ban-marriage-big We want to live in a society where all people are valued, accepted and loved.

Freedom of choice, and freedom of expression are things that we hold dear in this nation. We support those freedoms.

The claim that it is discrimination if marriage is not redefined to allow two people of the same sex to marry is worth considering.

Is this a valid claim, or is it preventing an open and honest conversation?

Relationships matter

We also want every person in this nation to have a variety of meaningful, loving relationships in their life. These may be with family members, friends, colleagues, and those they share common interests with. Many relationships do not carry a legal status, but are validated through participation.

Removing practical disadvantage

Removing disadvantage against same-sex couples is exactly what Federal parliament achieved in 2008. Over 80 pieces of legislation were amended, with bipartisan support, which removed disadvantage on practical matters like superannuation and next-of-kin status.

Rights to consider

Australian human rights lawyer Frank Brennan AO, former Chairman of the National Human Rights Consultative Committee, is an expert on discrimination.  He says: “In considering whether to advocate a change to the definition of marriage, citizens need to consider not only the right of same sex couples to equality but even more so the rights of future children. I think we can ensure non-discrimination against same sex couples while at the same time maintaining a commitment to children of future generations being born of and being reared by a father and a mother. To date, international human rights law has appreciated this rational distinction.”

Redefining marriage to what?

Subsection 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 defines marriage as ‘...the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.’ This means it is legally available for two adults of the opposite gender.

Those who say that marriage should be allowed between two people of the same gender often claim that those who disagree with them are being discriminatory.

But if marriage is not only between two people of the opposite gender, what is it?

After all, if it is inherently discriminatory to deny marriage to some people, why isn’t it inherently discriminatory to deny marriage to all people?  If we redefine marriage to be between two people regardless of gender, why would we not widen the definition even further? What about people who love more than one other person? What about people love each other dearly, but who are related through birth, such as a brother and sister?

It is definition, not discrimination, which means marriage is a voluntarily entered relationship between two adults of the opposite gender.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

42 Responses

  1. Many years ago the definition of law stated that Aboriginals were not to own land and were basically not treated as humans. Does that make it not discrimination?

    Your only real defence that claims this is not discrimination is “well if we let gays marry then polygamy and incestual marriage has to be legal too”. This is honestly the most childish argument imaginable. I’m surprised you didn’t go down the beastiality route.

    Definition of law isn’t always correct, as history often proves, and as the world progresses, organisations like this will be left behind.

    • admin

      There is no discrimination against same-sex couples since the amendment of 85 federal laws by a bipartisan majority in 2008. Any gay couple has the same legal status as, for example, the former ‘first couple’ of PM Julia Gillard and her defacto, Tim Mathieson. What is discriminatory about that?

      Gay couples are free to live as they choose in Australia, with all the benefits of married couples. They are just not free to pretend that two men are the same functional phenomenon as a hand and a woman and (typically) their young. They are not free to choose a motherless or fatherless existence for a child.

      • This particular example has absolutely no relevance to marriage equality, it’s based on the premise that same sex couples can match the current CHOICE of the former PM’s legal relationship status “…[And] what’s discriminatory about that?” nothing! but you’re omitting the important fact that the former PM can choose to get legally married (and if she did her legal status would not be the same) same sex couples cannot get legally married. Therefore just because she chooses to not take advantage of the benefits of marriage that are offered to her is of no relevance to whether same sex couples are discriminated against or not.

        I also don’t know of any examples of a same sex couple that seeks to “…pretend that two men are the same functional phenomenon as a hand and a woman” not sure exactly what that means but marriage equality is not about pretending to be anything it’s about everyone being included and having the same rights and legal status regardless of their sexuality. You could argue that a civil union is just “pretending” to function the same.

        “…They are not free to choose a motherless or fatherless existence for a child” I think a lot of people freely choose (homosexual or heterosexual) to have a motherless or fatherless existence for their child, some can go about this a lot easier than others but what you’re saying is ultimately untrue.

