MEDIA RELEASE: Queensland MPs must put the adopted child first, not same-sex couples.

AMF logo“No Queensland lawmaker who puts the best interests of the child first can support a proposal for same-sex adoption”, according to Dr David van Gend, a GP and President of the Australian Marriage Forum.

So few babies; so many infertile couples
“There are so many childless married couples, and so few children up for adoption. Why would we not give a child her chance of both a mother and father figure in her life?” Dr van Gend said.

“In 2014 only 317 children were adopted in Australia, the lowest number on record. Most of these children (72%) were ‘unknown’ to the adults who adopted them.[i] The queue of childless married couples is years long, and most will never get a chance to adopt. Why, then, would policy makers consider adopting children out to same-sex couples?

“Everything else being equal – i.e. where the married couple and same-sex couple have identical educational level, economic wellbeing and good character so that the only difference between the couples is that one gives a child both a mother and father figure and the other does not - how can any lawmaker argue that it is better for a child to be placed with a single-sex couple?

Dr van Gend pointed out some relevant findings in social science:

1. Instability of same-sex relationships:
Same-sex couples have been found to be less stable, so they should not be preferred for the adoption of children. For example, a longitudinal population study in Norway and Sweden found that male couples were 1.5 times and lesbian couples were 2.7 times as likely to break up as married heterosexual couples.[ii]

2. Emotional stress on the child:
Children have been found to suffer increased emotional stress in same-sex households. The peer-reviewed study (Sullins, 2015[iii]) finds that children raised by same-sex couples have between two and four times the rate of significant emotional problems compared to children raised in opposite sex couples.

“With that finding, no lawmaker should vote for a structure of same-sex parenting that has been found to be, on average, detrimental to children”, Dr van Gend said.

It's about the child, Minister, not ideology

Communities Minister Shannon Fentiman said today, “As a society we do not tolerate discrimination. It is only fair that members of the LGBTI community have the same rights as any other Queenslander and that includes the right to raise a family with an adopted child.”

"Minister Fentiman says she does not tolerate discrimination, but she actively discriminates against the adopted child by violating her birthright to have both a mother and father relationship", Dr van Gend said. "It's about the needs of the child, not the 'rights' of gay adults".

Why would we do this to a child?
“While there are valid concerns about the relative instability of same-sex couples and the adverse emotional outcomes of same-sex parenting, the ‘precautionary principle’ requires that we do not set children adrift in these uncharted waters.

“But none of the research findings are as important as the fact that only a man-woman couple can give a child the basic human experience of having a mother and father. While there are so many childless married couples willing to adopt the tiny number of children available in Australia each year, how is it in the interests of a child to be adopted by two men?" Dr van Gend concluded.

[i] Adoption stats for 2014 at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-10/australia-adoption-rate-falls-to-lowest-annual-number-on-record/5956204
[ii] Andersson et al article at http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/working/wp-2004-018.pdf
[iii] Sullins article at http://www.sciencedomain.org/abstract.php?id=21&aid=8172

Government Statement at http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2016/8/6/palaszczuk-government-acts-to-legalise-samesex-adoption

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

21 Responses

  1. Adults have been in a position of power to abuse children since the beginning of time. The Royal Commission into Institutional child sexual abuse should make Australians think about the children’s health and relationships, but governments ignore historical facts, science, culture, religion and nature because it is the politician’s (adult) popularity contest which has to be won at the end of the day. Hillary Clinton, Bill Shorten and Penny Wong in the past have all declared the traditional meaning of marriage, but now their popularity depends on giving support to a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” so same-sex couples can get a legal right to define a fantasy family consisting of 2 women or 2 men. There are 3 men in the Liberal Party whom have identified themselves as gay, and the media are only interested in them because of their sexuality, and they’re politics are totally sexually driven. The political discussion on climate change will soon have to add sexual orientation with it. The world’s thinking has become so sex driven into all areas of our culture and way of life that people are no longer able to think with their brains, but their sexual organs have to take over. Western civilisation has ended, and the new Alice in Wonderland has been created with a few legalised drugs to deaden the painful experience for everyone. It will be children of same-sex couple that will declare the truth about their relationship, just like the child declaring the Emperor was in fact naked in the “Emperor’s New Clothes.”

    It is evident we’re going back to Old testament times where there were laws about everything. I have worked in the healthcare industry for more than 24yrs, and today there are so many policies, regulations and laws to follow that the next generation of workers would have a mental breakdown if they are made to process all this information. There is a reason behind government and organisations no longer trusting people’s behaviours and practices. Australian society and culture have moved away from the practice of forgiveness and this has been replaced with the law of punishment. People are now put in jail for believing or saying the wrong thing. The thought police are using the laws against discrimination to control people’s minds. Australians have started to lose our religious freedom, freedom of speech and governments are trying to control our minds and practice against our moral beliefs. Dictatorship has started in Australian culture by government forcing the Safe (Dangerous) School Coalition program and respectful relationship program (homosexuality and gender theories) onto our children without parent consent.

