Is This Our Last Mother’s Day?

On Sunday, thousands of flowers will be delivered, slippers unwrapped and handwritten cards opened in honour of mums.

More phone calls are made on Mother’s Day than any other day of the year. Is it any wonder?

There's nothing in the world that can compare to a mother's love. And there's no closer bond than that between a mother and her child.

Research proves it: 'After centuries of observing behavioral changes in new mothers, scientists are only recently beginning to definitively link the way a woman acts with what's happening in her prefrontal cortex, midbrain, parietal lobes, and elsewhere. Gray matter becomes more concentrated. Activity increases in regions that control empathy, anxiety, and social interaction. On the most basic level, these changes, prompted by a flood of hormones during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, help attract a new mother to her baby. In other words, those maternal feelings of overwhelming love, fierce protectiveness, and constant worry begin with reactions in the brain.'

If marriage law changes in Australia, it effectively takes mums out of the picture. Declaring that a family no longer should, ideally, be founded by a dad AND mum, says that, as a society, we believe that no longer do mothers matter. Two dads can replace her with ease and create the same ideal. She is redundant, unnecessary and superfluous.

Science and common sense says otherwise.

No one can emulate the hormonal and physiological changes that take place to create the unique bond between mother and child. To suggest otherwise is to snub your nose at science... and mothers.

So why would we, as a society, want to enshrine in law, marriage between two men, founding a family without the unique contribution of a mother? They can ONLY found a family by removing an infant from his/her mother, with no thought as to how this might effect him/her.

In fact, a study published in Science Daily shows the dramatic impact of separating a newborn baby from her mother...

Dr. John Krystal, Editor of Biological Psychiatry, commented on the study's findings: "This paper highlights the profound impact of maternal separation on the infant. We knew that this was stressful, but the current study suggests that this is major physiologic stressor for the infant."

Bill Shorten has already promised to legalise gay 'marriage' within 100 days in Government if Labor wins the next election.

If that is the case, this could be our last real Mother's Day. Once Genderless Marriage is enshrined in law, it's official - Mothers no longer matter. Their unique contribution to the family unit is no longer upheld as the ideal and Mother's Day is an affront to Genderless Families.

Mothers - don't believe the lie that Genderless Marriage advocates are feeding the media. Two dads can never replace one mum. Your contribution to your family is invaluable and this Mother's Day, we want to thank and honour all mums for what you do.

Happy Mother's Day!

 

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

32 Responses

  1. No wonder the AMF is so riled up about this. They think mothers will cease to exist. That’s not going to happen, guys.

  2. Nick, that “mothers won’t matter” is not remotely close to “mothers won’t exist”.
    Try again.
    Your strategy is straight out of the Kirk and Pill “handbook”. How about you try a bit of original thought.

    • They said “takes them out of the picture.” So they won’t exist in the picture.

      • Ash

        Taking it literally rather than metaphorically, Nick.
        Try again.

        • “Try taking it as what they didn’t say.” Sorry, I think they meant what they said.

  3. I don’t believe mothers are going to cease to exist because Australians are smarter than the rest of the Western countries as we have never tolerated corruption or deception.

    Has the Labor government got the right to make a man-made, legal “open marriage” between any 2 people for the purpose to include same-sex couples? This marriage will be based on autonomy and consent. All countries which have adopted an “open marriage” to include same-sex couples have disregarded the meaning, purpose and rules of marriage. The religious moral belief about marriage and divorce has nothing to do with this man-made “open marriage.” Most Australian don’t identify their marriage as an “open marriage,” and they don’t want it for their children.

    Meaning of Marriage
    Marriage is a public, life-time commitment to the behavioural practice of sexual intercourse “one flesh” (mind-body-soul) union between one man and one woman, excluding all others for the benefit of children. The Marriage Act is the only law which protects a mother and father right to nurture and raise their biological children. There are other laws which protect children from divorce, IVF, surrogacy and adoption. The birth certificate should be accurate for the child, not adult wishes.

    The Purpose and Rules of Marriage:
    1. Marriage is between male and female for the purpose of procreation. Marriage between one man and one woman has been the fundamental behavioural practice since the beginning of time, existing in all cultures as it is the only way to create natural biological children. When couples are unable or choose not to have children they still model the fundamental behavioural practice of marriage-sexual intercourse-“one flesh” (mind-body-soul) union for the benefit of other people’s children.
    2. Marriage is monogamous for the purpose of mother and father have modelled marriage-sexual intercourse- “one flesh” (mind-body-soul) union to their children to decrease or prevent the risks of family violence, jealousy, abandonment, infidelity, sexless marriage, teenage pregnancy, illnesses-self-loathing, self-harm, suicide, pain, diseases- pelvic inflammatory disease, STDs, HPV, HIV,AIDS, infertility, cancers, and death.
    3. Marriage is life-long for the purpose of man and woman committing to building a stable home environment for children to be nurtured and raised for their life. It take time and money to raise a child.

    An “open marriage” to include same-sex couples this totally destroys the fundamental behavioural practice of marriage-sexual intercourse-“one flesh” (mind-body soul) union because it doesn’t happen between any 2 people. Sexual intercourse “one flesh” and children are irrelevant in this man-made “open marriage,” so most married couples will find it meaningless and pointless. Marriage is no longer life-long due to a no-fault divorce.

    “Open marriage” has no rules, meaning or purpose. When an “open marriage” is only based on autonomy and consent there are no arguments against the throuple (3 people whom love each other), multiple spouses, monogamish relationships (sexual relationships outside marriage) or the wed lease – 5yr, 10yr marriage lease etc.

    Since same-sex couples are 100% infertile they need at least a third person to create a child so this makes it an “open marriage,” and it become monogamish (consenting sexual relationship outside of marriage). Same-sex couples have the same equal entitlements to the law as defacto couples whom have the same rights are married couples. Same-sex couples are legally treated equally, but married couples already have a name for same -sex couples and it is a man-made “open ‘same-sex’ marriage,” but the majority of married couples won’t identify their marriage with an “open marriage.” Since marriage is a God given right like being a parent, the Bible doesn’t require Christians to be legally married or divorced. There will be a lot of division in Australia if the government and government agencies attempt to force “open marriages” on everyone. The silent majority of married couples have their own autonomy and consent which changed the Safe School program. Same-sex couples can’t claim they’re second-class citizen as they have a powerful support of Human rights commission, major companies, government, media, public health and the legal system. It is the majority of married couples whom don’t identify their marriage as an “open marriage” whom are forced into silence. People whom identify as gay or lesbian don’t have to not have had sexual intercourse with the opposite sex. The Marriage Act has never prevented LGBTIAQ people exercising their right to get married, but if all people whom identified as heterosexual married their best friend of the same-sex then this would go against the “survival of the species.” This man-made legal “open marriage” will never last as it is based on no meaning, purpose or rules, just autonomy and consent. So anything is possible with this type of marriage , what ever is in Fantasyland. It reminds me of people trading real money for Bitcoin. Will Australians be that stupid to trade a true marriage for an “open marriage???”

