Science Supports Traditional Marriage

The science is in and the “progressive” Left are well and truly off the mark.

Despite their claims that male and female are interchangeable “social constructs”, biology begs to differ.

In fact, researchers have found 6,500 genes differ between the sexes. Hormone treatments may corrupt a tiny percentage of these genes, but most will forever remain unchanged – and of course cosmetic changes are exactly that - cosmetic.

Research from Stanford Medicine confirms what many of us knew purely by common sense: “that there are inherent differences in how men’s and women’s brains are wired and how they work.”

Here are some of their findings:

New technologies have generated a growing pile of evidence that there are inherent differences in how men’s and women’s brains are wired and how they work.

Many of these cognitive differences appear quite early in life. “You see sex differences in spatial-visualization ability in 2- and 3-month-old infants,” Halpern says. Infant girls respond more readily to faces and begin talking earlier. Boys react earlier in infancy to experimentally induced perceptual discrepancies in their visual environment. In adulthood, women remain more oriented to faces, men to things.”

In other news, “progressives” cheered on a transgender (male to female) student who won a race against actual girls. The Blaze reports: “A mustachioed boy who ‘identifies as a girl’ heroically won gold in the 100 meter dash and 200 meter dash for the Connecticut high school girls’ state championships last week. His times would have placed him a full second behind last place in the boy’s competition, but against the girls he easily came in first.”

This is not empowering to girls and women. This is not a celebration of “equality”. This is a boy (in 6,500 genetic ways) snatching empowerment from girls.

How did the girl who came second (or first amongst those with 6,500 reasons to identify as female) really feel about having victory snatched from her by a person with 6,500 reasons to identify as male?

“I can’t really say what I want to say, but there’s not much I can do about it.”

Just like “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, anyone who dares to admit the obvious is quickly silenced.

What does this have to do with marriage?

The same “progressives” who deny the inherent, genetic differences between men and women also deny the unique and equally vital contribution of a man and a woman in marriage and family.

Two men who claim they can replace the role of a mother to her child – that’s not equality.

To deny the unique and equally important contribution of a mother to the development of her children is something else altogether.

There are at least 6,500 reasons to support true marriage equality = 1 man + 1 woman 4 Life.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

37 Responses

  1. This is utterly laughable. Men and women are different? Of course they are. It doesn’t remotely follow from that that legal mariage should only be limited to a man and a woman.

    • Ash

      What is laughable is the insistence that same sex couples are the same as heterosexual couples when it comes to defining their relationships. One of them is marriage, the other is simply something else. Blind Freddy could see that, but no, the same sex lobby doesn’t.

      • Ash why ‘laughable’?
        (Yes I know you borrowed the word from Nick but I took Nick’s comment to refer to the fact that we did not need science to prove to us that men and women are different).

        To dismiss the comparison between same sex relationships and heterosexual relationships as ‘laughable’ doesn’t even measure up well against classic definitions in the Protestant Christian tradition.I’ll quote from Anglican thinking because I am most familiar with that but to the best of my knowledge it applies across the Protestant tradition.

        So according to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer marriage has three purposes:

        1.The procreation and upbringing of children
        2.The avoidance of sexual promiscuity
        3.”The mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”

        So are you suggesting that a committed exclusive lifelong relationship between two people of the same sex bears no relation at all to the above three defining features?

        You may of course argue that the first defining feature is the essential one.But that is a distortion of classic Christian thinking and practice.Many, many marriages were contracted to ensure the upbringing of children (as opposed to their procreation). The development of Christian marriage represents progress from the polygamous marriages of the Old Testament.Mutual support is presented as an ideal (hence widows who have lost that support are presented as marginalised).

        Furthermore the community as a whole has benefitted from all three of these elements of marriage and continues to do so.

        I am not myself convinced that marriage is the most appropriate form of legal recognition for same sex relationships (nor indeed for all heterosexual relationships, and I note here the ongoing campaign in the UK to make civil unions available to heterosexual couples).

        However I do not consider it helpful (or accurate) simply to dismiss the comparison as laughable.

        • Ash

          Hi Margaret. This day and age of ‘enlightenment’ the differences between men and women and their sexual characteristics DO need to be spelled out in society (not to Nick as he already appreciates it) because if you look at what the SSCA is teaching our children, you will see that there is indeed an attempt at indoctrinating them to believe that gender is a feeling rather than biology. But moving on from this, it follows logically that the essence of marriage is between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, not some social construct that we choose as we go along because, again, we ‘feel’ same sex couples should get in on it.

