The March Towards Degendering Society

Just one year after redefining marriage, Colombia's first three-man marriage has been legally recognized and the “Slippery Slope” theory is now officially fact.

One of the three men, actor Victor Hugo Prada said: “This establishes us as a family, a polyamorous family.”

It confirms what we have known all along: Once you strip a word of its original meaning, it’s rendered meaningless. In countries where the word “marriage” has been redefined to mean whatever you want it to, marriage between three or more men or women should come as no surprise.

Redefining marriage is just one small stepping stone in the rainbow activists’ march toward degendering society and breaking down the family unit. In case you think we’re just making that up, take a look at the UK, where already overworked teachers are now forced to incorporate more propaganda into their classrooms as schools are now assessed on LGBTQ inclusion. Teachers must now abide by new guidelines, entitled Inclusion Matters (unless you have traditional views regarding marriage and family, in which case, your opinions are to be entirely excluded), produced by LGBTQ activist group P3.

Co-founder of P3, Tuvia Borok laid bare their true agenda in an article written for Huffington Post, declaring that: “Being a family has nothing to do with having one mother and one father… So, while people like me have rights, that is not enough.”

It seems traditional families are the only ones NOT to be included in their brave new world.

Even at home in Australia, LGBTQ activists are showing their true rainbow colours, pushing police officers and yelling “Hey Margaret, go to hell”, outside a Liberal Party fundraiser recently, where tennis legend Margaret Court delivered a speech. Her crime? Agreeing with an Aussie businessman that Qantas CEO Alan Joyce was out of line for bullying Australian business owners into succumbing to the LGBTQ agenda.

“The reason I spoke was because of Stuart Ballantyne, a big businessman from Queensland, he wrote a letter to Qantas and to Alan Joyce to say, ‘You’re using it as a platform to intimidate banks and companies” and I gather now, small businesses, and I think that’s very sad. “They don’t have a right to do that,” Court told Sky.
“We should be able to talk freely. I’ve got nothing against people. I even get letters from atheists and they say they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I get them from all kinds of people ... they’re not Christians, I don’t think it’s anything to do with that.” Read the full article in The Australian.

We Aussies are all about a fair go. We want to hear both sides of the story and then make up our own minds. LGBTQ activists have been heard loud and clear, now it’s time to let the rest of us have our say. Bring on the plebiscite and let’s give Aussies a chance to make up our own minds about what marriage really means to us.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

19 Responses

  1. Lol. They voluntarily signed a private contract that is legally recognised. It’s not a marriage. It’s freedom of religion and freedom of association. You say you oppose marriage equality because it will hurt freedom. Now you’re complaining about freedom. ???

    Also, since when is saying “go to hell” hate speech in your eyes? It’s fundamental Christian doctrine. Apparently if we preach your own doctrine back to you, it becomes hate speech. Not a very nice doctrine then, is it? ???

    And since when is Alan Joyce simply being an activist for marriage equality “bullying”? Who has he “bullied”? Since when is it “bullying” to express an opinion? You guys need to work on your victim complex. ???

    • Telling someone to ‘go to hell’ is hate speech. Knowing that unless a person repents of their sins, they will be going to hell is religious doctrine.

      Marriage Equality is a catchphrase that is ridiculously bias. Equality does not mean fairness for all and everyone’s freedoms are jeopardised by the changing of traditional definitions of marriage and what a family looks like. Everone is included and accepted, except those who believe traditions shouldn’t be redefined to suit the current ‘popular’ cultural agenda.

  2. Ash

    It appears that the three men are actually legally registered as a married threesome in their country. Local media reports that the men would have entered into a four-way union had it not been for the death of one of their partners from cancer. They plan to hold a marriage ceremony, after which they will go on a honeymoon. It may be confusing to note that they are legally recognised and yet may fall short of marriage, but they’re claiming legal permission for the status:

    This is no religion, and freedom of association does not mean anything goes when it comes to having a relationship recognised in the eyes of the law.
    No, Nick, saying “go to hell” is not any kind of doctrine, it’s an insult since none of us have the authority to condemn anyone to hell. Furthermore, if you saw the complete footage of the protest, you will see that there was a lot more than just this comment made on the day. But of course, none of that matters to you, does it Nick? Just whatever supports your position.

    Alan Joyce exercised his authority as a CEO to shine rainbow politics onto the business of QANTAS. SSM has nothing to do with flying people to and from places, but he says it “affects so many QANTAS workers and clients”. That makes no sense, but the audience can be the judge of that. As for who was bullied, it only takes a little investigating to see what’s been happening behind the scenes since March this year:

    Mr Dutton singled out Mr Joyce at a Queensland LNP conference saying he should keep his personal opinions distinct from his company platform.