  2. Whilst I generally agree with the views expressed in this media release, why has nothing been said about the fact that this legislation will also allow single people to adopt a child? In this situation, the emotional well being of children growing up without a mother or a father will be not much different than those adopted by same-sex couples. Should we not also argue against adoption by singles? By protesting against adoption by same sex couples and not by single people significantly weakens the argument against the former.

    • Nick it’s a vert valid point to raise..But the overall situation in Queensland (and I think this would apply across Australia) is that the very small number of children available for adoption reflects a preference for other less permanent options.The hope is held for a long time that children will be reunited with their biological families.

      There is a serious shortage of foster parents and (rightly in my view) residential care is viewed as a last report. Unless single people and same sex couples are allowed to foster children who cannot remain with their biological parents (at least in the short term) the outlook for these children would be very bleak.

      if it turns out that they cannot return to their biological family even in the longer term then to allow those foster parents (even if single or in a same sex relationship) to adopt the children already in their care seems to me at least the best possible solution.

      As i understand it that will be the most significant outcome of the proposed changes.

      The traditional model of adopting a baby at birth (which led to the horrors of forced adoption) is now far less common.

      This is an instance where genuinely thinking of the child may not lead us quite where we thought we wanted to go.

    • Nick2,
      Australians would agree that adopting a child/children as a single person isn’t ideal, but I do know friends ( they have ageing parents and no siblings) whom have put down their girlfriends (who are single) to take care of their children if something happens to them e.g. cancer, car accident etc. I don’t have a problem with same-sex couples wanting their children to be adopted by 2 dads or 2 mums because this is their choice of raising their own children. 2 mums could expect their children to be raised by 2 dads if something were to happen to them. However, I don’t agree that the government should dictate to Catholic or Christian adoption agencies that children whom parent/s have decided they want them to have a mother and father to adopt their children to a same-sex couple. The parents should be able to have a choice about the care and education which is most appropriate for their child/children so that the children avoid extra pain and suffering from the loss of their biological parent/s. There is only 0.01% of children in same-sex relationships in the 2011 Australian census so the chances of adoption for same-sex couples would be extremely low. Government adoption agencies have a choice about the adoption of children, but could expect to be sued by adults in the future if they felt abused by being nurtured and raised by same-sex couples. The best way to avoid harm is to imitate nature which is children being raised by a mother and father. When neonates are born early the hospital setting attempts to imitate the womb and not a totally unnatural environment. I never want to raise children on my own because it is too much hard work, and it requires two incomes to provide for the cost of living and the sport, music and education of children is extremely expensive. If I was raising my children with the help of my mother this would be seen as very different from a same-sex couple because there isn’t a sexual relationship between my mother and me. Children are indirectly impacted by their parents sexual behaviours and practices because they’re unable to escape their environment.

      • Hi Nick2
        I wonder where Old Nick is? Perhaps it finally dawned on him that what he is pushing is against the interests of children who have no say in these matters.

        You wrote
        ” don’t have a problem with same-sex couples wanting their children to be adopted by 2 dads or 2 mums because this is their choice of raising their own children.”

        I take issue here because it validates a commonly held view that children are possessions. “Let the gays do what they want with THEIR kids” is how I read that line.

        We are all created in the image of God, and although our parents are responsible for us until we are 18, they never own us. In these days of fear and godlessness people are often clinging onto their kids, and living vicariously through them.

        This is why you see children out in force, in rainbow attire.

        Any child walking in a gay parade is being abused, knowingly or not – it reminds me of the Palestinian 5 year old, being goaded by his father into throwing rocks at IDF officers.

        Please think of the children – every adoption situation is already difficult: attacking a child’s innocence by placing them with people living in rebellion against God is a tragedy, and we need to look out for our fellow man and encourage our lawmakers to travel the path of righteousness.

        • Harry,
          It is a human right for parents to decide the education for their children, and it is parents whom decide if a child will be nurtured and raised by another family. You exposed the “fantasy” of same-sex parenting is not the same as a man-woman married relationship. When laws are changed against God’s Laws in nature, then the consequences are negative for our society. The news recently highlighted a women sexually abused a 9yr boy (not biologically related). The amount of sexual abuse reported between unrelated (biological) child-adult relationships should be a huge concern for our government when creating laws about marriage and family. The 2016 ABS census is a joke because it makes out marriages are defined by government as a registered marriage, but Christians don’t get married to purchase a state marriage certificate rather they get married because they want God to bless their “one flesh” union with children as they’re a gift from God. The census referred to people’s relationships – husband and husband or wife and wife which doesn’t make any sense. I “came out” identifying my marriage as a “one flesh” union because I don’t believe in the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” which gives governments the power over defining marriage and family which goes against God’s Laws on marriage, family and parenthood. The traditional family beliefs, values, behaviours and practices are against the new mind-set of LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators.