    • 1. Hope you’re not infertile, Janine, because if you are you cannot be in a legitimate marriage, even if it’s with a man.

      2. You say one man / one woman marriage is a “fundamental behavioural practice since the beginning of time.” Not much of a student of history, are you?

      3. I’m glad to see you using the Dan Savage-coined term “monogamish.” As there is no evidence that homo sapiens is a natively monogamous species — and there is a great deal of evidence that we are natively polyamorous and raised children in nomadic collectives — monogamish relationships are likely the way of the future. You are helping codify the notion, so thanks for that. You too can be progressive, even when you don’t mean to be.

      • Steve,
        You don’t make sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        An infertile married couple can still benefit the next generation of children. A man and woman can still model the fundamental behavioural practice of sexual intercourse.
        Are you the expert in everything, including science? Since you don’t believe babies have come from one man and one woman having sexual intercourse since the beginning of time. You should prove that babies have come from somewhere else. The culture of marriage has been different like a wedding ceremony, but I am discussing the fundamental behavioural practice of marriage. The Guardian reported recently that social scientist believe humans became monogamous because of the spread of STDs. It is quite obvious people aren’t monogamous for example the Hook-Up-Culture “friends with benefits, Ashley Madison, swingers, prostitution etc.

        Steve, please grow up, and start acting like an intelligent man. Men can no longer use women as punching bags when they disagree with them. You’re being a coward for verbally attacking a woman. Men have to start using their brains, and make an intelligent argument for marriage or open marriage or removing the legal practice of marriage.

  4. As much as a lot of what you say is correct (logically correct), I think you make a lot of false assumptions. First marriage has not always been the basis of human groups. Monogamy (the basis of marriage was the result of the invention of agriculture because men have a much greater incentive caring for their own children if the know with a higher degree of certainty which ones are theirs. Once humans acquired a home and land, property they naturally want to transmit them as well as all the skill, knowledge, philosophy and religion to their children. It is a very powerful force for progress, as can be seen throughout the world, as virtually all civilizations have adopted marriage as the basis for their societies. It is hard to find anything else in human society that is more powerful. So to try to dissociate marriage from the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of having children together and pretend that any other mode is equally good for the children is mind boggling in the extreme. It is only because people have not thought it through and have been blinded by vacuous slogans such as “Marriage Equality” that we have the absurd situation where 50% of people think it is a good idea – based on two unrelated words: marriage and equality, which individually are great aims to attain.
    So, to recap: marriage is not the natural order of things. Primitive men and women can have as many sexual partner as they want and reproductive chances are based on genetics. But this natural primitive mode of reproduction cannot evolve much at all (except by mutation). Marriage has put humans on an incredible trajectory of rapid improvement in life and society. This is because children are the only purpose of marriage. Of course, some couples cannot have children and this is almost always a great tragedy and indeed the cause of many wars and conflicts (if not all…!), but it does not mean that we should sacrifice children at birth by depriving them of their mother or their father.

    The other thing that bothers me is the relation with religion, and on this forum, we are talking about Christian religion. I think it has been a grave mistake to try to imply that same-sex marriage is wrong because of the Bible or religious belief. In particular considering the deviations that have been exposed recently regarding priests and children abuse. As a parenthesis, I would like to say that apart from unavoidable (moral) evil in all of us, which religions have tried to prevent or stamp out (usually by force, sadly), Catholic priests should have the same inalienable right as all creation: to reproduce. It is patently wrong for any church to deny this fundamental right of any human. Sacrifice to a church and doctrine should never infringe on this most essential right. All priests should have the right to marry. Marriage is the doctrine of the Church and it makes sense that the Church would not tolerate priests having children outside marriage, but it cannot prevent them from having a wife and children. In my opinion, this is at the root of this evil in the Church. The government should in this sense pass a law saying that it is illegal for any Church to discriminate against a priest on the ground of him (or her) getting married and having children. Indeed, as much as possible, all priests should be married if they so desire. This does not make celibacy or homosexuality incompatible with the Church.

    And to get back to the relation between Church and marriage, I think that using religion as an argument against same-sex marriage, is misguided… because what we believe is a personal matter and we cannot (thankfully no longer!) force people to believe the same thing as we do. I don’t believe in any religion and it often makes me wince when these arguments are advanced as if they were absolute truths. God’s truth is not absolute truth even if we believe in it. It is a matter of belief in a philosophy or accepted way of life based on very ancient wisdom. We cannot impose that on anybody. These are not logical arguments. And unfortunately, these types of arguments have raised strong opposition from people who are simply against certain religious belief (or any aspect of religion) and gives them ammunition for same-sex marriage: “if the religious bigots think it is wrong, therefore we want it!”. An obtuse reaction to an opinionated belief. It tars all right (common sense) thinking people – religious or not – with the same extremist brush.

    And this is where we stand today: Opposition between two camps who are not prepared to put aside their prejudices. I am not sure if there are atheist groups opposed to same-sex marriage (I would hope so), but I think it would be a good thing if all people who care for the welfare of children got together and expressed a common reason why it is wrong, i.e. that it would allow depriving children of their natural parents and all the consequences stemming from it, many of which you mention in your posting. I think there are a lot of things we all agree on but we should clean up our act and not tolerate homophobia. Either it is a personal choice or an unavoidable genetic inclination but is is not a crime and it does not affect anyone. People are free to remain single or live with whoever they like as a couple in this country and be treated equally already. But when you involve children, it immediately affect someone else’s life, and we should not have the right to take genetic material from third party to be able to play mummy or daddy. There are other ways to assist procreation between a man and a woman. Sometimes it is not possible and I cannot see why science should play Frankenstein and help procreate children that are not our own. Medicine and couples have to decide whether wanting a child should allow sacrificing a child to be born without its parents. It is bad enough that some people have free sex and do not think of the consequence of what happens to the child that results from it, or sometimes mothers decide that they do not care for the father and keep him out of the baby’s life. Unfortunately, it is possible but it is hard to make these people understand that they are depriving their child of their rights. There is a lot of explaining and forgiving to be done for years and decades after. Some people are very selfish even towards their own flesh. This does not mean we should make it worse and allow a pretence of marriage that by its nature will deprive a child of one parent.

    I am sorry, but adoption should only be for the benefit of the child. It drives me mad when I hear people complain that foreign adoption is so difficult, because “there are not enough orphans in our country”. Furthermore, if these people did it for the sake of the children, with the amount of money it costs them to go through foreign adoption, they could have handsomely provided for the care of that child in its own country. So it is clearly for their own selfish pleasure, regardless of the child.