        • admin

          Same-sex couples have exactly the same legal status as the former PM and her partner – that’s the point. There is no practical discrimination in any law here in Australia against same-sex couples. And no, marriage is not “about everyone being included and having the same rights regardless of their sexuality”. How mushy is that! Destroying the meaning of the fundamental institution of society – of nature’s fundamental unit – that binds children in bonds of blood and belonging to their biological parents, family and ancestors – you want this to be emptied of its meaning just so same-sex couples can feel “equal”? Get serious. Radical law reform cannot be justified as a form of “self-esteem therapy” for some frustrated citizens. Adults should be confident in their own relationships – as the former PM and her unmarried partner were – without asking society to rearrange itself to meet their psychological needs.

          Technically, in any case, the Federal Court in Australia has already established that there is no discrimination against gay men and women because they, like any other citizen, are at liberty to “marry and found a family” (as per Art 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Like any other citizen of marriageable age who is not already married then can enter into “the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others” which is the timeless meaning of marriage. If gay men and women want to change the meaning of marriage to something that is not marriage, that is a different question. That is not a matter of discrimination, but definition.

          As to your final point about a heterosexual deliberately choosing a motherless or fatherless existence for their child – (I presume you mean as a premeditated act by a single woman perhaps – not through tragic separation) – then shame upon them for their selfishness and their indifference to the rights and needs of a child. The rights and “emotional needs” of an adult end where the birthright of a child begins. Unless, as it begins to seem, we live in a society where “adults” are increasingly hard to distinguish from children.

          • Well done for your clarity! EXACTLY!!!

          • Well the point seems to be missed that de-facto couples can adopt children anyway eg Penny wong.So you cannot justify oppostition to equal marriage on the grounds that children will be adopted etc as they already are!

            Why not call marriage marriage for all (as USA ,UK,NZ etc etc)
            In the past the church didn’t even marry people cause they believed it was a sin.
            Honestly your opposition to equal marriage will fall anyway , its is so 1950s.
            Find something important

      • Then you must want to bad divorce as well. My mother raised me, and I was deprived of a father too. Homosexuality had nothing to do with it. I also have a PhD and am wealthy and married.

    • Same sex marriage deprives the child of a mother or a father. It is about the child’s rights and needs not the adults lusts. Homosexuals crying ‘discrimination! Discrimination! Is so pathetic when you see that all they’re really trying to do is force society to accept their thoroughly rotten morals as normal behaviour. It’s not normal behaviour and definitely not as nature intended. They should not be mistreated but homosexuality is not normal and should be treated medically as it is against nature and procreation.

      Homosexuality is not a race but a sexual pleasure, nothing else and we, society should not have to lower our morals to this shameful level.

      First it was free love now same sex marriage and cannabis ships, next it will be incest and pedophilia. If you can’t see we’re headed into a moral abyss turn you’re eyes are closed.

  2. “marriage” is a religious term. It has 1000’s of years of history and I totally agree that if you want to be married then you should be a person of faith of a religion that recognises marriage which is traditionally and exclusively between a man and woman. I am not religious., however I respect a persons right to worship whatever faith they wish. Government on the other hand has no business being involved in religion. They should legislate to replace the marriage act with another term lets say the ‘domestic co existence’ act or the’ civil union of persons’ act -anything that doesn’t have the term ‘marriage’. If you want to be ‘married’ you have to go get a marriage licence from your local church. Do married people have better human rights then single people- the answer is no. We are effectively denying some people (gay & lesbian) access to a word- it is ridiculous. Simply change the terminology in the legislation – Problem solved. (I think)

    • admin

      Problem not solved, Ben – because it starts from a false premise.

      Marriage is not a social or religious invention, but a social response to a timeless biological reality. The biological pair-bond of man and woman is nature’s foundation for human life – as with other mammals – not a social fad to be cut to shape according to the fashion of the day. Religion may enrich and decorate the phenomenon of the male-female pair bond, but it does not invent it.

      The father of modern anthropology, Claude Levi-Strauss, called marriage “a social institution with a biological foundation”. He notes that throughout recorded history the human family is “based on a union, more or less durable, but socially approved, of two individuals of opposite sexes who establish a household and bear and raise children.” Our marriage ceremonies and laws exist to buttress nature – helping bind a man to his mate for the sake of social stability and for the sake of the child they might create.

      Not all marriages do create children – but typically they do, and the institution exists for the typical case. If marriage did not have the have the momentous consequence, typically, of creating a child who needs stable care over prolonged periods, there would be no need to urge a marriage contract on adults entering a sexual relationship.

