SMH publishes AMF response to questions on ‘marriage equality’

What is Australian Marriage Forum's opposition to same-sex marriage based on?

The heart of our opposition to same-sex 'marriage' is that such an institution would deliberately deprive future children of either their mother or their father, and that is an injustice we should never contemplate. It hurts children if we break the bond with their mother or father, and same-sex 'marriage' is just a new government policy for breaking that bond. We never learn.

We also oppose same-sex 'marriage' because it is untrue – a legal fiction with no foundation in nature. Marriage is not a social invention to be cut to shape according to political fad; it is a social recognition of timeless natural reality: male, female, offspring. Only a terminally demented culture like the modern West would seek to repeal nature and build our society on an artificial foundation.

We also oppose same-sex 'marriage' because it is a package deal that brings with it the entire radical rainbow agenda. Once homosexual relations are normalised in the central institution of society, that gives the LGBT lobby the big stick of anti-discrimination law to normalise homosexual behaviour in the school curriculum, and to silence conscientious dissenters. Think 'Safe Schools' and Archbishop Porteous. 'Marriage equality' is not ultimately about marriage; it is about sexual radicals getting the legal clout to push their values down society's throat.

Are you only opposed to the proposition of equal marriage or is the opposition to equality under the law for LGBTI in general?

Same-sex couples already have exactly the same legal status and benefits as any de facto or married couple in Australia, with no discrimination whatsoever, and we do not oppose that.

Same-sex couples already have full relationship equality with other couples, but their relationship is a different thing to the great natural project of marriage and family and they need to find a different word.

What are your thoughts on homosexuality? Do you believe it is a normal expression of human sexuality? 

My thoughts are that homosexuality does not define a person: he or she is a unique, transient and beloved creature like anyone else, and if a person happens to experience same-sex impulses that is merely a puzzling aspect of their emotional makeup; it is not who they are.

Homosexuality is clearly not normal in a statistical sense, since only 1.2% of the Australian population identify as homosexual while 97.5% identify as heterosexual.[i] In a clinical sense I agree with Dr Robert Spitzer, the gay-friendly psychiatrist who led the campaign to delete homosexuality from the APA's Diagnostic & Statistical Manual in 1973, who described homosexuality as "a form of irregular sexual development". It is not a mental illness, but nor is it normal, and for many years Spitzer argued against "the acceptance of the view that homosexuality is a normal variant."[ii] We should not form public policy on marriage or sex-education based on the false view that homosexuality is normal.

In an Australian Marriage Forum advert it states that "The radicalisation of sex education and usurping of parental authority is (in our view) a main objective of the homosexual revolution." Can you explain this further? What do you believe is the end game for LGBTI advocates? Do you believe that legalising same sex marriage will lead to other reforms, if so what could they be?

The logic is simple: if the law says homosexual "marriage" is normal and right, schools will be obliged, by anti-discrimination law, to teach that homosexual behaviour is normal and right. There is no option. Parents today can push back against the 'Safe Schools' program - but parents will be sidelined and treated as bigots if they object to such material once homosexual 'marriage' becomes the law of the land.

Parents need to understand that the genderless agenda is a package deal: if they vote for 'marriage equality' they are voting for 'Safe Schools' on steroids and agreeing to relinquish control of their child's moral education to sexual radicals.

If they vote for 'marriage equality', based on President Obama's executive order this week to all 96,000 public schools in the US, parents are voting for their daughter to have to share change-rooms with disturbed young men who claim they are women – all on the basis of genderless 'equality'.

The end game of any revolution is to remake society in its own radical image: that is achieved largely through controlling the education of the next generation and by silencing dissenting voices. Think 'Safe Schools' and Archbishop Porteous...

Some commentators have observed that the debate between progressives and conservatives on issues such as Safe Schools, Gayby Baby, marriage equality etc is part of a "culture war" between left and right. What are your thoughts on this?

Wait for my book in a few months time. There will be a chapter on cultural Marxism and its many and varied fellow travellers and their relentless attacks on marriage and family over the last century.

Are you concerned that language used to describe the push for LGBTI inclusion - eg the flyers we saw recently protesting the AFL's upcoming Pride game, comparing legalising same sex marriage to the stolen generation - could be damaging for LGBTI young people and their families?