    Surrogacy is even more selfish and heartless, as not only does it means buying a child and having it manufactured usually in a third world country because it is cheaper, leaving both the child fatherless or motherless, with no chance ever to find out who its donor parent is; and leaving the birth mother, with the trauma of having given birth and being separated after 9 months from the child she has born for money to look after her own children. I have seen the look on these birth mother’s face when the child is removed. It is like an electric shock. No human should be subjected to this for money. This is so immoral and cruel, and all for the selfish pleasure of a couple of people, regardless of their sexual inclination, to have the ultimate gadget to play with and pretend to be the parents. But the child won’t be able to pretend all its life. It will haunt them forever. We cannot deprive the child of its mother or father simply to provide a status symbol for grown ups. The word “marriage” is not a virtual reality game, it is the game of life and it should be respected. Children must come first in our decisions.

    • Hi Mauri, You mentioned “same-sex marriage,” but same-sex couples aren’t wanting a separate Marriage Act to recognise their relationship. Therefore, there is no such thing as “same-sex marriage” like there isn’t a thing called “dog child.” There are couples whom want their same-sex relationship treated the same as a marriage to be called “married,” and there are people who would like their dog to be treated as a child so they can be called a “parent.” The autonomy of a same-sex couple ends when it infringes on other married couples autonomy. The Marriage Act hasn’t been established for one married couple, but a nation of married couples. Can the law treat a virtual baby and a real baby the same? Recently, a Korean couple let their real baby die, but protected their virtual baby. The courts are unable to treat both a real and virtual baby the same. Do you see a difference between a real baby and a virtual baby? The Labor government changed 85 laws to give same-sex couples equal legal rights to defect couples whom have equal rights to married couples. They are all equal under the laws, but are different by name because the majority of married couples don’t identify their marriage as an “open marriage.”

      Same-sex marriage isn’t the same as a marriage. Two men or two women aren’t the same as a married couple. 2 eggs, 2 sperm, 2 vaginas or 2 penises don’t have a scientific name. The sex organs of a man and woman when married together as “one flesh” – sexual intercourse (mind-body-soul) union is different to anal and oral sexual activities of same-sex couples. You can’t label people homophobic when people can’t pretend that sexual activities aren’t the same as sexual intercourse “one flesh” to be called marriage. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation as the majority of people are naturally orientated towards their same-sex friends from a young age. However, it is deviant (unusual) for people to have a sexual relationship with their same-sex friend as the majority of people living with a same-sex friends aren’t having a sexual relationship with them (0.7% identified as same-sex couple in the 2011 Australian census so this is deviant (unusual) from most couples). The government/state monitors the Australian fertility rate because if it is too low then our population will significantly decrease and our culture will cease to exist. (0.01% of children identified in a same-sex relationship which is an abnormally low fertility rate which would mean our culture would cease to exist based on this level). Same-sex couples never describe their sexual union to be the same as married couples. Marriage is a sexual union otherwise we call it a friendship or business partnership.

      When an eggs is fertilised by a sperm it develops into a baby, and the government agencies are involved in monitoring the health and relationship of babies/children. Based on all the scientific reports children do best when raised by their biological mother and father. When their biological mother and father commit to raising their children together in one family this means the child can model both parents. These parents can model the fundamental behavioural practice of marriage-sexual intercourse- “one flesh” (mind-body-soul) union to their children because is the only way to have natural, biological children in a stable family which makes a civilised society. Marriage is a committed, life-long, monogamous, sexual union between one man and one woman to decrease or prevent infidelity, domestic violence, illnesses – pain, self-loathing, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, STDs/HPV/HIV/AIDS, infertility, septicaemia (serious infection), birth deformities, and shorten life-span. Public Health monitors the spread of STDs, and health and relationship problems of adults and children. Governments funds The Australian AIDS council, and PReP trials to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, domestic violence programs, safe-sex programs, respectful relationship program, safe school program, vaccination for HPV etc). The health and wellbeing of the population is a serious concern to government because they provide or regulate education, health and welfare services, legal services, companies and businesses. When families are more stable this means government are less involved with people’s lives as they require less demand for government resources and services. Society pay the ultimate costs for fatherless children and single mothers when guys don’t commit to them.

      In 1857 the NSW marriage registry was established to protect and support the religious practice of marriage by keeping an accurate record for the illegitimacy of children and inheritance. This clearly shows evidence that the government didn’t make up the meaning of marriage as it had existed from 1788-1856 without any involvement by the government. Marriages in NSW were only recorded in the Church of England and other denominations during this period. What is the religious laws of marriage: Man would leave his parents and unite with his wife and become “one flesh,”and let no man separate, to fill the earth with children. The Bible never stated, “man and man” or “woman or woman” to be “one flesh” as this is impossible, even to God. The Bible warned against the practice of sodomy. There is scientific evidence that the anus and mouth aren’t made for a penis and the vagina isn’t made for a mouth/tongue. The Guardian has reported, “Doctors warn the Super-Gonorrhoea is spreading across Britain” as this is drug-resistant leading to infertility, septicaemia and death. The body isn’t designed to mix anal and oral sexual activities with sexual intercourse as this leads to faecal incontinence, green vaginal discharge (infection) pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, septicaemia and shorten life-span. The Zika virus is currently spreading around the world, and is the new STD with no immunisation available. The Guardian reported recently that social scientists believe humans became monogamous because of the spread of STDs. The Brisbane Times reported a Syphilis epidemic in Northern Queensland causing congenital blindness and death. The Guardian reported there is an AIDS/HIV epidemic in the gay community in Asia. The Guardian reported recently on a heroin epidemic in the USA. The Guardian reported on a chem-sex problem in the gay community in London with 5 men being diagnosed per week with HIV, and in Ireland there are more young gays not having unsafe sex which has caused a significant amount of new cases of HIV/AIDS. The Guardian reported recently, 40 000 people are dying per year from drug-resistant diseases across the US and Europe. Doctors and health authorise are warning that this generation is facing a crisis of diseases which have become drug-resistant, and people need to change their life-style including sexual practices. The Guardian reported of women choosing to die of their gynaecological problems because they were too embarrassed by their sexual practices to seek medical treatment.