  3. These are not actually Christian arguments, nor are they particularly moral arguments. They give good reasons why people in homosexual relationships should not be given children to care for. It is tragic that this discussion even needs to happen. I know couples who would love to adopt, and I know a single foster-mother who has all sorts of problems with the courts taking her kids and giving them back to the junkie birth parents time after time – the children getting more and more messed up with each bad ruling. It is an horrific situation, but the state of affairs is this: many, many good Christian couples are willing and able to care for kids who have nobody to take care of them, or unfit parents. These kids are oftentimes seriously in need of stable, God fearing families to give them a chance in life. For any of these kids to be placed into a loving same sex couple household it will do them even more damage. The simple facts are, that if you are sexually immoral, and if you are committing indecent acts year after year around children, the sin becomes normalised for them, but its still sin. It will eat you up inside. If men are emasculated, they are unfit father figures. If women are hardened to their female side, how fit a mother are they? The best place for a child is with a mother and a father – and 2 of 1 do not make a whole, in fact a single parent is better than 2 of 1. And we all know this. Children are precious, and so fragile. Don’t throw them under the rainbow bus. They are our future.

  4. Here is a list of over 100 reasons why SS “marriage” has negative consequences for children, society, family, freedoms of speech, religion, conscience, normal childhood friendships, adult friendships, etc.etc.ect

    http://www.truemarriageequality.com/100-reasons-for-defending-marriage-and-family–some-consequences-of-embracing-same-sex-marriage.html

    • C.Jones,

      There have been many reports in the news over the past few years of men sexually abusing children that aren’t related to them. If gays have the mind-set of using their body parts against their function called abuse. The government believes gays (priests, male teachers and social workers whom parents trust) are perfectly qualified to take care of vulnerable children where they have plenty of privacy. The news has recently reported of a social worker (Shannon McCoole) in South Australia who sexually abused children in his care has been sentence to 35 years of jail. The state governments have only themselves to blame when they give same-sex couples vulnerable children to adopt.

  5. The marriage rate is so low in Sweden and is no longer related to parenthood that family studies now only refer to cohabiting relationships. Men shouldn’t be shocked by the extreme feminist movement which has wanted to destroy the patriarchal system in the Bible because it has suppressed women. When I was in high school we learnt marriage was a form of prostitution, but only involving one man rather than men. The Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” could allow prostitutes “marriage equality” by issuing short-term marriage contracts so benefits could pass from man to woman without paying taxes for the period of the marriage contract. The extreme feminists want the abusive (sin) practice of sodomy put into marriage so that women will abandon marriage as the majority of women don’t want their spouse having the right for anal and oral sexual activities. The domestic violence is already in marriages, and the feminists are wanting the woman to abandon her marriage commitment because of the abuse, and the Family Law Act has changed to allow no fault divorce. Intelligent men haven’t provided any reason for women to be committed to marriages when it is viewed by feminists as a form of prostitution. Women have demanded their right over their own bodies which have allowed them to legally murder their own unwanted neonates. The first woman in the Bible was called Eve, and she wanted to become like God and have the understanding of good and evil. The extreme feminist want to be like God and have control over their bodies and men and this can be good and evil. Men have become feminised by the church as it is rare to find a man like my dad in church these days. There are priests that have become pedophiles or gay which are no threat to women’s control and power in the secular world.

    In short-term marriage contracts, the prostitute will have to give all the sexual activities and sexual intercourse that their contracted to provide as this is her “commitment” and “love,” and the man has to provide financial benefits as this is his “commitment” and “love.” The Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” is making marriage “open” to “same-sex couples,” “transgender marriages,” “short-term marriage contracts” and providing “marriage equality” to “open marriages.” The purpose of the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” is for harm minimisation in order to prevent suicides, social exclusion, and provide dignity and respect to people whom practice legal abusive behaviours. Prostitutes have been treated worse than same-sex couples in our society so they need the dignity and respect of the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality,” so they can tell their children they’re married when they perform these sexual activities and sexual intercourse. The divorce rate is high in Australia and most divorces are initiated by women. Therefore, men could demand government to allow short-term marriage contracts. The Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” doesn’t care that no children would be born from these short-term marriage contract, and STDs/HPV/AIDS/HPV may decrease if the prostitute renewed the short-term marriage contract with the same man. The Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” is man’s imagination of marriage so men should start dreaming about the type of marriage they want because the law can be changed to give them whatever their heart desires. The Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” has nothing to do with God’s plan for marriage between one man and one woman to be united in “one flesh” so that children are nurtured and raised by their biological parents, and parents have a right to determine the education for their children. When men give up on women and children, then the world falls into “one hell of a mess.” Men have to remember that extreme feminist absolutely hate boys and men, and they would prefer to live in a world without them. People have labelled extreme feminist as lesbians, and they prefer to have “debauchery, drug and sex” – 20 000 lesbians in Palm Springs.” The intelligent men haven’t worked out the arguments of the extreme feminists because of corruption and deception. Good Luck! Western civilisation has ended, and the new Alice in Wonderland has become a reality because the Victorian government has allowed people to change their gender.