I am concerned at the emotional blackmail used by supporters of same-sex 'marriage' which claims that any and every statement of opposition to same-sex 'marriage' is "damaging for LGBTI young people and their families" - so we had better just shut up and let them be the only voice in the public square.

Examples: in the Sydney Morning Herald, Justin Koonin, convenor of the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, specified our full-page ad in The Australian (10/8/15[iii]) as an example of the "bigoted opinions that we know cause harm to same-sex attracted and gender diverse young people". [iv] In an earlier report about our television ad aired during Mardi Gras in March 2015[v], the director of Australian Marriage Equality, Rodney Croome, said our ad was "actually harming the many Australian children being raised by same-sex couples". [vi]

Do you see how this game works? If anyone makes the case for keeping marriage between man and woman, the mere act of raising such an argument is "actually harming" children. There is only one solution: say nothing. Breathing a word makes us culpable for depression and even death in young people!

That is shameless emotional blackmail designed to silence one side of a serious debate.

I am astonished at the portrayal of LGBT young people and families as so fragile that they must be protected from hearing any discussion about homosexual marriage and parenting. How condescending! And it goes with the pathetic proposition that we should overturn the foundational institution of society as a form of psychological therapy for LGBT young people and their families. There are less radical ways to help them feel loved and respected.

[i] Percentage of Australian adults who identify as homosexual, (1.6% male, 0.8% female =1.2% overall), see Anthony M.A. et al, (2003) Sex in Australia,
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 27 (2), 138–145 http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2003.tb00801.x

[ii] Robert L Spitzer, cited in Ronald Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: the Politics of Diagnosis, Princeton University Press, 1981, p.128 and Afterword (1987 edition). http://books.google.com.au/books?id=-LNxb_yVY4gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Homosexuality+and+American+Psychiatry#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[iii] AMF newspaper ad in The Australian 10/8/15 http://australianmarriage.org/wp-content/uploads/AMF_Australian.jpg

[iv] Koonin, SMH http://www.smh.com.au/national/samesex-marriage-lgbti-advocates-fear-harm-from-plebiscite-20150812-gixdri.html

[v] TV ad link https://youtu.be/s80wL5al5NA

[vi] Croome SMH http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/backlash-after-antimarriage-equality-ad-debuts-on-mardi-gras-night-20150308-13y8yi.html
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/lyle-shelton-from-the-australian-christian-lobby-responds-to-questions-on-marriage-equality-20160520-gozr7a.html#ixzz49cbj4NBp
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Originally published in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Written By: Jill Stark May 20, 2016

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

37 Responses

  1. Thankyou for the clear concise sound answers. The book is on my list for purchase as soon as available.

  2. Thank you for being a voice of reason in the public square regarding marriage and families. There are many who would love to silence those of us who support traditional marriage and it is inspiring to me and I’m sure to many others that David is willing to publicly take a stand to defend children’s and parent’s natural human rights. I look forward to reading Dr Van Gend’s book. Our society needs courageous people of integrity to make a stand about the importance of the natural family in a respectful and reasoned way. I feel that the tactics used by LGBT activists are absolutely misleading. They tell us that legalising same sex marriage will not affect anyone except the LGBT community which has obviously proven to be untrue as we can see from observing what has happened in the US, Canada and other countries. I also believe it is the worst kind of emotional blackmail to point the finger of blame for LGBT woes at people who are genuinely concerned about something as fundamentally important as the basic unit of our society. Open and honest debate needs to occur on this very important issue. I support the traditional family and oppose same sex marriage but that does not mean I hate the LGBT community or wish them harm. I am the mother of one child with a disability and another who has severe anxiety and depression. I would NEVER blame society for the struggles they have. People do not always understand their challenges because their social interactions are often outside what is normal. Some days it is really difficult but I believe all of us must take responsibility for ourselves and our own well being. Blaming society, the world or people who just don’t get it won’t get anyone anywhere because we are choosing to play the role of a victim. I hope that LGBT people will stop playing the role of victim. I believe our laws do not discriminate against LGBT people. I can agree to disagree with those who support same sex marriage without being irrationally afraid of LGBT people (otherwise known as homophobic). If the LGBT community is so frail that we cannot have open, respectful and public debate then the activists should never have brought this issue into the public square in the first place. They are the ones who are responsible for this debate and they should own that decision. I firmly believe that the laws of our country should support the health and wellbeing of our whole society. Laws should not be used to prop up a minority who apparently cannot be satisfied until their abnormal behaviour is approved of as normal. If being LGBT is the lifestyle people prefer then they have chosen to live outside the natural boundaries of marriage. The unsuitability of LGBT relationships in terms of marriage and family become evident with the higher rates of domestic abuse occurring and the higher risk of sexually transmitted diseases in these communities. A child is also automatically deprived of a natural parent and I absolutely believe that gender does matter. Two dads don’t equal a mum and vice versa! These facts make LGBT relationships ineligible for the marriage contract or for raising future generations and creating stable family units. Keep up the good work of getting the message out AMF.