      The government believes it can make a man-made legal “open marriage” between any 2 people in order to include same-sex couples. This is based on autonomy and consent. This man-made “open marriage” has removed the meaning of marriage between one man and one woman. Same-sex couples are monogamish as they can have sexual intercourse outside of marriage to have children. There is no requirement for gays or lesbians not to never had experienced sexual intercourse with the opposite sex. The 2000 homosexual report shows evidence that 97% of women whom identified as lesbian had previous relationships with men, and had significantly more relationships with men than women whom identified as heterosexual. Divorce has removed marriage for “life.” All the religious laws of marriage will no longer apply to this “open marriage.” Since “open marriage” is based on autonomy and consent there are no reasons against throuples (3 people all in love with each other) or multiple partners, heterosexuals having a monogamish relationship (sexual intercourse outside of marriage), and the wed lease arrangements which is a short-term marriage contract (5yrs, 10yrs, 20yrs). When the government (democracy) no longer believes in Biblical marriage laws, and has instead created a man-made “open marriage” for everyone, this means the Bible will no longer be relevant in the courts for people to swear on. What is the truth? Is truth the thoughts that pop into my head? Can I pretend the truth? If there is no truth, real money can be exchanged for monopoly money or Bitcoin. Will Australians exchange the truth about marriage for a man-made “open marriage?” When Australians are only govern by autonomy and consent, will our Governments have to become a dictator to control the people because moral beliefs are irrelevant. Will The government become the moral police by telling the people what is right and wrong? Overseas Christians have been persecuted because they don’t believe in an “open marriage” to include same-sex couples and have been jailed, fined, attend re-education programs, loss of business/company/income, children removed from parents homes, unable to adopt or foster children, forced sexuality and transgender programs at school, forced to go against their moral conscience etc. I belong to a work union whom support “open marriage” to include same-sex couples. The union is suppose to protect and support all members equally. However, since I didn’t support “open marriage” I was labelled “bigot” and they hung up the phone. I have paid union fees over a 23yr period and if you don’t agree with the mind-set of “open marriage” they refuse to treat you as a member. They have since apologised for their treatment of me.

  5. The illogical nature of recent AMF posts is becoming worrying to me as a supporter of traditional marriage. Mothers Day is not celebrated because of what this or any other government or law says about marriage.How can a change in the Marriage Act possibly have the result you suggest???

    Just for the record the vast majority of same sex headed households in Australia that include children are headed by two women. Typically (though I am not aware of statistics on this) one of these is the biological mother of the children.

    Surrogacy is a different matter entirely and one does not even have to be a supporter of traditional marriage to see this.If a socially ‘progressive’ country like Sweden can move towards banning all forms of surrogacy, so can Australia.

    My concern is that though it is still possible that traditional marriage could be successfully defended in Australia (the case of Croatia shows this) the kind of arguments currently being put forward by the AMF will certainly not convince wavering voters.In fact they will actively damage our chances of success, since they are so easy to refute.

  6. Ash

    Remove the man AND woman in marriage, and you lose the natural biological bond that is exclusively made between the man and the woman. Whilst “Mother’s Day” will probably not be affected by SSM it disrupts the family dynamic. Two consenting men, or two consenting women, who make a personal decision to call themselves a couple can continue to do so but stop deluding themselves that their relationship should be considered ‘marriage’. Call it whatever you like with all the rights that are due to any other Australian citizen, it’s just not the same as marriage. It’s hardly just about Mother’s Day.

  7. sam

    Totally agree with you but proponents of genderless marriage will try to ridicule the facts to suit themselves . Keep up the good fight…..

  8. Margaret, whilst acknowledging the efficacy of your intent in a few of your last postings toward encouraging AMF to maintain a balanced perspective in their articles and avoid hyperbole, I offer some thoughts regarding the notion of ‘illogical’ in a broader view of the SSM debate.
    Fifteen years ago the very notion of a man marrying a man was considered at best ‘illogical’.
    Part of the LGBT activist’s strategising to precipitate the social change that has allowed this debate to even be possible was the announcement of a gay gene. Being illogical is something I’m sure most of us are guilty of on occasion. The promotion of a (gay gene) lie to achieve one’s purpose is beyond illogical.
    The Safe Schools Programme has been implemented into our children’s curriculum under the guise of being an anti-bullying program. This label is not only illogical it is deceitful with Roz Ward one of the designers of the Safe Schools programme being on record acknowledging the programme is not about preventing bullying.
    Victoria now has a ‘Respectful Relationships’ programme which purports to be about preventing domestic violence but like Safe Schools it is loaded with propaganda intended to ‘normalise’ LGBT lifestyles. This is not only illogical it is intellectually deceitful.
    Regardless of your opinion of him an Australian senator opposed to SSM a few weeks ago had his office trashed by advocates of tolerance. This is illogical!
    An Australian clergyman was taken to an anti-discrimination tribunal for publishing a document supporting the maintenance of current Australian marriage law. This is illogical!
    Overseas where SSM has become the rule men in dresses are now fighting for the right to access women’s toilet/dressing facilities. This is illogical!
    OS the ideology that supports SSM is maintaining that babies are not born boys or girls …..rather each individual is to be left to decide for themselves with their right to change sex upheld but their right to seek help for their confusion resisted. This is illogical!
    In Canada at least, a child’s birth records legally can no longer record ‘mother’ and ‘father’ but parent 1and parent 2. How illogical would it be then to take the next step toward achieving the SSM agenda, being the dissolution of the traditional family unit, to implement Parent Day instead of Mother’s Day and Father’s Day?
    It is important that we dialogue respectfully but every bit as important for the sake of our children, and society that we are wise to the ‘logic’ of adults who believe their desire to parent negates a child’s right to it’s parent. So speak softly but…..

    • Tony, I totally agree with your comments as there are far too many lies told including: “love is love,” “romantic relationship,” “marriage equality.” Same-sex couples told the Australian public that “same-sex marriage ” wasn’t going to affect anybody’s marriage. However, they forgot to tell the Australian public that they were exchanging a true marriage for an “open marriage,” I haven’t heard of the government putting “same-sex marriage” in the Marriage Act. Don’t they want their title of “same-sex marriage” in their own man-made law? They talk all about same-sex marriage and then it magically disappears to “marriage.” This could be the last public mother’s day we celebrate, but I believe the Australian people are more intelligent, and can smell a rat. Australians need to defend marriage between one man and one woman as this is true marriage equality between the genders, so lets not change the balance for the sake of our children as they really want their real mother and father.

  9. Janine,

    You said ‘… but I believe the Australian people are more intelligent, and can smell a rat’. I agree, and I think that’s why Shorten and his cohorts don’t want a plebiscite. The only way to prevent the stupid ssm becoming reality is if the Australian people vote for an alternative party like ‘Australian Liberty Alliance’, ‘Christian Democratic Party’, ‘Australian Christian’, and independents who support traditional marriage. If the ALP comes to power they’ll scrap the plebiscite. Turnbull might scrap it too if he can use it to buy cooperation from the opposition on other matters.