          Procreation is but one of the normative parts of marriage, although it is not the only one. Same sex couples CLEARLY require external intervention to procreate, and although again it is not a prerequisite of marriage, it is a normative element of the institution. So same-sex couples are simply NOT the same as married couples, and should just move on and lobby for another name for their union, along with the legal recognition they so desire (which with some paperwork they already have access to as defacto couples anyway).

          It is not a distortion of any thinking to understand the above, nor do I ascribe to any man-made interpretation of ‘classical Christian thinking’. If the Bible is anything to go by, it affirms that marriage is between one man and one woman for life, throughout the scriptures, right from Adam and Eve. So Margaret, I’m afraid the intellectualisation put forth is just twisting the truth to suit the cause, which doesn’t wash. But your final point of marriage not being the appropriate legal union for all heterosexual couples confuses me. In what instance is marriage appropriate to you?

          • Ash I am not expecting you to ‘subscribe’ to it, except in so far as if you marry in a Christian church you presumably subscribe to the teaching of that denomination on what is involved in marriage.I believe I have described that accurately in the Protestant tradition.

            (SSCA is a side issue here but from my observation it is unusual for it to be ‘teaching’ anything.The All of Us teaching resources seem very little used in most states. More generally I think most of us do not need to be convinced that men and women are different).

            Marriage IS a social construct changing over time.That too I would suggest is obvious to most people.But that is not to deny the idea that it has essential elements that do not change.

            Final point (nothing to do with my own view, for the record I have been married for almost 50 years and still hold to those 3 elements involved in my own commitment in 1967): a growing number of heterosexual couples want as legal union other than marriage.In many countries this is available.In the UK it is not and there is a strong campaign to change this.

          • Ash

            Thanks Margaret. Firstly, you will not find a lot of Christians ‘subscribing’ to the church they were married in. It is irrelevant as faith is worked out through prayer and the word of God, not through any church. So if you want to take my own example, I was married in a Pentecostal church, had the wedding celebrated by an Anglican minister of my mother-in-law’s choosing (and I had to do the right thing by her), attended an independent Church of Christ for some time, then a Baptist church and an Assemblies of God church (now Australian Christian Church) and am now with the family attending another Baptist church, most of these shifts were due to moving, not due to any problem within ourselves or the churches. What am I saying here? It is that all these denominations mean NAUGHT. I do not care what the Protestant tradition believes and it is TOTALLY irrelevant to biblical understanding of marriage AND the argument at hand.

            Marriage is NOT a social construct as much as you wish to believe so and make out that it is so *obvious*. If you are a Bible believer, you will know that the example Christ gave in loving His Church was to fulfill the perfect plan God had at the time of Adam and Eve; to be one flesh with His bride. Right from time immemorial. It is a biblical foundation when it comes to the believer, but in this argument, it is a NATURAL foundation. Man-woman-child family unit. Where natural children are born and raised by their natural parents. That’s the complete and natural picture of family. Surrogate and adopted children will ALWAYS have the question marks in their heads – where did I come from? – it can’t have been from two mums or two dads. There will ALWAYS be a longing in their hearts for more than the loving environment that two mums or two dads can give them.

            I know nothing of what else heterosexual couples ‘want’ apart from marriage, because they see marriage as ‘sexist’ and ‘patriarchal’. This couple suggesting that denying them the right under the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 to enter into a civil partnership – a choice open to same-sex couples – is discriminatory could not be any more senile, clearly insinuating their disdain over the religious nature of the marital covenant. In the end, we all want something we don’t have, and like children we are throwing tantrums over it, going to the Supreme Court, holding public protests and rallies, posting insults online to strangers who don’t agree with our point of view. Quite the mature spectacle.

            If we could just forge a society that accepts the natural and the reality, not coveting and not invading the foundations of that society, we might just learn the virtues of contentment and pride in a constructive and respectful manner.

          • Ash I find it rather sad that you appear to be disdainful of any Christian view of marriage that does not accord with your own (including presumably that of the minister who actually performed your marriage).

            If Christians cannot even agree amongst themselves as to what marriage is about it is hardly surprising that we have failed pretty miserably to convince the rest of the community. I presume you are aware that only a fifth of marriages in Australia now take place in churches, with the figure steadily climbing. Realistically even those that do may in some cases represent a choice of a traditional venue or (as in your own case) family wishes.