  6. Hi Janine
    I’ve been looking at the divorce situation in Australia as part of a conversation on another forum and i’d just like to point out that some of your comments on divorce are not borne out by the latest figures for Australia.(from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, for 2014).
    First of all the divorce rate is actually falling (slowly).
    Secondly the highest percentage of divorces ( (41.5%) are by joint application.
    After that 32.5% from women and 26% from men.

    What i find far more worrying is that so few couples are getting married in the first place, and what i also think we need to note is that almost 75% of marriages are now conducted by civil celebrants.I’d say even of the 25% still conducted by ministers of religion some may be because of the venue not the essential meaning or understanding.

    So I think all of our discussion of traditional marriage needs to take place in that context, and maybe even if the legal definition of marriage is changed there will in one sense be (as per our earlier conversations) a real opportunity for Christians to affirm traditional marriage through churches and faith communities that have opted out of the state system.

    What we are trying to sell at present is to put it bluntly not being bought by the community at large.

    • Margaret,
      Thanks for these Australian marriage statistics as I had read 70% of divorces were initiated by women. What I mean by current high divorce rates is compared with prior to no-fault divorce laws. If the government exchanges the legal meaning of marriage, then churches and faith communities have no choice but to remove themselves from the state marriage system. I am not surprised at all by the younger generation not wanting to identify their relationship with marriage because I was educated that marriage is a form of prostitution, but only involving one man rather than men. The Hook-Up-Culture “friends with benefits” started when I got married more than 18 years ago. There was no point for guys to buy the cow when they could get the milk for free. The younger generation whom are sexually active are having more sexual partners and they don’t associate marriage with the beginning of a sexual union. The younger generation have witnessed their parents go through a divorce or more, and have been more informed about affairs/adultery, sexless marriages, domestic violence, and husbands demanding sodomy -porn, masturbation, anal and oral sexual activities etc. It was recently reported that the younger generation have the worst sexual practices in history because there are more guys and girls (including women) whom have explored risky sexual practices. A marriage contract doesn’t give the younger generation the freedom of moving out of an abusive or undesirable relationship, and they don’t want to commit their life in a monogamous sexual union because the reports are sex becomes boring or non-existent in marriage. Tinder has made the availability of more sexual relationships without the commitment to a long-term relationship.

      The younger generation are living more in the virtual world which is totally fantasy or man’s imagination. Therefore, family/community expectation of a married relationship appears quite weird for this younger generation because it would require real work and a change of life-style (less focused on self) in order to provide for each others needs including sexual, financial, housing, children etc. I am not surprised by the low rate of marriages in Australian churches because there aren’t many people my age and younger in church these days. There are many churches which don’t have the generations between 13-35 year old, and there have been many churches which have closed because there is no younger believers to take over. There are churches which are being created in new suburbs, but the rate of growth is lower than the increased Australian population. It was interesting reading about fornication, adultery, sodomy and incest in Iceland during the 1800s to early 1900s as STDs were a common problem and people were put into prison to control the spread of STDs also known as Venereal Disease. People had to have a medical tests to ensure they were free from STDs prior to marriage. The antibiotics which are used to treat STDs today weren’t available during this period of time and the government had to enforce strict control over people’s sexual lives. The world is experiencing a significant rise in drug-resistant STDs (Gonorrhoea-Britain and America) and AIDS in Africa. Last year it was reported in the Guardian that approximately 40 000 people died in America and across Europe from drug-resistant diseases including STDs. I don’t believe the government will allow Christians the freedom from a legal system which identifies their “one flesh” union because they monitor fertility rates and the spread of STDs because their interested in the lives of the next generation.

  7. Janine, I believe in the sexual union basis of marriage that you do and that overwhelmingly men and women still consider marriage to each other to be faithful sexual union. I would like to put your arguments into a robust legal form. You have written over and over that same sex unions cannot unite sexually because their sexual parts are not the complementary match that the term sexual intercourse has always meant but you fear that “sexual activities” will be automatically assumed to be the new meaning of the words “union” and “exclusion” in the definition of gender free marriage. I wonder if there is an opportunity to throw a spanner into the works legally over that. As I understand the English legislation despite consultation with same sex organizations no description of sexual activities to satisfy the sexual union meaning could be written down. The result was that male – female marriage in the UK is still considered sexual union and marriage of two people of the same sex is not. The words “union” and “exclusion” for same sex marriage would mean what a court finds that they mean for that couple if there is a dispute, it was decided. Effectively it was left in the “too hard” basket by legislators. This splitting of marriage into male – female and same sex classes was seen by parts of the gay lobby as still discriminatory, there was not true equality of meaning of marriage. I saw a paper by a female academic at an English institution arguing that whatever one person does to another to bring on orgasm should be considered sexual intercourse and that would extend the definition to same sex acts.

