorian – Daniel Andrews, other Labor MPs and union workers and the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators have been using offensive language by calling people like myself, “bigots,” “homophobic,” “prejudice” and “on the wrong side of history.” I have lived and worked peacefully in this country with friends and patients of people whom identify as LGBTIAQ and their children. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators have been trying to force or persuade Australians acceptance of the gay life-style on all levels of governments, unions, companies, businesses, community groups including churches, sporting groups CWA , schools, health and welfare services, legal services, families, and individuals. The LGBTIAQ lobby dictators have used their power to control and rule Australian society by demanding a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality,” Safe (dangerous) coalition program, Pride centre, PReP trial etc. They have used the Victorian taxpayers and workers money to encourage and promote the gay agenda and gender theories. It is clear that the government isn’t listening to children of LGBTIAQ parents whom have expressed they’re “hurting” from being denied their biological mother and or father. The Anti-discrimination Act protects and supports LGBTIAQ people, but the same protection and support are not available to adults and children of LGBTIAQ parents whom disagrees with the Humanist’s “Marriage equality.” This means the government is the “meat in the sandwich between the rights of current consenting LGBTIAQ adults and children and people whom have had past experience of LGBTIAQ behaviours and practices. They all believe they’re right, but they’re viewing differently the sexual behaviours and practices. This is the main reason sexual orientation isn’t like race. People have identified with different sexual behaviours and practices as it is impossible for a person to change their race. I would tend to believe a person who has more experience against LGBTIAQ behaviours and practices rather than a person who is relatively inexperienced with LGBTIAQ behaviours and practices.

  4. Couldn’t we simply call the living together of two of the same sex as being “Bonded” rather than “Married””?
    Two men cannot “Consummate” a marriage, neither can two women. With the laws relating to marriage and family
    remaining in tact, the two states could co-exist “Being Married” and “Being Bonded” could both be socially accepted and
    legally guarded. Vows could be made which suit the couple. The marriage law would remain as it is:
    “According to the law in Australia, marriage is the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life.”
    Gay and lesbian activists may be agreeable to an additional category to the Department of Births, Deaths, “BONDING & MARRIAGES”
    Then in the new category the statement could appear: “According to the law in Australia, Bonding is the blending of two people to the exclusion
    of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” Those whose consciences & religious beliefs rebel against the alteration of the marriage and family law,
    may be satisfied to accept an additional group category which is similar yet different from marriage.

    • John i think this is a line of thinking that should have been pursued from the start. The precise term to be used could then have been discussed sensibly. My own suggestion would have been life partnership as was chosen in Croatia after the traditional meaning of marriage was enshrined in the constitution.

      Another more generous option might have been for Christians and other supporters of traditional marriage to agree to use the term matrimony for traditional marriage, since this captures so much of the sense of an institution focussed on the biological family.
      Until quite recently there would certainly have been significant if not majority support in the gay community for such an idea, provided it was seen as an equivalent institution not a second best.
      In fact there are those in the heterosexual community who might prefer life partnerships to marriage because =they regard the latter as outdated, especially in its definition of the roles of men and women within the relationship.

      My fear is that it is now far too late in the debate, and that many people will vote in the plebiscite on what they perceive as a simple matter of social justice: that the committed, monogamous and life time relationships of same sex couples should receive full legal recognition in Australia.Since an extension of the definition of marriage is the only option on offer to achieve this, that will be chosen.

      I regard it as a tragedy that we have never been given an opportunity to have this public conversation.It reflects very poorly on our maturity as a community.

      • Margaret,
        Rodney Croome and the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators rejected civil partnerships years ago when the government suggested this was the only available option for same-sex couples. Same-sex couples believe calling them “bonded,” civil unions or partnership classes same-sex couples as 2nd class citizens. Same-sex couples have demanded their union be called a marriage, despite they’re unable to consummate the marriage and adultery is irrelevant for same-sex couples according to English law. Dr Ben Carson explained the mind-set of the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators whom demand everything their way by illustrating the “same-sex marriage” problem using a maths problem. People all around the world and in all languages throughout history have understood 2+2=4, but the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators insists, “2+2=5.” Western countries have been tolerant of LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators demanding the answer is 5 for them and 4 for everyone else. However, the LGBTIAQ-lobby get really nasty and call them a “maths phobia” because they refuse to accept 2+2=5. It has been impossible to be logical and rational arguments with the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators because they can’t understand or comprehend that a marriage involved a “one flesh” union – sexual intercourse which isn’t the same as anal and oral sexual activities. Christians and Jews have been seeking God’s blessing of children through this “one flesh” union since the beginning of time. Same-sex couples could ask God to bless their anal and oral sexual activities, but the Bible is very clear that God has never blessed these sexual activities with children, but their judgement is they can never enter the Kingdom of God, and it has been cursed with significant harmful health and relationship problems.

        • Hi Janine
          I respect your point of view but Rodney Croome and Australian Marriage Equality do not speak for the whole gay community.

          Studies have shown that up to a third of the gay community would prefer civil unions for themselves, even if they also believe that marriage should be available for same sex couples.

          Some scholars believe that the biblical texts referring to ‘one flesh’ in relation to marriage are not referring to sexual union but to the forming of a new kinship group or household (hence the preceding comment about leaving father and mother ie the kinship group in which one has grown up).

          • Margaret,
            It is very clear in the Bible that God created a “one flesh” union between one man and one woman for the purpose of children. The Bible has plenty of examples of God blessing a sexual union of a man and woman for the purpose of creating God’s chosen people, but there is no example of the Bible stating a man should sleep with another man like he sleeps with a woman or a woman should sleep with another woman like she sleeps with a man. There has been no mention of the gay community wanting civil unions or partnership in the news. Fortunately, Christians like myself can go on practicing our “one flesh” union without having anything to do with the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality.” I am next of kin for my husband so I don’t see a problem with scholars believing marriage has to do with kinship. The news recently reported that the younger generation are experiencing significant harmful sexual health problems. They’re practicing sexual activities (a sexual organ with a non-sexual organ) and mixing it with sexual intercourse which is causing the spread of STDs, cancers and infertility problems etc. I don’t need the government and the law to define my marriage, family and parenthood as these are determined by God, not by man. The news has clearly indicated that western civilisation has ended. The reports of terrorism, domestic violence in relationships, child sexual abuse within all sections of society, family breakdown as a result of high divorce rates, casual sexual relationships including the Hook-Up-Culture “friends with benefits,” and the Ashley Madison “life is short have an affair,” reports of robotic sex dolls are going to take over prostitution, and pornography is in all areas of our society. The Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” will only be for the purpose of harm minimisation reasons. The British marriage law currently retains that man-woman have to consummate their marriage, and adultery is grounds for a divorce. Therefore, the British law reflects the most common understanding of “one flesh” union in the Bible.

Leave a comment