            I do not think Paul, in the words on which you base your understanding of marriage , was unaware of the biblical practice of marriage and how it had evolved and was still evolving. Not was he unaware that in speaking of one flesh his audience understood this, in the context of the time, to refer to one family group. Husband and wife leave the family groups in which they are born and raised and form a new one.

            I’d suggest that historically English law on civil marriage is closely modelled on the principles I quoted, and Australian law in turn follows the English model. So for those three reasons the state takes an interest in marriage. And insofar as the focus is on children it is at least as much on their upbringing as on their procreation.

            A while back I looked at my own family history and calculated that up to a third of those included in my pedigree were not actually raised to adulthood by both biological parents though in all but one instance (going back to 1800) they had actually been born to married couples and in no instance was there a divorce or desertion.

            Dismissing this as ‘tragic accident’’ seems to me misleading. It was common experience to which remarriage was a frequent (not universal) response. Some of those widowed struggled on by themselves , moved in with family or in the case of one of my great grandfathers employed a housekeeper.

            At the same time other couples remained childless, or married or remarried when the question of procreation or upbringing of children was no longer relevant. I presume you are not questioning the validity (in either secular or religious terms) of their marriages.

            So in the light of all that I ask again: in what respects does a loving, committed monogamous and lifetime relationship between two people of the same sex fall short of the requirements for civil marriage?

            That’s the question we need to be able to answer (and respond to). I’m extremely disappointed that the debate in Australia seems not to address this in any depth.

            The question of protecting our ( apparently differing) understandings of Christian marriage (or come to that marriage in any other faith tradition) needs in my view to be considered separately.It is certainly just as important (in my view more important). But at most it is (bearing in mind the figures I quoted for celebration of marriage in Australia ) of ‘interest’ to a minority of the population.

          • Ash

            Margaret, respectfully, you may feel sad all you like, but we are charged with the responsibility to understand and stand firm on the absolutes. The claim that I am “disdainful of any Christian view of marriage that does not accord with your own” is simply incorrect. You infer that because I do not regard the legalistic definitions as “Christian” then I somehow have formed my own definition. No. If you are a Christian, read the COMPLETE word of God, not Paul’s teachings in isolation. It all comes back to the original plan of Christ and the Church with Adam and Eve as the descriptor. It is not MY definition, but God’s. Furthermore, for the sake of argument in the LEGAL sense, it is best to consider it in the secular sense, since church and state ought to be separate. Nevertheless what marriage is in the LEGAL sense is still not relative. It is an absolute definition that as with many other absolutes in life should not be tampered with.

            “Husband and wife leave the family groups in which they are born and raised and form a new one.” That’s right. They form a new husband and wife nuclear family. The genesis cannot be pragmatically anything that differs from the outcome. And since the state has a vested interest in the next generation, it is important for it to define the special relationship between mother, father and biological children in the primal family bond that can only happen in a one man, one woman marriage.

            The example you gave of children being raised by people other than biological parents is NO justification for the raising of such children by same-sex couples, throuples or any other combination of random people when there are blood relatives and even foster parents available to assist. So that argument does not hold. And the questioning of my stance of childless couples is really a diversion from the issue. The couple who cannot or do not wish to have children do not have any less valid marriage, it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise, but again they are DIFFERENT to same-sex couples as they are not man-woman. Simple.

            So the question you pose: “in what respects does a loving, committed monogamous and lifetime relationship between two people of the same sex fall short of the requirements for civil marriage?” has already been answered many times, but it seems you don’t like the answer. The answer is simple. It’s not marriage because it is not one man-one woman. What they are does not lack anything in the eyes of the law, they are already de facto with all the legal recognition this offers. Taking one more step further in having ‘public recognition”, they can lobby for a life partnership or union label so that they can have it recognised on paper and be satisfied that they too can do everything married couples can do. No problem. But to barge in on a perfectly sound sanctified institution is merely inappropriate imposition.

          • Sorry, missed a post!
            “Feeling sad’ sounds a bit weak but is an expression of mourning (“blessed are those who mourn”) for the ‘limitedness’ from which we all suffer in our views.It is difficult for any fully to appreciate the viewpoint of another.Inevitably that may be more the case if our views are strongly held.