    I like to think that the inability of same sex proponents to say what sexual intercourse means in a same sex relationship is a legal basis for not extending marriage to same sex unions. If all the voices against same sex marriage were to unite in asserting that first and foremost marriage is sexual union, and unless same sex proponents claim that their reason for wanting marriage is first and foremost to have their faithful sexual union recognized they cannot apply for marriage, there would be a simple legal challenge to be met. Either put in writing descriptions of the acts that they perform upon each other’s bodies, no euphemisms, and argue their equivalence to the thousands of years’ old understanding of what male – female sexual intercourse is, or shut up. Instead there seems to be a collective putting of our heads in the sand on this topic. The result becomes that because sexual intercourse cannot be defined for same sex unions, parliamentary draftsmen decide that sexual intercourse will have to disappear altogether officially as the meaning of gender free marriage. Do couples who understand their own marriages to be based on faithful sexual intercourse realize that they will be voting for that meaning to be lost if they vote in favour of same sex marriage? I believe that that should be spelled out in a preamble to the plebiscite. If the most valued aspect of marriage would become legally irrelevant under same sex marriage many people who would have voted for same sex marriage might become reluctant. In that light it would be deceptive to not ensure that people are aware that the same sex marriage proposition entails the loss of what they regard as the core meaning of marriage. If this and other consequences that the Government knows will be likely outcomes and they are not indicated in a preamble to the plebiscite, there could be a case to consider a yes vote to have been obtained on specious grounds.

    I think that we should be writing to the Attorney General with questions about consequences of same sex marriage and demanding that these be summarized in a preamble to the plebiscite. Again and again in the papers I see it that same sex marriage will have absolutely no effect on the majority. Does the Government endorse that position? We would point out that if there is a yes vote and consequences eventuate that we have indicated concern about were not addressed in a preamble, then the Government could be subject to class action to repeal same sex legislation because of collusion to hide damaging consequences on the same basis as tobacco companies were sued for failing to inform people of the dangers of smoking despite knowing of them. Malcolm Turnbull’s reputation might also be at risk. Remember he was the brilliant young lawyer who defended with some tricky manoeuvres the publication of the book “Spycatcher” against Margaret Thatcher’s opposition so he should be very aware of exposure to legal risk. Am I being far-sighted or just fanciful? Margaret you may know much more accurately the situation in the UK; I would be very grateful for your thoughts.

    • David.S

      I encourage you to email Malcolm Turnbull and the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC about your valuable comments. My concerns have been passed to the Legal Law Branch and Hon George Brandis QC because the government is greatly concerned about our comments we have raised on this blog. Same-sex couples argue that the change to the Australian Marriage Act won’t be affecting anyone, and there are people like me that are now identifying marriage as a “one flesh” union, rather than as husband and husband or wife and wife which makes no sense. The LGBTIAQ-lobby dictators believed that Christians wouldn’t be able to identify their marriage with something better than the word marriage, but they didn’t realise they could go back to the original meaning of marriage “one flesh” union which is our sexual identity which is protected in the Anti-discrimination Act because it isn’t bigoted or homophobic to choose sexual intercourse and this can’t be mixed with sexual activities because of the significant harmful health and relationship problems. In America, some Christians have divorced over the meaning of marriage, but non-Christians accuse them of disobeying God’s law on divorce. Christians don’t need all the expensive wedding traditions like white wedding dresses, wedding cakes, photos, receptions etc, but the wedding businesses would be extremely affected if there was a 25% drop in demand because Christians refuse to use their services to celebrate their “one flesh” unions. This could be made worse if the government has to make up all the rules for marriage and divorce like the Iceland Marriage Law, and couples no longer desire marriage because people don’t want to give the government a right to control and define their marriage, family and parenthood by the Marriage Act and Family Law Act.

      I found an interesting blog by Athol Kay “The Natural Consequences of a Sexless Marriage” May 1, 2010 and he stated, “Marriage is at its heart a sexual relationship. Without the sex it’s just a legal friendship, which is to say a needlessly complicated way of having a friend. The basic agreement of being married is to meet each others sexual needs and not to run about getting them met anywhere else. Both affairs and no sex marriages break that agreement.” This blog and the 52 comments highlights the relationship problems men and women face in a sexless marriage and with adultery/affairs. The Australian government can’t ignore the heart of marriage and the reasons people have gone to the effort to publicly commit to this monogamous sexual union for the sake their spouse and children. Recently, I read an article about an Anglican priest in England who decided to marry his same-sex partner, and the church community was forced to celebrate and participate in this marriage and ignore the pain experienced by his wife and children. I can’t imagine my community approving me of leaving my husband and children to pursue a sexual relationship for another man, but they would have to praise my decision if it is for my life-time girlfriend. This double standard of sexual behaviour is going to undermine man-woman marriages.