  10. Tony the question I am really posing is whether the aim of AMF is to persuade Australians to retain the current definition of marriage or whether its aim is to preach to the converted.
    I had assumed it to be the former.
    If that is so, then the possibility that our opponents are being illogical is hardly an excuse for our being illogical too.
    If we accept that there is a powerful and well organized LGBT lobby driving the debate in Australia then it becomes even more vital that we as supporters of traditional marriage drive the debate better.
    This may well mean for example that we have to consider whether the interests of children already growing up in same sex headed households are better served if the relationship of the adults is given a legal status equivalent to marriage. Croatia for example whilst enshrining the traditional definition of marriage in the constitution introduced life partnerships for same sex couples.
    A significant number of same sex couples are likely to prefer this option for themselves, but are currently supporting what they believe to be the right to choose to enter a legal relationship that fits the definition of marriage (monogamous and for life). Rather more importantly to us as defenders of traditional marriage it is this same argument that has appealed to an Australian public uncritically in favour of a fair go.
    Unless we address this convincingly it seems most likely that we will lose the debate.
    I understand that there may be some supporters of traditional marriage who find even homosexual orientation abhorrent, and certainly homosexual acts. The word ‘pervert’ was used in an earlier conversation, and some of the appeals to biblical authority (which I do not want to debate here) are in the same vein.
    But our priority at present is surely to maintain a traditional definition of marriage by putting up as strong a case as possible, and to do this in a way that convinces as many people as possible.
    In this context I do not think our case is helped by this article on the future of Mothers Day, by sneering and point scoring ,or by scare tactics of any kind.
    If anyone reading this is honestly convinced that these are the tactics that will win support for our case please feel free to present your evidence.

  11. Hi Margaret,
    Australians need to make a Class Action case to defend the meaning and purpose of marriage in order to protect our religious freedom and free speech, and Australian’s way of lives. This has been based on the Judeo-Christian laws which created the Marriage Act to protect and support the religious and biological behavioural practice of marriage. Once the law doesn’t recognise the Biblical/biological/historical/social science view of marriage then this means their is no point to swearing on the Bible as the truth in court. The government becomes the morality police of what is right and wrong (dictator). Marriage is a public, life-long commitment to the behavioural practice of sexual intercourse “one flesh” (body-mind-soul) union between one man and one woman, excluding all others for the benefit of children. Opening marriage up to same-sex couples makes marriage totally meaningless and pointless as the majority of married couples don’t identify their marriage as an “open marriage.” Same-sex couples aren’t interested in a civil union as this exists in Queensland with little interest by same-sex couples. Same-sex couples want the title of “married,” not “same-sex marriage.” Australians understand the meaning of “open marriage” (sexual relationship outside of marriage- adultery). Therefore, an “open marriage between any 2 people” means (sexual relationships outside the marriage by any two people and this isn’t infidelity because it is based on autonomy and consent). Same-sex couples require at least a third person to have children. A New Zealand lesbian married couple advertised on the internet requested donor sperm or sexual intercourse to the right guy to have a child. The majority of married couples don’t want to model this type of marriage to their children. Parents model marriage-sexual intercourse “one flesh” (mind-body-soul) union to their children decrease or prevent significant harmful health and relationship problems. When the next generation of young people view marriage as a meaningless and pointless practice then this creates more unstable relationships which the government agencies get involved in to protect women and children. The aim of a society should be to increase the morality of the people so government is less.

    • The reasons I believe Australians need to make a Class Action to defend the real meaning and purpose of marriage:
      1. If a business started to label a virtual baby as the same as a real baby there are consumer laws to protect the consumer. However, what if our government believes it can label a man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people to be labelled the same as marriage, to be called “married”? What law in Australia protects the couples whom don’t want to identify their marriage as an “open marriage” and want a true marriage based on the public, life-long commitment to the behavioural practice of sexual intercourse “one flesh” (mind-body-soul) union between one man and one woman, excluding all others for the benefit of children?
      2. The history of marriage in NSW shows evidence that marriage is a religious behavioural practice which is celebrated by a wedding ceremony in churches, and based on nature and nurture of children. The only records of marriage were kept by the Church of England and other denominations from 1788-1856. So the government and Australian people never came up with the word marriage and its meaning and purpose so they shouldn’t have any right to redefine it, especially since the majority of Australians don’t practice an open marriage.
      3. The autonomy of a same-sex couple ends when it comes in conflict with the autonomy of other married couples. The Justice is the majority of Australians don’t identify their marriage as an “open marriage.” Therefore, the meaning of marriage needs to stay the same as this is fair, respectful and create peace for the majority of married couples in Australia.
      4. The consequences of a man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people means a minority group replaces true marriage with an “open marriage” which is a lie for the majority of married couples as they don’t practice this type of marriage. Australians don’t want the foundation of the Judeo-Christian laws to change because they have given us religious freedom and free speech, and the Australian way of life. Australians don’t want government to dictate what is right and wrong as the highest authority of truth because they no longer believe the truth of marriage in the Bible truth – God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. People need to develop a moral conscience to guide their behaviours and practices, otherwise lots of laws and regulations will be need to be created to control people’s behaviours and practices. If politicians rise to power with a deviant (unusual) mind-sets they can dictate immoral laws and practices including “open marriage,” abortion, assisted suicide, executions, pornography, prostitution etc which goes against people moral conscience. They can use their power to control people’s minds by force or persuade people to obey the deviant mind-set. People whom are tolerant of others try to avoid conflict, and is they’re kept afraid of being labelled a “bigot,” “homophobic,” “prejudice,” “wrong side of history.” The politicians power increases as it attracts more people with the same deviant mind-set and puts fear into the people who are against it. They usually make out they have more power in the beginning than the truth – 70% of Australians think we should change marriage, rather than the truth that 99% don’t need the Marriage Act to change for themselves or 76% of Australians believe a child has the right to live with their mother and father. Australians believe the rights of a child are more important than the romantic desires of 2 men or 2 women. The politician with a deviant mind-set is corrupt, and will use deception to get their way and practice their deviant behaviours and practices.
      5. According to the 2011 Australian census – 0.7% identified as same-sex couples, and this is deviant (unusual) from the majority of people whom live with a same-sex friend because the majority aren’t in a sexual relationship with them. Also, 0.01% of children are in a same-sex relationship, and this an abnormal fertility rate because Australian population would significant decrease based on this level, and our culture would cease to exist.
      6. Public health are concerned about the health and relationships of Australians. Marriage between one man and one women, monogamous and for life have been for the purpose of a stable family for children. The encouragement and promotion of an “open marriage” will lead to multiple partners which causes domestic violence, abandonment, infidelity, illnesses, STDs, infertility, septicaemia, disability, and death. There is a huge problem world-wide of diseases becoming drug-resistant which leads to infertility, septicaemia, death. The Zika virus has no immunisation available and is the new STD which require people to change their life-style including sexual behaviours and organisations to change practices. The legal practice of separating at least one biological mother or father from a child goes against scientific reports on “stolen generation,” forced adoption, child orphanages, children from divorce/separation, and IVF/surrogacy -anonymous sperm donation.
      7. Australians have spent millions of dollars to change 85 laws so same-sex couples have the same legal rights as defacto couples whom have the same legal rights as married couples. There has been billions of dollars spent defending true marriage. People can’t pretend anal and oral sexual activities are the same as sexual intercourse to be called marriage so “open marriage” will never be accepted by the whole of society because its foundation is a lie. In countries which have adopted “open marriage,” sexual intercourse has been treated like “vanilla sex” – unimportant, compared to sexuality and transgender theories. The labour and resources required to treat risky sexual behaviours and practices will cost Australians billions of dollars, and significant health and relationship problems.