    “Mr Joyce is an exceptional CEO. He’s a good person and I know him personally — I have no gripe against him,” Mr Dutton said.
    “But if he has a particular view on any issue it should be expressed as an individual.”

    Mr Dutton said it was unacceptable for chief executives like Mr Joyce to use their company’s brand to campaign for same-sex marriage.
    “It is unacceptable that people would use companies and the money of publicly listed companies to throw their weight around,” he said.

    “If Alan Joyce and any other CEO wants to campaign on this or any other issue in their own time and on their own dime, good luck to them.
    Don’t use an iconic brand and the might of a multi-billion-dollar business on issues best left to the judgements of individuals and elected decision-makers.
    I’d prefer publicly listed companies stick to their knitting and that is delivering the services for their customers and providing a return for their shareholders.”

    Mr Dutton said many of Australia’s largest corporations were being *bullied* into supporting policies by advocacy groups, fearing a public boycott of their services or products.
    “Some companies are morally coerced into supporting campaigns in fear of being extorted by an online social media push to boycott their product and it is simply unconscionable,” he said.

    • Well done Ash,
      Totally agree with your response.

  3. I agree, bring on the plebiscite. If marriage is redefined by parliament, then we can assume it was because of pressure from the advocacy, and denial of the conservative tradition.

    Rather than the choice of the citizens.

  4. I think everyone should take a deep breath and forget about “gay marriage”. It will happen here, it is just a matter of time. Things change and we must all accept that fact, whether we like it or not. My husband and I are both opposed to the concept of “gay marriage” and just turn down the sound on the TV when it’s mentioned. No need to get upset over something which WILL happen very soon. Smell the roses, be thankful for what we have in life and just do the best we can.

    • Ash

      Disagree Lesley. The general population of Australia DOESN’T have to bow down to a minority group over their desires for marriage, when they already have all that they need without that title. Other countries have successfully mandated an alternate title but have left marriage to be strictly one man-one woman. Why can’t we raise awareness on the importance of maintaining the definition of marriage which in turn will have the population support it when it comes time to making a decision on it?

    • Lesley I wonder if like me you are disillusioned with the campaign more than the cause.

      Ash last week you were claiming that same sex couples just needed to do a bit of extra paperwork to strengthen the legal status of their relationship, rather than aspire to marriage .Now when commenting on 3 men in Colombia who did just that you seem determined to claim that they have married when the evidence of their own statement contravenes this.

      However the press may represent this, theirs is simply a private legal agreement (with no doubt plenty of paperwork and not insignificant cost). Yet when Nick states the obvious, on the basis of this evidence, he is wrong because apparently being on the opposite side of the argument he must ipso facto be wrong.

      A bit more smelling of the roses and doing our best might well do far more to safeguard the beauty of traditional marriage than the petty bickering and point scoring to which the debate has descended.

      • Ash

        Margaret, I fail to understand your point being made, as if the problem with same sex relationships is some sort of deficiency they have in the legal recognition. There simply isn’t one as it stands, just as de facto couples can obtain appropriate legal jurisdiction over their partners’ finances and health matters once some background legal paperwork has been formulated. The concept is easy: do the ground work to gain the appropriate legal representation for each other, enduring power of attorney and last will and testament, which of course will take some financial investment, or lobby for a “life partnership” that would permit the legalities to be streamlined just the same as married couples, and there is no problem with the imposition on the original sacred institution.

        If the same sex lobby had a heart for the marital institution, they wouldn’t keep pestering it when there is significant opposition to have the legal definition of marriage redefined. Instead they do, using such flimsy arguments such as “human rights”, faux “equality” and “it’s the ‘right’ thing to do”, all of which are deviant smokescreens when it is far more appropriate and less controversial to lobby for their own legal recognition as “life partners”.

        • Ash with respect you are conflating two discussions.
          The case in Colombia, on the basis of all the available evidence (short of seeing the actual agreement) is not marriage and does not claim to be marriage.Yes, it is exactly the kind of agreement into which a same sex couple could enter here in Australia.
          It’s not likely to be a cheap option but I agree that is not of overriding importance.
          And i suppose one can carry this legal agreement around in just the same way one might carry a marriage certificate ( i realise that is something of a caricature , don’t quite know how I prove i am my husband’s wife when emergency medical care is required).

          I agree that it would not satisfy the ‘same sex lobby’. Many of them incidentally are arguing that marriage should be available for same sex couples whilst saying that for various reasons they do not seek it for themselves.

          I do honestly believe that we (supporters of traditional marriage) have not made a sufficiently strong case against this being a matter of equality. I think for many people it truly does present as an issue of equality, simply because they have a different understanding of marriage in general.