      Self-evidently, homosexual relations cannot create children, so society has no institutional interest in regulating such friendships. They are of importance to the individuals involved, and demand neighbourly civility – but they do not meet nature’s job description for marriage.

      Every society, religious or not, has a vested interest in stable natural marriage, because that is the biological and social context for creating the next generation. We are mammals. Mating and breeding will happen whether there is marriage or not. But without the social discipline of marriage, there is social chaos. With the social discipline of marriage, there is a better chance of social order: a man staying with his mate, and both staying with their child, for the good of the child and of society.

      The cultural phenomenon of marriage is present in every society from the earliest recorded history (with very rare aberrations that merely prove the rule) while the notion of ‘homosexual marriage’ is a uniquely post-modern illusion.

      Ancient legal codes – of Hammurabi in Babylon around 1750 BC, or King Dadusha in the same region a century earlier – elaborate the social conditions for valid marriage, and for justice in the event of violating the marriage vows. They were not religious codes.

      Ancient or modern, religious or not, marriage and family exist to help nurture a new generation, to civilise the feral instincts of males, and to be what John Locke called “the first society”. Not a religious society.

      • Is there a difference between marriage being a social invention or a social response?

        This whole argument is a fallacy. You can give as many quotes as you like about the reason why marriage exists in the first place or how it came to be but no one is really disputing this, it doesn’t provide any logical reason or evidence as to why same sex couples shouldn’t be included and have the right to marriage in today’s society.

        “Our marriage ceremonies and laws exist to buttress nature – helping bind a man to his mate for the sake of social stability and for the sake of the child they might create”. You can’t reduce marriage to this… Marriage clearly represents so much more in today’s society both socially and lawfully. How does allowing two people of the same sex to marry undo social stability? How would your so called “fashion of the day” or as I like to call it: equality, not strengthen social stability?

        You go on to say “not all marriages create children but typically they do and the institution exists for the typical case”. Why should same sex relationships be treated any different to marriages that don’t produce children? Is this not discrimination? You have one majority of people whom “marriage exists for” It’s ok for one atypical minority (heterosexual couples who don’t want children or who knowingly can’t have them) but not for another minority (Same sex couples) If marriage exists only for a typical case, why should one atypical group be treated differently from the other?

        Further if same sex marriage were legal why won’t marriage not still exist for the “typical case”? Census states homosexuals are a minority, how could that, from a numerical sense, affect the “typical”? If they are allowed to be married this has no affect on a man and a woman’s ability to get married and have children, or not have children. Similarly it would have no affect on a man and woman’s ability to not get married but still have children.

        “If marriage did not have…the momentous consequence, typically, of creating a child who needs stable care over prolonged periods, there would be no need to urge a marriage contract on adults entering a sexual relationship” I’m not sure calling a child a consequence is a very eloquent way or stating your point but in reality there is actually no real urge of contract when adults enter a sexual relationship – there is no real urge for a marriage contract when adults have a child and there is no urge of contract when married adults have a child. There are other laws and contracts separate to marriage that seek to ensure a child’s wellbeing.

        “…But without the social discipline of marriage, there is social chaos. With the social discipline of marriage, there is a better chance of social order: a man staying with his mate, and both staying with their child, for the good of the child and of society” You’re suggesting that marriage equality means abolishing marriage all together. This is just simply not true.

        • admin

          Marriage “equality” does, indeed, abolish all marriage, in the sense that it abolishes the timeless, natural, true meaning of marriage. Those of us who entered into marriage did so understanding it be one thing – the great life-task, prescribed by nature, where a man and a woman establish a home and (typically) bear and raise children. That is the most honourable, and only truly essential, life task there is. Now we would find that “marriage” no longer means that, but means “the socially recognised erotic coupling of any two adults, whether two men, two women, or one of each”. It is no longer a reality founded in nature and binding the generations, but a legal fiction created by activist judges or trivial politicians. And you think that is no small change?