            So one thing I am trying to do overall in this instance is get my head round why so many people genuinely believe we are discussing marriage equality (of course one can take the view that it is simply a slogan , a search for legitimacy for behaviour, but that is not what I am seeing).In what respects is a same sex relationship ‘equivalent’ to heterosexual marriage in the context of civil law?

            I still believe there are strong points of equivalence. and that we need to find a way of addressing these.

            Incidentally if we turn back to a Christian view of marriage many would argue that one that deliberately excludes children is invalid (simply on the basis that this represents a refusal to accept God’s plan).

            Thanks as always for the discussion.

  2. Totally agree.

  3. Well there is no “insistence” that non-indoctrinated (non-hetero) relationships are define is the same, that is why they are labelled as hetero and non-hetero. But the dynamics of a relationship are generally built of a single known concept called love. If two people are in love and love their child/ren in a way that’s causing no harm., then who the **** are you to say what is right. But I guess most people that follow these old times beliefs still feel its safe to leave their children with member of the catholic church. Please provide a link to these studies and their analysis, otherwise this article is nothing more then a whinge that everyday life is opening up to concepts that are far far to complex for you to understand. Anyone trying to inhibits one ability love themselves/partners or family is no better then the men/women our countries have sacrificed thousands upon thousands of lives to defeat.

    • Ash

      Dear Mr/Mrs Anonymous Mouse (or did I offend you for confining you to a binary title?)
      If there are hetero and non-hetero relationships, then they are clearly different, regardless of whether there is love involved. I can love a tree or a dog and say I want to marry that living being but it is not marriage no matter how much I love that being (although there have been civil ceremonies that have ‘united’ those very beings to humans in recent times). They may be two human beings who say they love one another but the same sex couple are simply not the same as a natural man-woman union, and this is not a matter of being right, just what is.

      What same sex couples and their adopted/surrogate children do in their own homes is their own business, but it does not require the legislative amendment of a timeless institution to recognise it. And this does not have to have anything to do with religion. The counter argument of child abuse within the Catholic Church is neither appropriate nor relevant (as abhorrent as it is).

      A link to these studies. Hmm. But first let’s go through what doesn’t require high end scientific proof: Timeless observations of human beings have noted that at birth, childhood development and in adulthood there are male and female characteristics that are unmistakeable. Further innumerable scientific studies suggest that there are 46 chromosomes in the human genome, and that in the normal situation there are two sex chromosomes in each person, creating a diversity of XX (female) and XY (male). All other combinations (XXX, XXY, XO, etc) are all recognised genetic aberrations of normal and are not to considered to be another gender. But enough of the obvious and I’ll get to the links you asked for:

      His and Her Genes: How Sex Affects Muscles, Fat & More
      Live Science | 04 May 2017

      Researchers Identify 6,500 Genes That Are Expressed Differently in Men and Women
      Weizmann Wonder Wander | 03 May 2017

      The landscape of sex-differential transcriptome and its consequent selection in human adults
      BMC Biology | 07 February 2017

      Furthermore, medical practitioners who work day in day out with human beings identify them as male and female for a very good reason. There is no confusion in patient gender.

  4. Here’s a food for thought argument:
    What about sologamy? Why can’t we have legal recognition for that? What’s wrong with ‘marrying’ oneself that we have to exclude these ‘self-married’ people from the institution of marriage?
    After all the research behind the website below affirms that it is a commitment that values self-love and self-compassion, which leads to a happier life. So since there is ‘proof’ that such a self-union is good, would it be assumed to be good to be included in the Marriage Act?

    Answer: No, for the same reason that a same-sex couple, a threesome and a foursome aren’t marriage – they aren’t the natural one flesh covenant relationship that marriage is.
    But what about the precedents overseas? The first polyamorous ‘family’ that has been legally recognised in Colombia, only possible after same-sex marriage was legalised there in 2016 ( How did this happen? The lawyers couldn’t find a logical reason to prohibit them from having their union legally recognised as marriage due to the legislature reform. Wasn’t this all supposed to be scaremongering according to the gay lobby?

    Or how about the first lesbian throuple in the US? ( Yes they’re married, and have a specialist family lawyer who worked out all the ins and outs of the marital agreement whilst one of them has fallen pregnant via IVF with anonymous sperm. Three mums are better than one, right? Slippery slope? What slippery slope? So we all just let this go on intervening on a natural phenomenon, backing it up by law, and it all gets quite messed up.