    • admin

      Sonia, thank you for your thoughtful response – and the encouragement. All the best in the most central task of all, raising the next generation, especially given the extra challenges your two children face. They will be stronger for it.

    • The AMF is not interested in respectful debate, Sonia. See my comment below.

  3. God bless you David for continuing to fight for basic human and Christian values. I am sad that many “Christian”/”Catholic” media are not only openly supporting the gay agenda, but also not allowing any voice that questions or criticizes that agenda. I am also surprised that the medical issues involved in male homosexuality, are rarely if ever mentioned in any media. Issues like the ones raised here: http://v2catholic.com/background/2016-05-12-gay-marriage-elephant-in-room.htm

  4. “I am astonished at the portrayal of LGBT young people and families as so fragile that they must be protected from hearing any discussion about homosexual marriage and parenting. How condescending!”

    David, I would be better able to appreciate this as a compliment that we are mentally strong were it not for so many of your other statements.

    Ireland abandons her children, May 24, 2015

    “Ireland has written a social suicide note and we grieve for her. But we will not follow her.”

    Media Release: Bill Shorten calls for a new Stolen Generation, May 31, 2015

    “We on the brink of a new abusive law that will once again cut children off from their own flesh and blood. A new stolen generation who will, after much suffering, require their own national apology”.

    Moral and Political Aberration by the U.S. Supreme Court, June 27, 2015

    ““The moral dementia of the West is evident when the honourable name of marriage is given to a relationship that can only be consummated by an indecent act.

    “This is the third historic act of social self-mutilation by the US Supreme Court, the most recent being the Roe-v Wade decision in 1973 that found a constitutional right for adults to kill their babies in the womb.

    […]

    “Just as the five judges in 1857 were so degenerate as to enshrine slavery in the Constitution, so five judges today enshrine sodomy in the Constitution. The fallout for the moral culture of the US and for the education of children is incalculable.””

    Media Release: Plenty to fear from Labor’s “equality”, July 27, 2015

    “And decent Labor MPs and Senators certainly have reason to fear what a decadent wreck their party has become.”

    Full-Page National Newspaper Ad Today, August 10, 2015

    ““We say they are complicit in a serious offence against the child by proposing laws that will abolish either a mother or father from the life of a child. That is the heart of opposition to same-sex ‘marriage’, and we accuse advocates of inflicting a new form of discrimination against children, just to satisfy adult emotional demands.””

    The “Safe” Schools Program Is Not Safe for Our Kids, October 9, 2015

    “Perhaps the driving psychological energy behind the push for gay ‘marriage’ is the raging need for homosexual people to force society to approve their behaviour and legislate it as being equally right, normal and good as natural sexual relations – and to obtain the legal power to force such teaching on all children.”

    Media Release: Safe Schools, Gay recruitment & Gay “marriage”, February 10, 2016

    ““Given today’s coverage in The Australian, we call on the Federal Coalition Government to put a stop to the moral damage that the gay-lobby drafted “Safe Schools” programme is doing to our children and grandchildren”, said Dr David van Gend, a GP and president of the Australian Marriage Forum.”

    In summary, you see us as morally damaged people committing indecent and wrong acts on a moral par with slavery, no less, the moral fallout of which will be incalculable, as “complicit in a serious offence against the child” (a dog whistle if there ever was one) by stealing children away from their parents, as forcing gay sexual acts on all children, and as responsible for the complete and utter destruction of Western society (“moral dementia”, “decadent wreck”, “social self-mutilation”, “social suicide note”).