  12. […] Australian Marriage Forum have argued that today might be the last time Australians celebrate marriage equality due to the […]

  13. Janine I have been married for almost 50 years and I honestly can’t see how my own marriage would in any way be affected by changing the Marriage Act.

    Marriage as understood in 1967 is already rather different from the understanding in 2016.That applies to both Christian and civil marriage.
    it is interesting for example to recognise the strong emphasis still put on marriage ‘as a remedy for sin’ in my own marriage ceremony. I’m not hearing that much in the current debate.

    I do believe anyone marrying after the change that is proposed will not have available to them a civil definition of marriage that describes the unique relationship between a man and a woman, but the law does not appear to allow for a class action on that basis. I agree that they will therefore be disadvantaged.

    Though I fully acknowledge how serious the issue is, my thinking is essentially that marriage “‘ain’t broke” and therefore should in no way be changed.I feel we could argue for this most persuasively if we were prepared to offer an alternative. There is, contrary to your assertion, a fair amount of evidence that same sex couples would welcome an alternative. However the state based schemes for relationship recognition (and only recognition) are not true alternatives.

    • Hi Margaret,
      If the government exchanges a true marriage with a legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people for the purpose of including same-sex couples, I don’t have to identify my marriage with it because I refuse to obey the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictator. You can choose to identify your marriage with this legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people. So if you are to tell me and my family your married this will mean your marriage is “open” to either a man or woman or sexual relationships outside of marriage or not life-long, without you describing your relationship it is meaningless and pointless from a community/society. It is true that what you and your husband do in the privacy of your own home this doesn’t have to change. However, if your husband decided to have an affair or leave you for another woman then as a society we accept this as normal, and you should grieve the loss of your marriage in silence. If you happened to get pregnant to another man as a society we don’t care. The Marriage Act is a framework for a nation of married couples not an individual couple. Unfortunately, marriages are broken and this is the argument the same-sex couples are using to be included in these broken, legal “open marriages.” However, most Australians don’t identify their marriage as been an “open marriage.” However, my children have learnt three different things about the new legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people which include: “marriage isn’t between a man and woman, marriage isn’t about sex and children and the youngest daughter stated, “I’m not getting married because all the boys will marry their boyfriends…” So in one generation marriage has gone from something people desired in my generation to being totally irrelevant to my children’s generation. Therefore, if my 3 beautiful children don’t see any point to marriage, then my son could get lots of girls/women pregnant without having any concern for their welfare, and my 2 daughter could get pregnant to multiple partners. When this sexual behaviour is repeat all over Australia then society has a problem with the spread of STDs, diseases, Zika etc. Society will ultimately pay the cost of fatherless children and single mothers. When the next generations health and relationships are poor this impacts on the finances available to pay the old-age pension. It is hard to teach your children to have a moral conscience in a bubble. If I told my children it is wrong to steal, and then you steal their bag without any consequence by me saying, “It is perfectly fine to take their bag rather than you shouldn’t have taken their bag.” The messages I give to my children need to be re-enforced in our society.

      Why I am suggesting a Class Action is because the exchange of a true marriage for a legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people for the purpose of including same-sex couples aren’t the same thing. Would you see the government as being fair if they took your real money and gold and exchanged it for the virtual “Bit coin” or monopoly money as being the same thing? Would a company/business be honest if they labelled a “virtual baby” as being entitled to the same benefits as a real human baby? Can Nestle label “infant formula” as being the same as breast milk to be treated equally the same for babies health and wellbeing? Can alcohol be labelled as the same thing as water and both be equally encouraged and promoted? Can drugs be labelled the same as food so people consume them as equivalent with each other? Can murder be labelled the same as innocent so a murderer and innocent person are treated as equal? I think you can get my point for the reason why we call different names to different behaviours and practices is because we treated them differently and not the same. If the government exchanges true marriage for a legal man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people there is no meaning and purpose for my family to be associated with this civil marriage as the new behaviours and practices of “open marriage” are opposite message I’m wanting to send my children. This “open marriage” can confuse the next generation unless you separate your marriage from the behaviours and practice.

      Same-sex couples are wanting the title of “marriage” because they can call themselves “married.” They want the Marriage Act to exchange true marriage for a legal man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people because it is based on autonomy and consent which means they can make marriage into whatever the couple feels, desire, lusts or has a passion, and removes moral beliefs. “Same-sex marriage” is like a fantasy virtual world marriage. The foundational Judeo-Christian laws which our free society has been built on will be torn down because the truth in the Bible about sexual relationships and God’s natural laws are irrelevant. The government then has no higher authority because they have removed religion, natural laws, history, culture and social science so they decide what is right and wrong. The Bible taught sodomy is a sin. The Science shows that an anus function is for bodily waste, not for sexual pleasure with a penis, pretend penis, lips/tongue, or hand/fingers/fist. When a sexual organ is used against its function this is called “abuse.” Social science shows evidence of people presenting to health services because of faecal incontinence after anal sexual activity requiring anal repairs, treatment for infection and diseases. The history of sodomy is recorded in the Bible, and that it destroyed a society. Our school and health culture has never taught the practice of anal sexual activity in sex education. However, now our enlightened government doesn’t believe the Bible, natural laws/biology, history, social science or culture and now want to encourage and promote this behaviour as normal. When Christians can’t pretend that anal sexual activities are the same as sexual intercourse- ‘one flesh”-(mind, body, soul) to be called marriage they’ll have to deal with the Anti-Discrimination Act. They’re labelled a bigot, homophobic, wrong side of history and prejudice. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators have the power to rule the government because their “open marriage” is now the law of the land, and true marriage is discarded into the rubbish bin, and anyone who wants to continue to practice true marriage can do this in their own home, but this isn’t marriage for the nation so will be punished if you state, “marriage is between a man and a woman, marriage is sexual intercourse “one flesh” (mind-body-soul) or marriage isn’t 2 men or 2 women. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators don’t want equality they want authority and power to make the world serve their mind-set of death – (same-sex couples 100% infertile).

  14. Janine I feel really saddened to hear of your daughter’s decision at this point that she will not get married.
    Now more than ever we really need young people to commit to witnessing to the values of traditional marriage.To say this is not possible seems to me like saying we will not celebrate Christmas or Easter because so many of our fellow Australians don’t share our understanding of what Christmas and Easter are really about.

    Your references to open marriage puzzle me because all the proposed changes to the Marriage Act that I have seen would still leave marriage as between two people (only two people) and entered into for life.