    So we have a choice. We choose the new-found ‘marital relativism’ exemplified by the societies already embracing same sex marriage, or we define marriage as what it is without muddying the waters, and give all other unions their own recognition under the law because they are set apart from marriage for obvious reasons.

    • “give all other unions their own recognition under the law ‘.

      Perhaps if we actually committed to doing this rather than using it as throw away line we might succeed in retaining the traditional meaning for marriage.

      But I see no evidence that as a community we have the will to do this.

      • Margaret,

        Can I suggest that you read the NSW Marriage Registry – online history of marriages as this website clearly shows marriages were only recorded in the churches from 1788-1856. Then consider the reason given by government to establish a NSW Birth, Death, Marriage Registry as this was to keep accurate records for the illegitimacy of children and inheritance. Please notice that Christians weren’t demanding for their marriages to be registered by the state, but the federal government made it a requirement for all marriages to be registered by the church minister in the NSW Marriage Registry. Please observe that there was no same-sex marriages recorded from 1788-1856 in any church when the government was separate from the churches in relation to marriages. Now compare and contrast this religious marriage practice with the proposed “legal same-sex marriage” as God never stated marriage had to be a committed, loving, monogamous same-sex relationship. The sexuality and gender theories which is a belief system based on a Marxist ideology aim is confuse the language. Does God in the Bible refer to any Biblical person as a “heterosexual’ or in a “heterosexual marriage?” The Safe School Program and Resilience, Rights, and Respectful Relationship programs are trying to teach children to identify as “heterosexual” because they want children to have sex on the brain 24/7 like an animal. The sexuality and gender theories means all civil “registered marriages” don’t defend, maintain, support and protect children being procreated, nurtured and raised by their biological father and mother.

        People who identify as “Gay” or “Lesbian” are firstly male or female whom have all the same characteristics of a male or female as the rest of the population. However, males and females who identify as Gay or Lesbian have a different belief system as they reject natural human reproduction by claiming they’re not sexually attracted to 100% of people of the different sex, and they believe in scientific experimentation of human reproduction. However, I am not sexually attracted to 99.99% of males and I believe in natural human reproduction. People who identify as gay or lesbian don’t have sexual behaviour different to other males and females as there are males who have sex with males who don’t identify as “gay,” and there are females who have sex with females who don’t identify as “lesbian.” Also, there are males who have had sex with females who identify as “gay,” and there are females who have had sex with males who identify as “lesbian.” A legal same-sex marriage is attempting to normalise the placing of children with unrelated adult/s and child/children despite the Royal Commission into Institutional sexual child abuse which showed evidence that every child was sexually abused by an unrelated adult/child and the majority of these cases was only reported as an adult. The Royal Commission showed how pedophilia and child-on-child sexual abuse was hidden within churches and schools for many years. I am aware that these types of sexual abuses are going to be much harder to detect when hidden in a legal family. This will be like the 14 year old girl I went to school with as she got pregnant to her step-father (unrelated adult who had a legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding celebration with her mother). The Australian law can create legal families but I understand the natural human behavioural practices of “one flesh” marriage, pedophilia, child-on-child sexual abuse, adultery, sodomy, abortion, prostitution, sexual immorality and this is different to an identity such as priest, doctor, nurse, bipolar, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, opposite-sex, same-sex, complimentary sex, man, woman, boy, girl, male, female, transgender etc. The Australia Marriage Act is unable to support and protect a civil “registered marriage” practice based on two different belief systems and this is the reason a traditional marriage no longer exists in laws of western countries who have embraced a legal “same-sex marriage.” Please read the WHO (World Health Organisation) sexuality report as this clearly shows a sex worker and adulterer can’t be discriminated from all other people. However, many parents don’t want their child to learn at school about legal adultery and prostitution, but unrelated teachers/healthcare workers get paid by the state and don’t have an invested interested in children so they may not reject programs which lead to child sexual abuse which isn’t criminalised.

        • Janine with great respect none of this relates to the discussion I was having with Ash.

          I respect your right to see the current debate in the terms you do.

          However I offer the following points which are based on my professional knowledge as a church historian, and my knowledge as a family historian.

          Marriages in England were recorded by churches back to at least the 16th century.They were recorded in the parish in which they took place and also at Diocesan level.This record keeping was considered as extremely important .