    Am I really supposed to see love here? David, as you yourself said to James Macpherson in May 2014: “If they’re not getting that message [of love], that is our problem. That is our failing.” Well, I’m not getting it.

    This is not just a debate about marriage equality and LGBTI parenting, as you claim. This is unbridled hate. A year ago, reading your statements made me noticeably anxious. Who wouldn’t start to feel like there is something within them to be ashamed of if they were constantly bombarded with messages like this, which a plebiscite will amplify umpteenfold?

    How will Admin respond to this? You say you want a civil discussion. Here’s your chance to prove it. Concede error in your previous statements, and apologize for them. But do not accuse me of incivility just because I raised your hate with you and called it what it is. And do not, as you once did, try to weasel out of it by blaming me for not distinguishing between the sinner and the sin, an absurd distinction that does nothing to alleviate shame over living a life true to who you are, demands that acceptance be earned by nothing short of sacrificing happiness, and grants carte blanche to give LGBTI people a difficult life as long as you throw out the tokenistic, indeed practically meaningless, “I love you” every now and then.

    • Hi Nick,

      Nice try again, but you deliberately misquoted David Van Gent. You deleted the main point. He said:

      “I am astonished at the portrayal of LGBT young people and families as so fragile that they must be protected FROM HEARING ANY DISCUSSION about homosexual marriage and parenting.”

      There’s a big difference. Yes, homosexual do have more mental health problems than the rest of the population, but it is not as a result of hearing discussion about it – rather the contrary. If you want to read a study on the Health Risks of Gay Sex, including mental health and dangers to society, you should check this comprehensive and dispassionate study:

      http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/marriage-and-family/sexuality/the-health-risks-of-gay-sex.html#08

      It is also rather sobering to hear the Victorian Premier gloat in his apology to homosexuals 30 years after homosexuality was decriminalized. It means that this stupid law took 30 years to be abolished. But what matters is that we are now proposing to deprive children of their mother or father at birth, and, in all predictions, it will take another 30 years to be abolished, while hundreds or thousands of children may be born without ever being allowed to know their mother or father. And, yes, it is the same cruel fate that the victims of the Stolen Generation and Forced Adoption had to suffer.

      I have no sympathy for the Victorian premier for his belated apology, but any ministers who pass a law that deprives children of their mother or father should have it engraved on their tombs because the children who will have to suffer all their lives from their callousness will not forget them.

      • No, I quoted him right. It’s hard not to when you copy and paste.

        Also, “Catholic education” is an oxymoron.

        • Nick : I see you are a dab hand at “copy and paste”. How about letting everyone know exactly why you are here, and give a reason for being an apologist for men who lie down with other men and become enflamed with lust for one another?

          • I’m a defender of people against hate.

        • So you did. Sorry. It somehow disappeared in my viewer. My point remains that open discussion is better than bullying. Unfortunately, most people refuse to discuss it, preferring to rely on hypocritical slogans such as marriage equality, without asking themselves what sort of equality we are talking about. If a man loves two women then why can’t he marry them both equally? I mean, it would make far more sense to allow polygamy than same sex marriage because the children would still have a father. If same sex marriage is allowed then it would be discriminatory not to allow polygamy, if we want to believe the marriage equality slogan.

        • Nick,
          You state, “I’m a defender against hate.” Well I hate my child/teenage homosexual/transgender experience. How can you protect me?

          • JT

            Janine this doesn’t make sense, you’re taking a quote from Nick “I’m a defender against hate” and then you clearly state you are the hater and you’re asking him how he will protect you from hating. Why would he want to protect your hatred?

            Again, I don’t think wearing boys clothes that one time in high school constitutes as a transgender experience. But big thumbs up for trying to stay on topic and not dribbling on about irrelevant things, it’s so great to see.

          • JT,
            I wondered where on earth you had disappeared. I have been longing to read your logical and rational argument for a legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people for the purpose of including same-sex couples. Since I have had homosexual and transgender experiences as a child/teenager I have joined a transgender support group. Can a person hate behaviours which have hurt themselves and others? I don’t believe I need to explain in detail to you about the process of hurting others with homosexual behaviours. I can hate your behaviour of consistently attacking a person rather than debating the topic. This doesn’t mean I hate you as a person, but your behaviour is annoying and doesn’t make any sense. You have a deep hatred of children/teenagers whom have had homosexuality and transgender experiences as you want to pick on them by being judge and jury. This doesn’t make you smart as it shows you lack courage and have an inability to engage in a debate.