      The Guardian reported on the 20th August that the Health Department won’t subsidise the HIV prevention drug (Truvada) because of the high cost – a once daily pill that costs about $750 a month allows LGBTIAQ people (mainly gays) to have unprotected sex with people whom have HIV/AIDS, and it wasn’t feasible to limit the drug to a smaller, high-risk subset of the whole “at risk” population. The feminist movement is strongly promoting governments to allow people to take control over their bodies and even allowing death by suicide, abortion and same-sex relationships – consenting spread of AIDS/HIV and drug-resistant STDs (Gonorrhoea). The extreme feminists are like Eve “wanting to be like God,” and this isn’t going to end well. I appreciate your thoughts on this blog because if some intelligent men can’t protect their women and children, then I am afraid “this world is going to Hell in a basket.”

    • David.S

      I believe the government is creating a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” which will be a sham marriage for both same-sex and man-woman couples. A sham marriage or fake marriage is a marriage of convenience entered into purely for the purpose of gaining a benefit or other advantage arising from that status. We have discussed the core/heart of a man-woman marriage being sexual intercourse “one flesh” union which same-sex couples aren’t able to sexually practice together, but could do this biological function outside the marriage (adultery/affairs). Canada and New Zealand marriage definition was unable to describe a sexual relationship which both same-sex and man-woman married couples could practice because nurses and doctors practice consenting and legal sexual activities with patients so this isn’t exclusive from all others for life. Therefore, the sexual union was totally removed from the legal marriage contract, and the government decided both same-sex and man-woman couples could both have the status of marriage in order to obtain the benefits of divorce, state marriage certificate etc, but this is known as a sham marriage.

      The comedy company in Melbourne conducted a sham marriage between a gay man and lesbian woman whom both had same-sex partners (the real sexual relationship). The existing laws can allow married couples to have a legal sham marriage or the government can be persuaded to change the marriage definition to accommodate other types of legal sham marriages. The government could create a legal short-term marriage contract for prostitutes to have the status of marriage during their sexual relationship and allow a man to pass benefits to the woman without paying government taxes and this would be called a legal sham marriage. There is a difference between an “open marriage” and a “monogamous marriage” and these are both legal in Australia, but the law only currently protects and supports a “monogamous marriage.” There is a sexual difference between “same-sex relationship” and “man-woman relationship,” the legal Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” can only protect and support the sexual relationship between same-sex couples because they’re unable to practice man-woman sexual intercourse “one flesh” union in a marriage relationship.

      According to Express – online, Feb 28, 2016 reported, “Sham marriages have increased by almost 850% and authorities are overwhelmed in the UK.” When Australians observe that the legal construct of marriage allows for the practice of sham marriages for same-sex couples and this is re-enforced as a real marriage by force of the Anti-discrimination Act, then others whom aren’t receiving the marriage benefits decide they also want a piece of the pie and will create their own sham marriage like marrying their machine -lap-top computer, animal or robotic sex doll and try and persuade the community and government that this is a real marriage like same-sex couples. The negative consequences for a legal Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” is it will support and protect the practice of sham marriages, people will pretend sexual activities are the same as sexual intercourse which will lead to serious harmful health and relationship problems, people will accept the practice of adultery/affairs and sexless marriage, and children will be legally removed from their biological parent/s, and the law will separate the biological sexual function of a penis and vagina which is the only biological way of creating new-life and this is equivalent to creating a law separating lungs from oxygen which would cause death. I greatly appreciate your thoughts on this topic as this is equivalent to Christian nurses and doctors wanting nothing to do with the legal practice of abortion or the proposal of assisted suicide.