          Further, marriage “equality” with its inherent right to same-sex adoption and surrogacy also destroys the parent-child relationship, in the sense that it destroys the timeless, natural, true meaning of parenting. It serves the classic socialist goal of breaking up the family and having the status of children defined primarily by the state. Presently parenting is defined by biological links to the man and woman who gave the child life. As soon as nations get gay ‘marriage’ laws, they then change references to “mother’ and “father” in their legal documents to become “parent 1″ and parent 2” or suchlike – witness Canada and Spain. So the relationship of the child to his “parents” is no longer defined by natural bonds, but by whatever the state damn well wants to define it by. And you think this totalitarian shift is no small matter?

        • Sam

          You claim that marriage between one man and one woman has been THE social norm for many years. You seem to be conveniently forgetting that polygamy was the standard for many more years. Furthermore, marriage was still evolving in the last two centuries to free women from being the property of the men to whom they were married. It is an evolving institution and over time, the law has been changing it allow for both members of a marriage to be two equals. A marriage between two adults of the same sex would only seek to reaffirm that. Divorce used to be illegal, and that was shameful and there was a lot of stigma attached to it and marital rape was barely even acknowledged. If we take a legal construct as the norm and try to stagnate its evolution we then create a society which is incapable of expanding itself to being more tolerant and open.
          Your argument on children completely disregards the existing laws in most states in Australia which permit the adoption of children by gay and lesbian couples.
          Marriage is not something religion has a monopoly on and is not something that it inherently about biology anymore; it is state sanctioned and that’s that. If we didn’t have it like that, we would be giving power to a theocratic notions which do not belong in a pluralist nation like Australia.

      • Actually just what is the problem if I want to marry one of my boyfriends or even two or three??
        Why do you have to be so damn conservative?
        What business is it of yours who I want to marry?
        Anyway de factos can already adopt kids.Try telling Penny wong her family is not valid.
        Well this legislation will be passed and all you guys on marrigage forum will have to find another hobby.

  3. I wish people would stop using the Bible to justify their homophobia.
    Jesus Christ said that gay people (known as eunuchs at that time) were born that way from their mother’s womb. Matthew 19:12. This explains why Jesus never once spoke out against homosexuality, but He did speak out against adultery hundreds of times. Right wing groups seem to conveniently ignore this fact.
    Heterosexuals have a right to get married and divorced as many times as they like. Even famous people like Elizabeth Taylor made a mockery of traditional marriage by getting married 8 times. Yet a gay couple in a caring, loving and committed relationship has no right to marry at all.
    Thousands of years of history had marriage defined as a legal contract between a man and a woman, where the man was head of the wife and the wife had to obey her husband. We also had slavery in many countries and women did not have the right to vote. Are we going backwards or moving forward?
    Civilised countries have abolished slavery, granted civil rights and given women the right to vote. All of these were achieved, even with so much opposition at that time. History has shown that these landmark decisions were the right ones. Gay people are now the latest target of right wing hate groups. They are following leaders like Adolph Hitler who believed that gay people were ‘defective’ and had to be eliminated. We thought we had learned a valuable lesson from history and moved on since then. Most traditional Catholic countries in Europe and South America have since approved of same-sex marriages, and the world did not implode. We are now living in the 21st Century and still can’t decide if all citizens are equal before the law. How shameful and embarrassing. How will history judge us in years to come?

    • RMW

      How ludicrous. Eunuchs are males who have been castrated. Eunuchs who were ‘born that way’ mean people who have been born with a defective organ. It does not refer to homosexuals at all. Homosexuals were regarded as disgusting sinners as per Leviticus 18.
      Oh and Jesus explained what marriage is: a faithful union between one man and one woman (Matthew 19: 4-6).That excludes divorce (unless someone cheats – Matthew 19:9), homosexuality and polygamy for that matter.
      And you’ve forgotten one other matter. What if someone’s motivation against homosexuality is Islam?
      And for what it’s worth, there are ironically more slaves today in a post abolition world than there were back when it was legal, civil rights doesn’t seem to stop community tensions and animosities, and granting women the right to vote has lead to the situation back when Julia Gillard was PM that women voters are said to be more likely to vote for her simply for being a woman regardless of actual policies. How divisive.

    • Your understanding of a Enuch is incorrect John Mark. http://www.gotquestions.org/eunuch-eunuchs.html

      Thank you for this article and your comments Admin… It has helped me understand this whole issue better and I now agree that the definition of marriage should not be changed.