          The legislation to which you refer was designed to ensure all marriage ceremonies complied with all the requirements of church law.

          Marriages were not recorded by the state until 1837 in England and Wales at which point civil weddings became available.Not sure when these became available in Australia.

          Of course I accept that all of these marriages involved one man and one woman.A major reason they were recorded was to minimise the possibility of bigamy, which sadly was not uncommon.I have several examples in my extended family tree.

          Not for a moment am I suggesting that same sex couples fit the Christian concept of marriage (though I respect the views of the many Christian Churches that have moved in this direction).As we have discussed before I respect the right of Christians , individually and collectively, to opt out of the civil marriage system altogether.

          My point is that there is a strong argument for the state to give full legal protection to same sex relationships especially those involving children.This is not currently so at a federal level in Australia in spite of statements to the contrary. The argument is based on reasons that align strongly to the 3 basic elements of the Christian understanding of marriage (procreation and upbringing of children, avoidance of promiscuity and mutual support and comfort of spouses) that I quoted to Ash.

          I respect his right and your right to have a different Christian understanding of marriage, but statistically among 21st century Christians in Australia (based on their denominational background) I believe the one I am using to be the most prevalent view.

          What I am suggesting overall is that understanding why we hold the views we do, and respecting our right to differ, would have led to a far more respectful and constructive debate than the one we are having in Australia.Too often it has become a race to the bottom on both sides. Consequently I do not think it will ‘end well’.

          • Ash

            “give full legal protection to same sex relationships especially those involving children”. They already have this in a de facto arrangement, it just requires more paperwork. So they want it the same as married couples? Okay, to streamline things when one partner dies or has the care of adopted/half-children or the like, they can lobby to get legal recognition by requesting civil registration in a life partnership or union. Why do same sex couples want to force in on marriage?

            “among 21st century Christians in Australia (based on their denominational background) I believe the one I am using to be the most prevalent view” Proof please.
            If you want to appreciate what God says about marriage, then you would do well to read the innumerable resources on biblical marriage both online and in books. You may learn something.

            You seem to believe that others do not understand or respect your point of view. You may feel this way, but it is not necessarily so (certainly not on my part). There is a difference however when you are speaking of absolutes such as biblical marriage. There are no ‘views’ or ‘opinions’ in that. How we understand marriage may be different to what biblical marriage is, but that doesn’t alter the truth. We either accept God’s word or we lean on our own understanding on such matters, and *that* is what will not ‘end well’.

          • Margaret,

            I agree with you that the civil “registered marriage” practice isn’t going to end well. The Australian federal parliament would be establishing a belief system based on an ideology (sexuality and gender theories) by supporting and protecting a legal “same-sex marriage.” Your suggestion that Christians will be able to opt out of a civil “registered marriage” practice may not be straight forward because the NSW marriage history shows evidence that it was the federal parliament which forced Christians ministers to register all marriages in the first place and not Christians demanding government to establish a Marriage Registry. Your comment “strong argument for the state to give full legal protection to same-sex relationships especially those involving children” – Please explain the strong argument. Marriage was considered the marital act prior to the procreation of children and now your suggesting marriage is a legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding ceremony required once children are established by laws with 2 partners. Can you please explain how the purchase of a legal state marriage certificate supports and protects a marriage because my husband and I haven’t purchased our NSW marriage certificate and we’ve been married for 19 years.

          • Janine my point was that the current debate will not end well. We shall lose the traditional definition because (unlike Christians and other faith communities in Croatia) we have not engaged constructively or respectfully in debate. We have not looked carefully at the arguments in favour of redefining civil marriage and hence we have not been proactive in suggesting an outcome such as that achieved in Croatia.
            There has never been a requirement for religious marriages to be registered if one does not wish to have them recognised as civil marriages. There are already countries eg France where the two are completely separate.
            The ‘strong argument’ is that those same sex relationships (which already exist and which may already involve children) are best formalised and stabilised for the good of all those involved in them and hence for social cohesion in general. The only reasons I can see could be advanced against such formalising are value judgements about the morality of the relationship or a belief that somehow formalisation would encourage more people to enter into such relationships.
            Marriage cannot simply be ‘the marital act prior to the procreation of children’ even in principle, since it involves a lifelong commitment with or without children. There has never been a society that has refused marriage to those who already have children, whether in the current relationship or in previous relationships. In contrast some churches do ‘refuse’ marriage to couples who have decided not to have children or who are known to be incapable of intercourse. Civil lawmakers have to my knowledge never contemplated such a restriction.