          • JT,

            I have worked out somethings about you:
            1. You’re a fake – Justin Timberlake
            2. You’re a male whom identifies as a homosexual – You don’t like women, and women whom identify as lesbians and transgender people.
            3. You claim to be the expert in everything. However, your medical understanding is based on your friends medical knowledge, and you believe this gives you the right to control and have power to rule over all health professionals including GP’s and nurses you don’t respect. You claim to be the legal expert by being judge and jury on people’s lives. Then on this blog down below, you claim to be the expert in science on evolution. You would be more credible as a person if you stopped insulting people’s intelligence, and be honest with yourself and others about the truth of your limited knowledge.
            4. You exaggerate your information such as having “lots” of gay friends whom are doctors when this means a couple of friends.
            5. You’re a LGBTIAQ lobby-dictator.

            I married a genius, and I work with many intelligent professionals so I am very use to discussing topics with intelligent people. Most people on this blog are intelligent people, and are discussing the change to the Marriage Act as a serious concern for our way of life in Australia. However, your comments JT are “rubbish” as you add no intelligence to the debate on marriage. Australians will let you live in your virtual world – fantasy “open marriage” based on autonomy and consent, but this isn’t a true, traditional marriage in the real world. Can you believe that doing sexual activities with your same-sex partner is the same as your grand-parents “one flesh” marriage? I have discussed “Marriage Equality” with Christians whom are priests, ministers or are employed by the Churches (Catholic, Anglican, Salvation Army, Baptist, Uniting, Presbyterian, and Lutheran), and I haven’t found one Christian who believes the Marriage Act should change. I have heard gays and lesbians make comments claiming the Churches are in support of “Marriage Equality,” when there is no support of changing church doctrine because the Bible only provides evidence of marriage being “one flesh” between one man and one woman in order to fill the earth with children.

            The Catholic church, Anglican Church and Mormon Church have ruled world-wide that marriage will only be between one man and one woman. There maybe a priest or minister of religion who might go against the church doctrine, but they don’t represent the Christian church. The government, courts and LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators in America, Canada, Europe etc have demanded the control and power to rule over the Christian churches. Millions of Christians have resigned from churches because they don’t believe in a legal man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators claim they only want a legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people to be recognised by the State, but the State Churches have been forced into altering their belief in marriage to having no meaning and purpose. Therefore, there are many Christian Churches in Australia that want to cease offering a civil marriage service, and only want to offer a religious marriage blessing/service. The Christian church world-wide is being persecuted, and there has been a significant decrease in number of Christians in both America and Europe. However, the amount of people whom are identifying with extremist organisations have significantly increased making both America and Europe less safe to live and travel. The number of Christians continue to increase world-wide, but are decreasing in the western world.

            I want to thank David for providing very logical and rational reasons to keep marriage between one man and one woman as children need to be raised by their biological mother and father. Australians have lost their minds if they believe the government can create a legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people for the purpose of including same-sex couples. Since this “open marriage” has to be created to accept all same-sex couples it will definitely discriminate itself against a true, traditional marriage.

          • JT

            Wow there she is!

            Janine, I didn’t disappear anywhere I just have a life and a busy profession. I wasn’t trying to engage with you again I was just trying to highlight the fact that you missed the point of Nick’s answer completely.

            It’s because of these bizarre interpretations that I still no longer want to engage with you. You manage to bring everything back to you even if it will make no sense. You are a part of transgender support group? You haven’t demonstrated any support. I think you’d be better off at a support group for compulsive liars.

            Of course your husband is a genius! And of course as you’ve already told us “you are so beautiful and athletic” you would have had the pick of the bunch, you’re amazing so that’s true and relevant.

            Again you know nothing of my identity and you never will because it’s not relevant but for the record I am not Justin Timberlake but good guess. What the…?