      • Thank you for those replies Janine, you put so much effort into this. What Margaret said is very true though, I fear: “What we are trying to sell at present is to put it bluntly not being bought by the community at large”. Yes, we can put a legal position about sexual intercourse to George Brandis but we have to be aware of the pressure on him from the same sex lobby and also that the same sex view of relationships has become conventional wisdom. I was looking at the Marriage Equality www site yesterday and I can see how infectious their spirit is. It is slick, alive, sophisticated, brimming with joy and excitement and exhortations to fight the good fight against bigotry. The people in videos are articulate, well dressed, professional and so healthy looking, there can’t be much wrong with them. I can see how all this can appeal to everyone, not just same sex oriented people. There is not a hint of marriage being a serious commitment to sexual union. Sex apparently is such a minor aspect of same sex loving relations as to be not worth mentioning. To try to introduce sexual intercourse into that setting is to invite the response “So, you think that marriage is for nothing but sex do you? Can’t you think of anything but sex?” That is the rejoinder that I have had from my wife and from several of my friends. You might as well be a Jehovah’s Witness trying to get them to read a Watchtower. How do we get past being throwbacks to the dead past, evil that can’t abide sweetness and light? My feeling is that we are dealing with a mental state that is induced by the words that we use, the songs that are popular, the games that we play, the things that we laugh at; the whole of what is called culture. It creates the modern “us” and then we create more of it because we are made by it. My wife sees it in our grand children – where did they learn that from? That German word “zeitgeist” that means spirit of the time is what I suppose that I am saying is pervading consciousness and those most created by it are the young. We can rail all we like against it with all the self contradictions and disastrous outcomes like you do but if it is the self generating result of our culture it will happen. But I still believe that those of us who are not infected should not give up, like JWs who keep coming back with their Watchtowers.

        • David.S

          I believe the majority of older Australians 40 years+ understand what real marriage means and will vote to keep the Marriage Act the same. However, the majority of younger Australians don’t care about marriage, and a significant number can’t even bother to put themselves on an electoral role. The Marriage Equality site quotes a high percentage for community acceptance because the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators want to push this through the parliament like other countries have achieved, but the statistic means nothing as we can’t verify the source of information and whether the statistic is even based on a true representation of the Australian electoral population. Only a few people have expressed to me they’re for the Marriage Act to change, and a woman last night said to me, “I didn’t realise that this was going to create a “sham marriage practice.”

          The Victorian government has experience a “sham educational practice” as politicians legally created an environment where private educational institutions could establish and use the good name of education in Victoria to attract overseas and local students to pay huge amounts of money for a certificate which wasn’t worth the piece of paper it was written on, and some students didn’t even get to finish their course before it was closed down. There were migrant students accepted into Australia based on attending a private educational institutions, but some students weren’t even turning up for classes as they didn’t come here with the intention of study. These overseas students came to Australian for other benefits like purchasing a property, but the “sham educational practice” allowed them legal entry into Australia. Therefore, Australia will experience an even bigger problem with immigration if the government legally establishes a “sham marriage practice.” If all that is required for a migrant to get citizenship of Australia is a legal state marriage certificate and this is the only proof required for marriage, then there are going to be people fraudulently producing state marriage certificates. Migrants want to come and live here in Australian because of our affordable health and education, our generous welfare and legal services etc. I am making sure our politicians are well informed that if a sexual union in marriage isn’t required and the government only accepts a state marriage certificate or friendship in a legal partnership as the status of marriage then their will be an increase of “sham marriages” and our immigration authorities will find it difficult to prove a “sham marriage” because the government has accepted a legal “sham marriage practice.” How do you prove a home abortion is different from a legal abortion practice when a death of a neonate is the evidence of both?

          I am well aware that the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators are putting a lot of pressure on our government to change the Marriage Act for the purpose of same-sex couples as they have a high suicide problem which is going to be fixed by a state marriage certificate. Therefore, the government should provide same-sex people with a legal wedding and state married certificate even if they are single because this would decrease the suicide rate. When has Australia encouraged and promoted marriage as a form of suicide prevention or harm minimisation for man-woman couples/singles? When someone believes and practices behaviours which aren’t or shouldn’t be real this is a “delusional fantasy,” such as flying like a bird or a man having sex with a child. Describe a “same-sex marriage” and is this the same practice as a man-woman marriage? If it is only receiving a state marriage certificate which gives the status of marriage and the government marriage benefits, then this is a “sham marriage practice.” If the Marriage Act is changed for the purpose of same-sex couples, then there is no point man-woman identifying their marriage with a “Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” because this is a “sham marriage practice.” Fortunately, Christians can separate from “sham marriage practice” by using the original meaning of marriage as “one flesh” union.