      Kind regards

    • But John Mark the world is imploding.

      We have terror groups against the west because of our liberal morals and greed of money.

      We have children who do not know their place in the world. They think they should have equal rights of adults, and act accordingly.

      We have a divorce rate of over 50%. Families are falling apart.

      Over 20% of american school girls have an std.

      The basic structure of society is falling apart, and it is because of our (your!) liberal views that people should be able to do what they want.

      There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ anymore. Children are confused by what they see and don’t know their place any more, nor what is the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way to act in society.

      The world is imploding. You are just too blind to see it.

  4. This issue is one of the better examples of folks who quickly adopt a view more to convey something about themselves instead of taking the time to research the matter. They are quick to describe other people as ‘homophobic’ and ‘ignorant’, to demonstrate their contempory, trendy and generally, ill informed views. Why bother finding out about the substance of the matter, when one can simply adopt the inner suburban, ‘its inevitable’ mantra ? Here’s a question for you fixie riding, Mumford and Sons clones …… “what marriage inequality?” How are same gender couples discriminated against by the current wording of the Marriage Act? Recent equality focused legislation has properly removed any inconvenience for same gender couples in areas including superannuation and probate. I see Penny Wong, ( who has a child with her same gender partner and who can enjoy the same lifestyle, government funding, services and opportunities that hetrosexual parents can access ) on the TV this morning lamenting the inequality in the Marriage Act. What’s wrong with this picture? Mature same gender couples simply go about their lives and raise their families in the manner of their choosing. Only those who seek attention and politicians continue to push this agenda out of rank political bloodymindedness. So tell me Hipsters, what freedoms do you want same gender couples be able to enjoy that they are currently denied? What changes to the wording in the Marriage Act (1961) do you advocate? What’s the Marriage Act, I hear you say? That’s the legislation that contains the phrase, “….a man and a woman”. Jump off facebook for a minute and check it out……… It’s really cool.

  5. Thankyou for supporting natural marriage! Redfining marriage is exactly that – a redefinition of marriage, radical social engineering which le as ds to deconstruction of the meaning of marriage. The family is the basic building block of society, and every child needs a mum and a dad. Keep up your good work.

  6. Ian

    This whole media circus is only with us because the media love cheap, easy, controversy.
    All that will happen if gay marriage is brought in, is that the old style of marriage will be cheapened.
    When it happens I will be able to introduce my wife of over 50 years as my “husband” and if queried I will cry discrimination.

  7. After recently watching your ad campaign I was so disheartened by your hateful outlook on how children in society should view the LGTB community that I had to come here and stand up for what is RIGHT. To create such a hate filled ad campaign speaking on behalf of “children” and deeming our LGTB community as unfit parents is seriously ignorant and damaging to so many families. Children deserve role models in their lives that can support them both emotionally and fiscally throughout their journey to adulthood. Children are not born prejudice and are not predisposition to be hateful towards sexual orientation – they are taught this by bigots. Your outlook on what our children should be taught is sickening, hurtful and anachronistic. To all of the LGBT people that visit this page please know that this senseless campaign is not supported by many Australians. FYI – I am a happily married heterosexual woman, born to heterosexual parents and I stand for marriage equality for all people no matter what their sexual preference may be.

    • admin

      Hi Kerry, you’ll find no hate here, just earnest discussion about a very important subject that will effect every aspect of our Australian way of life. Nowhere have we deemed anyone who is LGTB to be an unfit parent. We’ve only pointed out that the absolute best case scenario we can offer children is to live with their biological parents. We know biological parents don’t always get it right but it’s the best place to start.

    • Seb

      Thank you for this intelligent outlook on this page of common idiocy. As a bisexual male, this site stands against everything I have fought for and battled against. There are just some people in this world who do not understand the right that anyone has to fall in love and marry their soulmate. To you, whatever foul bigot who wrote this site, you have deeply hurt the LGBT community in creating this simply immature poll about a matter the
      LGBT has been fighting for for years. I hope that you never find your soulmate and if you have, get divorced. See ya haters!