            The comments below, although underneath yours, were not directed at you but rather the original comment made by David. But no part of what I said was rubbish, homosexual acts have existed before your christian god, and before your subjective moral standards were imposed. If you look throughout history, there is an entire graveyard filled with Gods, why do you think yours will be any different? You’ve said yourself the number of christians in western society is steadily dropping. There are probably more people identifying as gay & lesbian than people turning to christianity, we cannot know this because it’s not something easily measured, the statistics are bias and it’s not something easily estimated.

            No one is surprised or cares that your father didn’t love you enough but maybe this demonstrates that marriage doesn’t have all that much bearing on the raising and wellbeing of a child.

          • JT

            Well you proved one thing that “same-sex marriage” exists in the virtual world of fantasy because you don’t have a logical or rational argument for its existence in the real world. I don’t want to engage with you either because your mind-set is stuck between your legs as my mind is in my head. So I expect you won’t be adding anymore rubbish to these blogs. I can’t find any evidence for your information about homosexual behaviours being blessed with marriage prior to the recordings in the Bible. The number of people identifying as gays and lesbians are decreasing world-wide because of the high suicide rate, and this continues to exists in countries which have allowed same-sex couples to a legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people. Therefore, homosexuals should stop referring to the high rate of gay suicide because there is no link to the marriage debate. You’re hatred is evident by what you stated about my relationship with my father. It is extremely evident to me that you have a father relationship problem and I believe this is the underlying reason for you practicing homosexuality. You pretend to not care about me, but you’re frustrated that you have no argument to base a change to the Marriage Act which has never had anything to do with homosexuality. My only advice is that you have a talk with your parents about the birds and the bees as all children need a legal right to be raised by their biological mother and father. This is much more important than 2 gays or 2 lesbians legal, man-made “open marriage.” The Australian law is unable to treat equally your fantasy marriage as the same as a true, traditional marriage, so don’t expect for Australians to give-in to your demands. I don’t hate you as a person, but I don’t agree with your fantasy marriage.

    • I would also add that the prison system has seen men use sex as a weapon for a very long time, and this same type of predatory bullying is being used more and more in schools. Often kids tease each other – and it is over anything and everything: when the teasing becomes violent this can destroy the lives of children. When children identify as being sexual aware and gay at a young age, and bully/pursue other kids, this is confronting in the exact same way as in the prisons. The explosion of “awareness” is resulting in more prepubescent children molesting each other = and this is a good thing, how?

      • You got any evidence for that, Harry?

        As for rape as a weapon, this is not a thing of same-sex attraction. Watch Mark Steyn explain why refugee rape should be taken seriously. “It’s not about sex. It’s about power.”

        • You ask for evidence because you know that this is the tip of the iceberg. Bullies are even more powerful when they can use sex as a weapon – and prepubescants, whose pretend parents think they can mould them, have no idea of the damage that they do. My evidence of this is personal, but I promise you that this happens in schools. I’m sure that you can read about it too, no matter how much the gay lobby supress it. Children will gravitate to the power cliques. They will become gay to make friends, to hurt others, to bully, and eventually for pleasure. There is nothing good about gay lifestyles. They are barren, and they do not last nearly as long, and the reason this lobby is so powerful is because it is full of professionals without dependants, without knowledge of why they are alive, and without regard for the lives that they destroy.

          • You don’t become gay, Harry. Biology overrides “power cliques”.

    • This is not just a debate about marriage equality and LGBTI parenting, as you claim. This is unbridled hate.

      Principled opposition to a wrongly principled ideology is what I see in those quotations.=

  5. Nick I am a supporter of traditional marriage.
    And of Catholic education.
    And i am sick to the stomach of many of the posts that appear here and much of what i heard from the Future Families Forum.
    If this is respectful and reasoned Christian debate God help us.

    Hang in there…

  6. So often the word “hate” is used in these posts. When people express opinion against same sex marriage, no matter how carefully, the rejoinder is that the real reason for their disapproval is their “homophobia” or “hatred” and that they should be honest about that. Why is there such widespread “homophobia” and “hatred”? I have a theory which I will call my “evolutionary biology” explanation.