            Finally I agree that a marriage certificate has no relevance for the value of a Christian marriage. Anyone who simply wants a Christian marriage and is willing to forgo all the legal benefits of marriage may well prefer the option I suggested whereby churches opt out of civil registration.

            Until that happens religious marriages will (assuming the church official is a licensed celebrant) be registered as civil marriages and whether we personally have a copy of the certificate is irrelevant.
            I don’t recall ever being asked to produce mine in 50 years (possibly for change of name when applying for a passport?) but my marriage is still registered at the General Register Office in the UK as presumably yours is at the relevant office in NSW. Certainly in the UK situation anyone can order a copy of my marriage certificate if they provide the basic information.

          • Margaret,

            My husband and I have never been forced to purchase our NSW Marriage certificate, however we had no choice about the church minister registering our marriage with the NSW Marriage Registry as this is a requirement by the Marriage Act. Every marriage I know which has happened after children have existed in a relationship has ended in a divorce including Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. I wouldn’t recommend a couple who have lived together to get married as this is even likely to end in divorce. Legal registered practices have been about protecting the public from harm but governments are ignoring the harm of adultery which leads to divorce and breakdown of the marriage and family. A marriage certificate was given as a licence for a sexual relationship and the marital act happen before any children. I don’t believe we will lose the meaning of “one flesh” marriage but it will be independent from the civil “registered marriage” practice.

        • Janine your minister was only obliged to register your marriage because your Church had opted in to the system. My point is that they are free to opt out.

          Yes I agree a marriage licence has in the past sometimes been regarded as a licence for a sexual relationship, something that whether we like it or not no longer applies for the community at large.
          My observations of marriages after children have been born are a lot more positive than yours and the figures for cohabitation before marriage are now so high that if we were to advise against marriage after cohabitation we would end up with very few marriages indeed, which does not seem to be a positive outcome.

          Somehow we have to arrive at a balance between the ideal and the current reality. But I would suggest that has always been the task of civil marriage laws.For example the current Marriage Act gives automatic legitimacy to children of a relationship if their parents subsequently marry.

          • Margaret,

            What is the point of marriage if the chances of divorce is so high for those who have lived together or who have had children prior to a legal union?

          • Janine those who enter into marriage in these circumstances presumably hope they will be among those who succeed.

            But surely as Christians (especially as Christians who support marriage) we should be encouraging people to succeed rather than telling them they are likely to fail?

            Hopefully you are not suggesting that these people do not deserve to succeed in their marriages because they have somehow ‘broken the rules’.

            I would (again) commend to you Patrick Parkinson’s excellent 2011 work (For Kids’ Sake) which sets out very clearly (and with great sensitivity to the reality of people’s lives) how we as a community can support and strengthen all relationships including marriage.

          • Margaret,

            What is a successful marriage? I know a couple who lived together prior to marriage and now they have a couple of children, but he has been totally dishonest to his wife, children and extended family as he was having sex with other men behind her back. When people break rules they don’t succeed and they definitely don’t succeed in a “one flesh” marriage. If the marriage certificate is a licence for a faithful sexual relationship between husband and wife and they break this rule by having sex with other people before and whilst married then it is impossible for their marriage to succeed. Australians are unlikely to succeed in a “one flesh” marriage when they believe marriage is a legal union or a legal marriage certificate from the state because a piece of paper from the government doesn’t keep a relationship healthy, loving, respectful, lifelong and stable.

            My children understand that I believe a “one flesh” marriage is a public commitment to a lifelong, faithful “one flesh” union between husband and wife as they can naturally procreate new-life (natural human reproduction). I am really honest with my children regarding “one flesh” marriage and I have told them marriage isn’t for everyone. My extended family didn’t want my sister to marry a man she had been living with for over 7yrs and her marriage only lasted a few years because he was abusive. My extended family didn’t want my cousin to marry a man who was her teacher and they have had a couple of children and they have now gone their separate ways once their children were in high school. Today, there are less young people who are suited to a married life because they’re more selfish and narcissistic. I am honest to tell people that a marriage won’t last if they marry the wrong type of person as being with someone you don’t love is ten times more lonely than being on your own. I am honest to tell people that a marriage is hard work because we all like to be selfish sometimes and don’t want to compromise. I would never recommend any same-sex partners to purchase a legal state marriage certificate for a public wedding ceremony because there is no scientific evidence that this would keep a relationship together for a lifetime. I have had a committed, loving friendship with my lifelong girlfriend and this has lasted so long without any legal certificate.