  8. I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying but I would prefer if there were no labels whatsoever. So no matter what you are it doesn’t matter because in the article you are singling them out when everyone should be treated the same

  9. Hi. I’m a gay guy, early 30’s and like many many gay people I am against gay marriage and I would like to share my opinion so Admin I hope this gets published.
    I live not far from the city of Sydney, I’ve been part of the gay scene since my teens, most my friends (if not all) are gay so I’m pretty darn experienced with the gay life. Monogamy in gay relationships are extremely rare and when ever I come across men in long term relationships they all seem to be open ones – Allot of people see this as just mere simple fun and it is a real norm so I don’t understand why the fight for same sex marriage is when a marriage is between TWO people – What the heck are we really fighting for?? Can you imagine kids growing up open to this type of perception on what a relationship is? We will have generations of people too screwed up to stay in relationships do we not understand the devastation of this? Yes this sort of thing is happening with you straight people, the problem is so big why make it bigger?? I wish there was a gay group against same sex marriage that I can join.

  10. Dear AMF,
    You point out how, if Marriage Equality is granted, the current definition of marriage would change allowing, among other things, siblings to get married.
    Have considered that, according to the current definition, Siblings are allowed to marry!!
    The current definition needs to be changed so that siblings cannot

    Although, according to your main argument, sibling marriage would be acceptable because the children offspring would have a mother and a father!!

    • AJ

      Siblings are not allowed to marry under the current definition of marriage. Nice try though.

  11. jim

    How is it that only homosexual people can have a say and how come normal biological couples cant. the prejudice is against nature itself if we were all gay the human race would disappear in a flash of selfish uncommitted sex. having been attacked as a young child by two homosexual babysitters I cannot see the difference between gay and paedophile. They both just want self gratification at any cost. and seem to have no feelings for nature itself. I can no longer go into a public toilet without someone staring at my penis. Where are my rights. why cant I go into the women’s toilet and stare at them? its not about love but uncommitted sex. if I have to vote for gay marriage then I should also vote for paedophile marriage just because they were born that way does not make it right?
    Don’t advertise to my children that any sex is okay regardless of what or who it is performed with. the latest pamphlet for schools states that.
    Penis and vagina sex is not the only sex. nor is it the ultimate sex! Well what is the ultimate sex if not what nature and biology have provided. we are part of nature not part of some anything goes world.
    someone should teach about what is an entry and what is an exit. anus is for getting rid of excrement and germs not adding them.
    maybe all the gay people could go to mars and live out their one generation.
    people only evolve if they can give birth to the next generation.

    • man + man = swag
      woman + woman = swag

  12. Your comment*

    http://www.TrueMarriageEquality.com I think the sensible objection to Same-sex “marriage” must be that we, as responsible adults, need to consider the welfare of the children. Marriage is for the benefit of a man and a woman and society, but ultimately it is designed for the protection and welfare of children, without which we have no continuing society. Undermining marriage therefore has widespread consequences. Placing children in situations where they do not have the natural love and protection provided best by a mum and a dad harms children, discriminates against them, and will have profound consequences in the future for Australian society.

    Is that what our forefathers fought and died for?

  13. This is actually awful to read, that people so genuinely believe that it’s okay for some humans to have less rights than others. People of the gay community are so often dehumanized and often it’s by things like this. You cannot honestly petition this argument unless you have been in the situation that thousands of people in our country have felt. To be so isolated, to be told that you are unnatural, wrong, unlawful, sinful ect is one of the most despairing emotions and most of the LGBT community feel this way. Children will be raised well, not depending on the gender that raised them, but the love and care and guidance that the parent puts in. People are so worried about the future of the children, yet we don’t see people advocating for abusive heterosexual couples to have marital rights. What about single parents, are they doing it wrong too? People are people, equality should just be a given. It is a right, not a privilege to be treated as such. Please understand this concept, or argue about something that you can understand on an emotional level, because it’s experiences like this that make the lgbt youths of today, our future, wish that they were never born.

    • Hi Sarah, I remember as a teenager, wishing I was never born, and having fantasies about suicide.
      Doesn’t everyone go through that experience during adolescence? It’s a confusing time for everyone at that age when hormones are affecting our growth, not to mention the sexual experiences we may be exposed to.

      Children and adults need to be accepted regardless of their differences. Gay marriage does nothing to address this problem.