          When the moral ground has shifted away from God’s laws on truth, life, death, marriage, family and parenthood it has been replaced by greater government control on the practice of these things. The Chinese government dictate a maximum of 2 children. Are Australians willing to give our government greater control over our private lives including life, death, marriage, family and parenthood? Our government doesn’t have a good history of caring for our most vulnerable people in our society. The government has established the practice of legal abortion so it doesn’t care about unwanted neonates as they treat them as bodily waste deserving of death. It is considering the practice of legal suicide because our society believe our government can play God over the elderly, sick, ill and disabled (most vulnerable in our society) and are entitled to death. Plus, the government wants to create a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” so the heart of marriage which is a sexual union becomes irrelevant which makes marriage a “sham marriage practice.” When I have explained the history of marriages in NSW was only recorded in the Church of England and other denomination from 1788-1856 this surprises most people because they didn’t know that the government had not always been involved in the practice of marriages. When I have told them the NSW marriage registry was only established to protect and support the religious practice of marriage by keeping accurate records for the illegitimacy of children and inheritance, they didn’t realise the government didn’t define the marriage practice. When I have explained to people that the heart of marriage is a sexual relationship they became aware this is what separated friends and lovers. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators use the slogan “love is love” which means they believe sexual activities (love) are the same as sexual intercourse (love) to be called marriage, but this isn’t stated in the marriage law. Christians need to be very aware of the consequences because this helps them see the urgency to separate from the immoral behaviours and practices as this is called discernment. I have explained to people the reasons Christians believe the practice of sodomy is abusive as this is because health science evidence shows when body parts when used against their function this is called abuse. There are some people whom don’t realise that the argument has nothing to do with “same-sex marriage” because a judge would say this is “delusional fantasy,” and this is clearly different to man-woman marriage, but the point of the argument is to focus that the law can only protect and support one sexual relationship because they’re not the same sexual relationship. There are lots of parents right across Australia and from all cultures whom are demanding an end to the safe school coalition program and this has made them aware of the extreme dangers to a change in the Marriage Act, especially when the Victorian government is totally ignoring parents concern. The Hon. Daniel Andrews will no doubt be kicked out of government after this term because their are too many parents he has chosen to ignore their concerns. This has done far more damage to the reputation to the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality,” and I haven’t come across a parent who supports the program.

  8. The Age, The Guardian and The Australian newspapers have all admitted that “gay marriage” doesn’t have a legitimacy to man-woman marriage if it doesn’t get the Australian community approval. Therefore, the government is establishing a “sham marriage practice” which is similar to the Victorian “sham education practice.” In order for the Australian government to give 2 friends of the same sex only a legal union – state marriage certificate, the Australian community has to agree marriage has nothing about “sex which can reproduce biological children -consummated marriage” which is a “delusional fantasy.” This would allow 2 people of the same-sex to use the good name of “marriage” which was established by religious man-woman marriage in Australia (man and woman becoming “one flesh”). Then some would force Christians and Christian churches to go against their moral conscience by using the Anti-discrimination Act so they would celebrate, educate and participate in the abusive practice of sodomy (a sexual organ with a non-sexual organ), and this is the meaning of a “sham marriage.” However, the good name of “marriage” won’t exist in the “sham marriage practice” if Christians only identify their marriage with the original meaning of marriage called, “one flesh” union, and the Anti-Discrimination Act protects and supports heterosexuality (sexual intercourse- “one flesh” union).” There were schools in Boston, MA which had a good reputation so the department allowed poor students to attend these schools by using credit points system. However, a lot of parents found the education standard decreased, so wealthy parents removed their children and sent them to a private school. Then these good schools got a bad reputation, and were known for “poor students.” Immigration authorities will find it impossible to detect a “sham marriage” when there is a “sham marriage practice” in the Australian Marriage Act because man-woman friendship can appear like 2 people of the same-sex in a legal union, but this isn’t a sexual relationship. Marriage without sex is only a legal friendship. Affairs and sexless marriage break the agreement of marriage.

  9. So,
    Labor and Xenephon and others are saying it’s cheaper to let the politicianns decide and enforce a new definintion of marriage, rather than have a peoples vote.

    It’s proof that us plebs mean nothing to to those in power.

    This is not democratic, when we, the people want and deserve to have a say on this issue.

    • Mikel,

      It does look like there won’t be a plebiscite for this term of government, and the humanist’s “marriage equality” won’t be voted on for this term of government because the government determines what private bills are presented in parliament. The Labor government is unlikely to put the Humanist’s “marriage equality” to the Australian people for a 3rd failed attempt at the next election, but Australians won’t be wanting to vote Labor/greens because of Labor’s history on been a dictator with the Safe School Coalition program in Victorian schools. Bill Shorten has been changing his mind on so many matters that he will have lost all credibility by the next election. Britain, America, Canada, New Zealand and European governments will have all worked out that their immigration problems are a result of their creation of a “sham marriage practice” which is similar to the Victorian “sham private education institutes practice” which the Victorian government had to close down. It is likely that the good name of “marriage” will go in reverse to the name of “nursing” which was originally done by the prostitutes and criminals in Europe. Same-sex couples claimed in Britain that “marriage equality” wouldn’t affect the churches, but today the Church of England (Anglican) is talking about separating from any churches whom won’t hold to the original Biblical teachings against homosexual behaviours and practices. Therefore, the Church of England currently doesn’t allow gay marriage, and priests aren’t allowed to have same-sex sexual relationships.

      • Yeah, this is a blessing. There’ll be no changing of the marriage laws and social order for another three years.
        By then we’ll know more about the negative impacts of this in other countries.
        Thank God, as always 🙂

Leave a comment