    So I don’t see why these relationships (which we argue should not be termed marriage) would be any more ‘open’ than heterosexual marriages.
    Sadly fidelity is already not highly valued in the long term by many couples and it is this instability of relationships and families that research (eg by Patrick Parkinson and Mark Regnerus) is showing to be so detrimental to children.Patrick Parkinson’s recommendations for strengthening families explicitly included same sex headed families.

    This is in no way to deny that a traditional family headed by biological parents is the best possible environment in which to bring up children.That is why, whatever the law says in future, we need more young people to aspire to this ideal. I hope and pray your daughter will change her mind.It’s often the task of Christians of any age to be countercultural in witnessing to the truth, just as Jesus was.

    • Margaret,

      It is a concern that the next generation aren’t interested in marriage, and I believe our society will pay the ultimate costs for fatherless children and single mothers. The majority of married couples already discriminate their own marriage against an “open marriage.” If the Australian government really believes in marriage equality for all Australians then “open marriages” have to be accepted as the norm. If the civil marriage means “open marriage” then it is quite easy to extend this to same-sex couples. Since civil marriage is based on autonomy and consent this will make the religious part of marriage irrelevant – sexual union between one man and one woman, excluding all others and for life. People in a civil marriage will be able to make a marriage into what ever fantasy they desire without any religious meaning.

      I can only encourage my children to have a religious marriage. My religion, culture and family history don’t require my family to get their marriages recognised by the state. The types of sexual relationships which exist today means things aren’t going to end well.

      • Janine the next generation ARE interested in marriage.That was highlighted by Patrick Parkinson’s 2011 study For Kids’ Sake.He quoted a figure of 80% of young people intending to marry and proposed that we investigate whether there are barriers to their doing so.
        If you are arguing that the general understanding of marriage (Ie what these young people are aspiring to) is inadequate or defective doesn’t it become even more important for young people like your daughter to marry and set an example to others?

        • Margaret,

          I reviewed Patrick Parkinson’s Kid’s Safe – University of Sydney, and this research showed increase in divorce families, increase in co-habitation and increase in single mothers, and deterioration of young people, especially young girls was of great concern in the past 10-15yrs. I couldn’t find what you quoted. I wanted to review the age group and how many young people were surveyed. My concern for my children and their generation whom don’t view marriage for themselves has been over the past year and a half. The media, school and sporting organisations -ALF have made marriage irrelevant for them. There has been debates on marriage equality at school. The safe school coalition program has been indoctrinating children/teenagers about accepting homosexuality and transgender experiences. Schools have been accessing the program, and the Victorian government has been keen for all Victorian schools including private schools to use the program.

          Currently, Marriage is a public, life-long sexual union “one flesh” (mind-body-soul) between a man and woman, excluding all others for the benefit of children. This has been a fundamental biological behavioural practice and a spiritual understanding of marriage. Most married couples don’t identify their marriage as an “open marriage.” When governments believe Australian married couples can no longer discriminate against minority groups, then they can’t discriminate against couples whom identify their legal marriage as an “open marriage.” Once civil marriage means “open marriage,” then married couples can’t discriminate against same-sex couples. When Australian married couples exchange their true marriage for a legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people for the purpose of including same-sex couples, then it can be redefined as it is only based on autonomy and consent.

          I have told my children the civil and religious meaning of marriage may one day mean very different behaviours and practices.

          • Recommendation 12 Janine…
            Can get you the full quote of you wish, I’m just looking quickly at the summary.
            Professor Parkinson was also at pains to stress that he recognises all of these problems and that the point of his study was to recommend ways of strengthening all families (he explicitly included same sex headed households).

        • Margaret,

          Thanks for recommending Prof. Parkinson’s research. He doesn’t paint a very positive picture of Australian society – “Australia’s fragile families” as the number of children who do not reach the age of 15 in an intact family with both of their biological parents has almost doubled within a generation. I am surprised the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators didn’t take Prof. Parkinson before the Anti-discrimination commission by implying same-sex families aren’t an “intact family.” The increase in children experiencing parental separation is largely a consequence of the rapid rise in the number of children born into de facto relationships, which subsequently break down. There has also been an increase in the number of women giving birth to a child without having a cohabiting partner. In 2009, 35% of all births were outside of marriage.

          Prof. Parkinson’s comments about cohabiting relationships are typically quite short-term, if they don’t result in marriage. They break down at a very much faster rate than do marriages…Even couples with children who live in de facto relationships have much higher rates of breakdown than married couples. As more and more children grow up in fragile families, it ought to be expected that more and more children will experience adverse outcomes. Prof. Parkinson’s comments about “Adolescent mental health and risky behaviours” found teenagers are engaging in sexual acts at a younger age and with more people today that they did in previous generations. That carries with it many risks, including sexually transmitted infections. There has also been a substantial increase in the number of teenage girls reporting unwanted sex. The most common reasons for unwanted sex were being drunk or because of pressure from a partner.

          Prof. Parkinson’s report on the state go the child protection system. The number of children in need threatens to overwhelm state and territory child protection departments, and in 2009 cost in excess of $2 billion annually on child protection services. The crisis in child protection is just part of a broader pattern of serious deterioration in the wellbeing of many children and young people. It is a warning sign that all is not well with society as a whole.

          Recommendation 12 – The Australian Institute of family studies should be asked to examine the gap between the aspirations of young adults to marry, their preference that children should be raised in the context of marriage, and the reality of declining marriage rates and increased ex-nuptial births.

          Margaret, I found it interesting reading through this research, and I didn’t find a definition of marriage or its purpose. Recommendation 14 -1. Does government policy, as far as possible, encourage the maintenance of safe, stable and committed relationships between parents? 2. Does government policy, as far as possible, encourage the procreation of children in context that maximises their chances of experiencing a safe, stable and nurturing home environment? What has the Labor government and the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators been telling the younger generation about marriage: it isn’t between a man and woman, it isn’t a sex and children, and marriage should be for same-sex couples, and no minority group should be discriminated against including people whom identify as in a legal “open marriage.” All marriages should be treated equally and the same. The government can create a legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people for the purpose of including same-sex couples. This marriage will be based on autonomy and consent. However, this isn’t the same as the traditional, true marriage based on moral beliefs to be faithful to each other till death do us part for the benefit of children. The Victorian government recently changed the law regarding anonymous sperm donation. There are men whom are extremely angry that the Victorian government exchanged their privacy for the rights of their donor children to have access to their family identity. Some men don’t care that the government has changed the law, and their are other men who have found out they have 20 donor children, and the thought of this many children calling them “dad” or wanting a relationship with them and their family is an invasion into their privacy. When men consented to being a sperm donor in the past, the doctors at the time guaranteed their privacy, and doubted that the law would change retrospectively, so they believed sperm donor’s privacy would always be maintained. Therefore, a similar situation will happen if the Australian government exchanges a traditional, true marriage for a legal man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people. Some people will accept a more open form of marriage because they’re into having sexual relationships outside marriage, and believe couples should have the freedom to make their own sexual decisions. However, the majority of Australian married couples who don’t identify their marriage as an “open marriage” will be extremely hurt that the government hasn’t respected their right to discriminate their marriage against an “open marriage.”