  14. I’m all for equal rights.
    A marriage requires a husband and wife.
    That is the natural equal balance of nature. Redefining marriage won’t change that.

    It is equal as it is.
    Man + woman = marriage = husband and wife.
    How can you re-interpret that?
    Gay marriage is something else completely.

  15. I look at some comments and I’m amazed.
    The arguments against same Sex marriage are as feeble as they were against blacks voting, women voting, and all the discrimination evils of the past.
    I have teenage daughters who can’t believe this is still an issue.

    Regardless of your views, shortly there WILL be same sex marriage. It’s not if, it’s when. Anyone with half a brain knows that.
    And the next generation will shake their heads at how backward and self centred we were. Just like we are to the past opposition to black rights , women’s rights, etc.

    Get over yourselves and accept the inevitable. And get over your rubbish fears of the ‘downfall of society’. No one is going to fall down.

  16. The word “equality” is wrong in this debate. “Equality” means “the same value as” we cannot look at loving relationships and assess whether one relationship eg. mother and child or husband and wife, or same sex couples and put different values on it according to label. Of course all (without qualification) genuine loving relationships are of immense value. We are looking at same sex marriage as a different married relationship from heterosexual marriage for obvious reasons, not the “equal value” of either relationship. The legal issues in the debate mean the celebrant would no longer have to affirm that the couple presenting before them are male and female.. Legal recognition of same sex marriage in another country at present is not recognised here – this would of course change. All state laws relating to surrogacy, adoption and IVF would need to be into alignment with heterosexual couples at present there is quite different variations across the states. The rights of people of faith who deliver services to those wishing to be married as well as our religious communities would have to be looked at and legal provisions made to avoid unfair “discrimination” laws being enacted. All the three forms from the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages ie. “notice of intent”, Register of marriage performed, the couple’s marriage certificate, and the information pamphlet given will necessarily be changed there will be no “bride and & groom” it will be Partner 1 and Partner 2. In the past the understanding of marriage defined as “the union between a man and a woman” has been accepted globally. Now there is a variety of views recognition of same sex marriage depends on where you live. The situation is very diverse. Slovenia had a referendum in December 2015 where change was rejected. Although Ireland is held up as a ringing endorsement only 60% of the voting population turned out and of that 60% only 60% voted for change. Australia is possibly the most multi-cultural country in the world many of our citizens having dual citizenship – another thought in the mix. Whether a separation will need to take place and abolish outside celebrants and have a registration of marriage by a public servant and then should the couple wish a separate religious ceremony outside of that can make their own private arrangements. There is more to debate here than the simplistic approach of the media are now avoiding.
    I suspect what we will end up with will be two definitions of marriage “Traditional” marriage and “Gay” marriage.

  17. Northern Island does not recognise same sex marriage either.

  18. Taking religion out of the equation, we can focus on science. In particular, natures own rules. There are NO purely homosexual species on the planet . By the very nature of homosexuality it is a non breeding behaviour. Every species studied so far, has at some stage seen random individuals partaking in same sex behaviour ( not necessarily only same sex but a mixture).
    Natures rule 101, survival of the fittest and strongest genes, procures the future of the species. Homo Sapiens have advanced communication and thought processes and for the most part have moved on from the dark days of violence within small communities which depletes and hinders expansion of the populous. In that social environment, the weak and insipid gentle gay genes are crushed and overwhelmed by the dominant heterosexual genetic behaviour. Thus, our recognition that violence within our own species is to be avoided for the betterment of our existance,now sees the everyday presence of LBGT individuals in our society now tolerated and they are given equal rights in all our civil and commercial laws and constitutions. The public in general are apathetic to lbgt phenomenon because they bear no impact on their everyday life. The true question of the debate exists with the exchange of the word “equality” for the other word “promote”. i.e. In accepting same sex marriage and writing laws which make it equal to heterosexual union, we are degrading marriage ( the ultimate and apex biological union) and educating our developing children minds to ensure they “accept” and ratify the inferior genetic behaviour of lbgt or ss coupling. Children are and will be ,the biggest losers in the battle. As lbgt are incapable of breeding with their partners, they will promote IVF and adoption as an alternative, the former, a science designed to assist nature to achieve the ultimate reward for a heterosexual couple, and to promote healthy and heterosexual genetic inheritance for future children. I regret that the yes vote for SS marriage ignores the children rights. In the PC world we live in, it will soon be compulsory for 50% of adoptions to be offered to LBGT “marriages”, how sad for the children, robbed of natures stable start in life. And as babies are naturally created by heterosexual unions, the adoption list will consist of heterosexualy provided babies who have a basic human right to both a mother and a father. We are now witnessing the prelude to our next stolen generation.