    We are the product of tens of thousands of years of experiences and beliefs and much of that background is built into us as natural reactions to events around us, “instincts”. Thousands of years ago fertility was one of the greatest concerns for survival. Life depended upon it in a way that we are isolated from now. Fertility underlay all life forms, whether crops, cattle or human. It was also a time when capricious gods were believed to be in control and had to be appeased. If they were displeased they caused crops to fail and other punishments, so there was great care taken to not displease them, including human sacrifices. Any person who showed disrespect to a god would be too great a risk to be tolerated. The life and death determining gift of fertility must have been high on the scale of keeping the gods happy. Now consider homosexuality in the context of those times. Benjamin (May 12th) said that ejaculation of semen into faeces is against the natural life bringing purpose of semen. Surely there could be no greater insult to the gods than to throw their life bringing gift into shit and to get pleasure doing it, and to lust after another man to do it. Instant death for any men who behaved like that was surely the only way to keep the gods happy; those men were far too great a risk to have around. With this theory it is not hard to understand that revulsion at homosexual acts is an instinct in the majority of us, dating back to primitive times. Revulsion at homosexual acts is not due to bigoted religious teaching; it is deep in our evolution. The philosopher Raimond Gaita of the University of Melbourne says that the real reason why homosexuals want marriage is to have anal sex raised to the level of male–female sex and so to relieve homosexuals of the shameful burden that they carry. He says that is why civil unions will never do; although they may give all the “goods and opportunities” of marriage they do not give the blessing to anal sex that homosexuals crave.

    • David,
      I found your comment very interesting to read. I have a good memory going back to drinking milk from a bottle, but I can’t remember a time of being loved by my father when I was young. I can remember many times we had world war 3, and I thought as a child that the farm wasn’t big enough for 2 kings so I would leave. When I was 16 yrs old I did confront my father about his lack of affection for me, and he did apologise and gave me a hug. Boys made me feel extremely sick to the point that I couldn’t get out of bed and go to school. Do you know the reason why so many women whom identify as lesbians have a dislike or hatred about men? (My anger and hatred existed prior to my love for God)

    • JT

      There are plenty of cultures and societies throughout history that have tolerated homosexual activity. You cannot talk about pleasing gods and punishment within a religious context, in a statement, and go on to explain that this is not religious teachings, it is evolution that people hate homosexuality. The example you give is purely religious.

      It’s important to note that many of these gods you’re referring to now cease to exist. We have evolved. What you’re actually highlighting is the need to revolt against ridiculous religious beliefs because they’re often misguided, wrong and damaging to society.

      And on that same token homosexuality is part of evolution, it occurred just as naturally as heterosexuality. And it’s not going away however oppressed it is now and has been in the past. Further homosexuality existed long before your christian god and will be around long after your christian god ceases to exist.

      • Ash

        Examples of cultures tolerating homosexuality do not bear weight in the argument. Societies will do what is right in their own eyes. Such an ‘evolution’ is seen as progress to its proponents but isn’t it also possible that social acceptance of ‘new’ ideas can lead to an inertia of unperceived indecency? Momentum being forged by SSM proponents aims to ram the ideas into society first by stealth then by peer pressure. I don’t believe the outcome of such social change will be a pretty picture. We are truly not good at evolving our morals and ethics..

        We haven’t even begun to evolve enough to understand why we are here and what our purpose is on earth, but suggesting revolt against ‘ridiculous religious beliefs’ because of their ‘damage to society’ is ignorant on a number of levels. It is always convenient to point to the workings of fallible man and then blame the ideology supposedly used to justify the bad behaviour.

        On homosexuality being part of evolution, this is somehow seen as societal progress – normalising unnatural sexual relations and promoting them to children. Sorry, evolution’s going backwards here. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle would have more wisdom in human relations than what our modern day social scientists supporting LGBTI norms are offering. Timeless historical philosophy challenges the notion that we are continually improving our morals and society.

    • JT,

      Your comment needs to begin with “ONCE UPON A TIME” and end with “THIS IS ABSOLUTE RUBBISH.” Please make an intelligent comment to this debate. It would be good if you could get a friend to read your comment as they might be able to give you some helpful advice.

  7. David thank you for a thoughtful contribution to the debate.
    I’d certainly agree that there is far ‘more’ to this than is usually acknowledged.But what you say highlights the ‘dishonesty’ ( not necessarily deliberate) of much of the discussion.If we look at the figures for same sex headed households in Australia that include children at least 90% of them involve two women.it seems reasonable to suggest that these households might actually be strengthened by marriage.
    Yet the debate is driven by both explicit condemnation and implicit fear of anal sex.
    I’d be interested to hear if you have any thoughts on the basis for objection to same sex marriage between two women .