          There are serious harmful consequences to the majority of children and their families if the Australian government changes the Marriage Act. Our governments have spent many years debating this issue in parliament because they realise the meaning and purpose for marriage will become irrelevant. The Labor government spent millions of dollars on changing 85 laws to give same-sex couples the same right as de facto couples whom have the same right as married couples. In our throw away society, and the younger generation are living more in the virtual world of technology, this mean marriage can change into a legal man-made “open marriage” between any two people. However, will “open marriages” encourage the maintenance of safe, stable and committed relationships between parents, and will children be born into these relationships have equal access to their biological parents? Prof. Parkinson’s research supports my understanding of the younger generation are moving away from marriage because they don’t identify with it for themselves.

  15. Janine I think it’s important that we consider Professor Parkinson’s report in its entirety.He expressed disappointment at the time that it was quoted very selectively, and of course the real disappointment is that none of it has been implemented.
    It was as you no doubt know commissioned by the Australian Christian Lobby and of course it is entirely reasonable for them to quote from it as they wish.But there is much in it for everyone, wherever they stand in the debate over the future of marriage.
    He did explicitly say that his recommendations applied equally to same sex headed households and in the interests of fairness it should also be noted that Australian Marriage Equality welcomed this.Of course one of their major arguments for instituting same sex marriage is that it will offer greater stability to the 6 000 or so children currently living in same sex headed households (overwhelmingly in households headed by two women, though much of the debate suggests otherwise).
    The key question (on which I would hope we agree) is whether for the sake of these same 6000 children we should alter the definition of marriage or whether (as many in the same sex attracted community would agree) some other form of relationship recognition would be more appropriate.

    I (like you) believe the traditional definition of marriage should be retained.I referred earlier to the situation in Croatia, where a highly successful (and respectful) campaign by Catholic Christians and others to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the constitution was followed by the introduction of life partnerships.

    Such a system would certainly appear to be in line with what Professor Parkinson recommends. What are needed are relationships that are exclusive and for life.The proposed changes to the Marriage Act don’t take away those two essential qualifications (the wording would simply be as originally in 1961 ie without the man and woman specification added in 2004).

    I’m honestly not following your point about open marriages, which i would see as implying not being exclusive and not being for life.
    Same sex couples are wanting to enter into relationships that are exclusive and for life.The question is whether these should be termed marriage.

    However our original discussion stemmed from my expressing regret that your daughter does not wish to marry, because I still think that the best way of preserving traditional marriage is by living it.And Professor Parkinson’s point is that we need to be looking at why, if the overwhelming majority of young people intend to get married, so many of them don’t end up doing so.So don’t we need to talk up marriage rather than the reverse…?

    • Margaret,

      When government can remove marriage as being between one man and one woman which is the founding principal of marriage, then there is no argument against identifying marriage as an “open marriage,” and or marriage contracts for short-term arrangements. The government can’t say to Australians it is perfectly find for you to discriminate your marriage against couples with children in a legal “open marriage,” but you can’t discriminate against same-sex couples whom have children from other sexual relationships or artificial insemination.

      Prof. Parkinson highlighted that children do best in an intact family consisting of their biological parents. Same-sex couples can never create an intact family because they will always require a third person. The majority of same-sex couples don’t want marriage for themselves, and this is evident in the low percentage of same-couples getting married in countries which allow it to happen. The majority of same-sex couples want marriage to be re-defined to recognise their multiple spouses and children from different relationships. Homosexuality is different to marriage as it starts for many in childhood. My first experience of homosexuality was in primary school -year 1-3 in the girls’ toilet with 10-15 girls. Homosexuality involves sexual activities which can be done with more than one person. Homosexual behaviours never needs to be taught to children as they come naturally when mixing with other people of the same-sex. My parents allowed me to sleep with my girlfriends which allowed for the cross-over from friendship to sexual relationship. Marriage is taught to children from their parents and community of married couples. Children/teenagers are encouraged to leave sexual intercourse “one flesh” (mind-body-soul) to adulthood where couples make a public, life-long commitment to a behavioural practice of a sexual union between one man and one woman, excluding all others for the benefit of children. Children/teenagers have never been encouraged or promoted to leave sexual activities until adulthood, unlike marriage. I grew up in an immoral environment, but the boys still had a belief that they wanted to get married an have children.

      I reviewed Prof. Parkinson’s research, and the survey you quoted from “80%” are from a survey of a generation older than my children, and didn’t mentioned how many people were surveyed. The government can create whatever it likes including a legal, man-made “open marriage” between any 2 people for the purpose of same-sex couples, but if the younger generation don’t identify with it, then the next generation of children will grow up in less stable environments. It was the bullying and comments from my children which made me start investigating “marriage equality” because I didn’t want my generation to leave our children worse off then my own experience. Prof. Parkinson research even questions government policies which have treated de facto and marriage as legally the same, because de facto relationship aren’t as stable as marriage. Couples having the title of marriage isn’t what makes marriage a stable relationship, but it is the behavioural practice of a sexual union – sexual intercourse – “one flesh” (mind-body-soul) between one man and one woman, excluding all others for the benefit of children. It is easy to tell if a marriage is healthy by the frequency of sexual intercourse.

      The mind-set of the younger generation is heavily influenced by technology – virtual world with no consequences for their behaviour. I can educate my children to make an informed decision about marriage. I am concerned about my children, but I pray that God will protect them.

      • Janine I can appreciate that your experiences in this area have been extremely traumatic and have understandably helped form your views, both for yourself and your children (the ages of whom I do not know but i am guessing probably the same ager as my grandchildren?).

        I think they would be unusual, but perhaps I am wrong.I do know my 7 y=ear old granddaughter wants to marry and have 8 children.

        As to associating the health of a marriage with the frequency of sexual intercourse I’m baffled. I’m not even sure whether less or more is identified as better.

        I pray that you will find peace in whatever the outcome of this debate turns out to be.I strongly believe Christians have always been called to be countercultural.

        • Margaret,
          My children are 16 1/2yr, 14 1/2 yrs and 10yrs old, and I do believe they are being influenced by our culture. You are right when you state Christians may have to live counter-cultural. My generation (40’s) are unlike our parents or grand-parents that may have put up with a sexless or unfaithful marriage. There is no shame with divorce these days. Thank you for your prayers and support as it was good to read Prof. Parkinson’s research. No matter how this debate turns out as Christians we always have hope in Christ, and we have a family of believers whom we can get support from. God Bless you and your family.

  16. Thank you Janine!
    (Grandchildren are 13, 10 and 8!)

Leave a comment