  19. Lets leave the bible out of this for a second and observe a few facts I have observed. I beleive we should be focussing on the afront to nature regarding homosexuality, bisexuality and sex change in general and why it is not necessarilly in all cases looked at as a defect in human chemistry. Obviously not everyone is born the same, we are born with certain genetaelia but not necesarilly chemically balanced the way we should be to suit the equipment we may have. The question that arises in my mind regarding this issue is why allot of parents dont intervene consulting medical experts when a young child displays traits of this behaviour. A blood test can confirm wether or not there is excess estrogen or testosterone and hormone therapy can then apply to help curb the behaviour along with counseling. After all we are all walking chemical marvels of nature, Are we so obsessed as humans to ensure our children make a difference or be different from other children that we ignore there may be serious defects in human dna and chemistry. Nature is not perfect, never has been. That being said, is it possible that nature is telling us something by allowing more and more people to be born with this “loosely labeled” affliction that we need to curb our reproduction rate to minimise population growth as it stands we are severley overpopulated on this planet.

    Depending on which version you read I beleive there are many references to sexual imorality including but not limited to adultry and many acts deemed to be imoral along with sex before marriage. That being said I dont think the bible is the issue for anyone in this matter. Its a question of wether or not marriage should be allowed and accepted as the norm despite the union being traditionally skewed towards hetrosexual couples.

    So many then have a sex change to be comfortable with their bodies and happy in life but what is the result. From a scientific point of view, changing your sex is literally impossible. You can receive breast implants, remove your penis, testicles and create a vagina like body part, but it is neither functinal or real. You receive hormone replacement therapy where your body is flooded with copious ammounts of either estrogen or testosterone which then changes your voice, sature and bodies muscular structure. Basically when a sex change occurrs you end up mutilating your body in pursuit of something that you are not and will never be. Perhaps people should learn to make the most of what you have instead of trying to change who they are because simply put, no mater what you do, you are either a mutilated male or female.

    What about the people who have been in a relationship with someone that has undergone a sex change only to find out their partner cannot provide them a seed or a womb being duped into a false belief their partner is who and what they say they are. There is allot of selfishness out there in people, me included. In stead of bashing christians saying they are dumb people becaue they have faith in something higher than themselves don’t we base our argument for and against this issue. Attempting to use cheap tactics like ” Bible has been Missread or missinterpreted” it would be better to provide scientific evidence to back up the argument. not cheap shots like the church has large deal of paedophilia, or that LGBTQ have a large history of child abuse etc.

  20. Changing the marriage laws [“the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”] does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage, that in effect uniquely human phenomenon, to differentiate humans from animal species, it also ultimately obscures and confuses its societal and natural originated meanings, that for the advancement of humanity and the betterment of the species.

    And using the name of love and individuals freedom to manipulate the meanings of equality, it merely further creates one more uncertainty for future generations of adolescence life.

  21. Because it’s just like the dealings with the end of individual life in society, that the artificial factors will be added to the natural factors – The societal factors of homosexual marriage will be compounded with natural genetic factors.

    And therefore, by using the names of love and individual freedom to manipulate the meanings of equality, it merely further creates one more uncertainty for adolescence life of the majority of future generations.

  22. Changing the marriage laws [“the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others”] does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage, in effect that uniquely defines as human phenomenon, and to differentiate it from animal species, it also ultimately obscures and confuses its societal and natural originated meanings and purposes, that for the advancement of humanity and the betterment of the species.

    Because it’s just like the dealings with the end of individual life in society, that the artificial factors will be added to the natural factors – The societal factors of homosexual marriage will be compounded with natural genetic factors.

    And therefore, by using the names of love and individual freedom to manipulate the meanings of equality, it merely further creates one more uncertainty for adolescence life of future generations.

Leave a comment