  8. It is sickening how ‘hate’ is used against anyone who believes in traditional marriage. That is irrational.

  9. Val not all defence of traditional marriage does lead to accusations of hatred.

    I’ve been looking back at some of the earlier material on this blog. (back to say 2010). The change in tone is very striking. I can only conclude that the tone has changed because we (as supporters of traditional marriage) are afraid of losing and have resorted to playing on people’s fears.

    The sad thing is that now we almost certainly will lose. And if we do it will be precisely because we have tried to play on people’s fears.

    For an example of a successful campaign to defend traditional marriage look at Croatia.
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/how-to-defeat-the-enemies-of-natural-marriage

    • Do you mean the change from a moderate to hostile tone?

      • Yes Nick I do.
        But that is possibly rather superficial .What is BEHIND the hostility? (You may well of course think it was always there unvoiced..).
        For instance Fr Frank Brennan ( quoted Nov 2010 from memory) argued in favour of civil unions.Some Catholic Bishops still do.As do some same sex attracted writers.

        But all of that is rapidly disappearing, overridden by talk of the radical rainbow agenda etc etc.
        And hidden in some of this blog an apparent clinging to the generally discredited theory that homosexuality can be ‘cured’…

  10. Janine your point above in relation to JT’s comment on how long same sex unions have been around and highly regarded:

    Well it’s an interesting question .The first clear written evidence for the high regard ( higher than applied to marriage) in which same sex partnerships were held in the ancient world is in Plato’s Symposium, which was written about 400BC.

    The Torah (basis for our Old Testament) may well have been written down about the same time.

    Like the AMF slogan says: all relationships matter. Though the Church only decided that marriage mattered enough to require regulation some time after 1500.

    Meanwhile this blog needs a moderator. The personal attacks are not helping anyone.

    • Margaret,

      The information you provided about same-sex partnership never stated “same-sex partnership,” it referred to homosexual behaviours, but never regarded this as marriage. My life-time girlfriend and I understand homosexual behaviours so we should test the Australian legal system if the Marriage Act changes into a legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people for the purpose of including same-sex couples. Since this marriage is based on autonomy and consent, and will be created for the purpose of including all same-sex couples, then this will have nothing to do with religion. My girlfriend and I can have our religious marriages to our husbands. If our society believes my life-time girlfriend and I should have a legal marriage relationship because sex and children are irrelevant in an “open marriage,” then the courts will have to remove the bigamy law. The courts won’t want my girlfriend and I to get a divorce from our husbands because we’ll still have a sexual union with our husbands, and they will want our husbands to be available and provide for our children. However, if they refuse to allow my girlfriend and I to get same-sex married so we can have a legal relationship, then it mean “same-sex marriage” is a fantasy marriage and is second-class. People should be treated equally by the law, but not all behaviours and practices are treated equal under the law. It appears some Australians are accepting of “open marriage” so families can have 2 mothers, 2 fathers and children from both nuclear families. My girlfriend and I will prove that the change to the Marriage Act has a totally different meaning and purpose which will ultimately destroy a civilised society because a true, traditional marriage will be exchanged for a fantasy marriage.

      • No, the evidence was about relationships (though JT was actually talking about acts).I don’t follow the rest of your argument Janine. Any proposed changes to the Marriage Act will still see marriage as exclusive and for life.

        • Margaret,
          I have stated before, the Marriage Act isn’t for life because of the no-fault divorce. When the government removes the sexual union between a man and woman it is not exclusive or what makes this civil marriage exclusive? This legal, man-made “open marriage” is created for people whom live in the virtual world and not for people whom live in the real world. The majority of Christian churches around the world aren’t supporting this fantasy marriage. The churches which had decided to adopted “open marriage” have lost significant membership which means they will cease to exist in 30-50years. If you are confused by my comment and your an adult, I can imagine the difficulty the younger generation will view civil marriage as totally meaningless with no purpose for our society. You believe the meaning and purpose of marriage won’t change, but the reason David is arguing against this man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people is because the law will encourage and promote fatherless or motherless children, homosexual behaviours will be normalised through sex education at schools, and many other significant and harmful health and relationship problems.

Leave a comment