          Human rights: well we could argue about how these are objectively defined.But the European Court of Human Rights (and yes i know this does not bind Australia) has alrerady (2015) got as far as saying civil unions are an appropriate level of recognition.

          So how about we (supporters of traditional marriage) do the lobbying for civil unions…?

          Just a thought.

    • Lesley,

      The LGBTIAQ party in America recently claimed they should give up on the idea gays are “born this way” because they believe more people can identify as being sexually fluid. Also, the Sweden MP recently claimed that all priests should perform a gay marriage or leave the ministry like midwives can’t refuse to perform abortions. Therefore, the argument for a legal “same-sex marriage” is changing all the time as the sexuality and gender theories are based on no form of discrimination whatsoever between the truth and a lie. Genuine Christians are going to become independent from the civil “registered marriage” practice in order for them to defend and maintain their public commitment to a lifelong, faithful “one flesh” marriage between husband and wife as they can naturally procreate new-life. Most likely genuine Christian churches will separate from being involved with a civil “registered marriage” practice in order for priests/ministers won’t be forced to be involved with any civil “registered marriages.” Also, the church to remain separate from the state.

  5. TD

    its just going to create the have and the have nots.. soon it will be a school thing with kids ..hahah i come from a normal family and you dont! (probably going to be worse than just haha) so the mis informed kids that come from a mum mum or a dad dad are going to cop it from the real family kids… kids will be kids. I just creates greater sad.

  6. Some people appear to be self appointed prophets when they say, “SSM will happen here, so get used to it.” , when there are still about 200 countries that have not accepted it.

    Australia does not need to follow the dictates of a minority. We can avoid their mistakes.

    Australia recognizes marriage as it stands, get used to it.

    • Mikel,
      I agree with you that everyone will have to get use to “one flesh” marriage between husband and wife as this has existed from the beginning of time and has existed with and without the support and protection of the state. Most Australians understand that including assisted suicide into healthcare isn’t nursing and medicine as it would be considered murder for registered nurses and doctors to care and treat their own family this way. Most Australians understand that including a legal same-sex marriage into the civil “registered marriage” practice is based on a belief system which encourages and promotes the sexuality and gender theories. The majority of Australians don’t believe in this belief system as it is based on an Marxist ideology which believes in scientific experimentation of human reproduction and has no form of discrimination whatsoever between the truth and a lie, moral and immoral, healthy and unhealthy, normal and abnormal, natural and unnatural. The Australian government can’t force people to identify as “heterosexual,” “opposite-sex,” or any other sexual orientation and gender so no academic report can assume people are these identities because of people’s right to have self-determination and self-actualisation. These identities are only subjective truth based on feelings, desires, lusts, and passion unlike biological sex and natural human reproduction are based on objective truths. I want my human right to tick a box declaring “no belief in the sexuality and gender theories” like people have a human right to “non-religion.”

      • Hi Janine, I totally agree.

        There will always be people who recognize marriage as it is, regardless of the dictates of parliament and biased polls..

  7. If gay marriage is enacted by parliament without the majority of a plebiscite …

    then … let it be repealed by a future government.

    If we let marriage remain as it is already accepted, there’d be no political issue here.

  8. I wonder if gay marriage is a thing, then bisexual marriage must be s real thing too.

    How does bisexual marriage work?!

    • Mikel, no one is going to sort this out for you. Yes, what does exclusivity, the core concept in marriage, and to which the same sex lobby subscribe, mean in this case? You have struck an Achilles heel. I would love to see this asked in parliament so that the apologists for same sex marriage cannot avoid publicly explaining. They will seek every possible diversion, make accusations of bigotry, cruelty and homophobia, run a thousand miles in every direction, rather than answer your question. I will give you the answer that they will not.

      Monogamy is not a key expectation of LGBTI marriage; it is mouthed solely to make same sex marriage an innocuous parallel for consumption by heterosexual people. The mindset of the academics who lead gay activism makes this clear. Professor Dennis Altman of La Trobe University is considered an architect of gay activism due to a book that he wrote in 1971. He said on the ABC “Compass” program in 2011 of his same sex union of 20 years: “I am enormously proud of the fact that I have been in a relationship that has been all the things that you want from a relationship, with the exception of sexual fidelity which I think is crap for most people and doesn’t exist by and large”. Other gay writers have also been dismissive of sexual fidelity; it is a moralistic model that stifles homosexuals’ need of orgasm as exhilarating recreation. They contend that recreational sex with others can co-exist with dedication to a partner that is the same as marriage in other respects. Their hope is that in time heterosexual people will abandon their archaic sexual template and have the same “monogamish” understanding that they do.

      • True, no one can help me. (Looks up to God).

        The traditional institution of marriage is being condemned and destroyed by some activists, creating more problems.

        Soon marriage will mean nothing.

Leave a comment