            I would get my children to read the Domestic violence document which details the types of abusive behaviours which can exist in relationships including marriage. I want them to really think long and hard before they ever decide to marry a person because it is far easier to live life on your own. I only enjoy marriage because of my husband and children, but I find being single and on my own as an easier lifestyle because I can do whatever I like whenever I want to do it. Marriage and family have been a self sacrifice as my children and husband’s needs have often come before my own wants and desires.

          • Janine though I have a far more positive experience of marriage and far more optimistic view of its future I do agree that we should teach our children to take all their commitments seriousily.

          • Margaret,

            Unfortunately, the legal “same-sex marriage” debate has made the word “marriage” to mean the same thing as a public wedding ceremony, so I don’t hold much of a future for this civil “registered marriage” practice as this is dishonesty. Same-sex partners are being dishonest to claim children don’t need to be procreated, nurtured and raised by their biological father and mother. The Ten Commandments clearly shows that their dishonesty is corrupt because God commanded children to honour their father and mother so God never intended for children to be legally separated from their father and mother. You might believe in a legal union for same-sex partners but this is a direct attack on the 10 Commandments so you have to give an account to God one day. The Scientific evidence shows that people are more likely to have a sexual relationship with an unrelated person than a blood relative and child sexual abuse is more common with an unrelated adult/child then a blood relative. Therefore the scientific evidence doesn’t support placing children with unrelated adult/s and children including the adoption of children by a same-sex partner. The Royal Commission into Institutional child sexual abuse showed all children were sexual abused by an unrelated adult/child and the majority of these cases were only reported as an adult.

            The no fault divorce made a lifelong commitment and faithful sexual relationship irrelevant for a civil “registered marriage,” so teaching children to take seriously their commitments which the Family Court then treats as a fantasy or irrelevant in a legal divorce has exposed the lie of a civil “registered marriage” practice. Unless, the natural behavioural practice of “one flesh” marriage is supported and protected by the original law against coveting another man’s wife which leads to adultery, divorce and even murder then we can expect family breakdown. The Bible gives the example of King David committed the act of coveting another man’s wife when he saw Bathsheba taking a bath. King David and Bathsheba both committed the act of adultery which made King David want her husband (Uriah) dead on the battlefield. The Australian government can ignore the 10 Commandments like the “thugs of Melbourne” but society isn’t a better place to live in as a result of their ignorance.

      • “You might believe in a legal union for same-sex partners but this is a direct attack on the 10 Commandments so you have to give an account to God one day.”

        Janine I am honestly not sure how this relates to the 10 Commandments at all.

        Nor does suggesting changing the civil law in this respect seem to have direct implications for how we will be judged by God. We already have a measure of recognition of same sex relationships in Australia. None of this directly relates to the morality of particular sexual activities that may occur within (or outside) these relationships.

        Unless we move to recriminalise any sexual behaviour which we consider morally unacceptable I do not see that the legal status of relationships and moral unacceptability are linked. 50 years ago I agree that granting full legal recognition of same sex relationships would have been at odds with laws relating to sexual activities.

        I believe that under the new covenant given to us by Jesus I will above all have to give an account of how fairly I have treated other members of the community.

        • Margaret,

          A legal same-sex marriage is a direct attack on the 10 Commandments. The Australian laws were inherited From the British Law which incorporated the 10 Commandments. The British Marriage Law requires man-woman married couples to consummate their marriage for it to be considered a genuine marriage which can’t be annulled by the church/state, and adultery is grounds for a divorce. The 10 Commandment warned about coveting another man’s wife which leads to adultery and causes divorce, family breakdown and can even result in domestic violence, dishonesty, corruption, stealing, and murder. God commanded children to honour their father and mother so it is obvious that God never intended for children to be legally separated from their father and mother. The 10 Commandment warns against idolatry, dishonesty, and worshipping oneself including the sexuality and gender theories which are self-centred and narcissistic. This belief system based on a Marxist ideology based on no form of discrimination whatsoever between the truth and a lie, moral and immoral, healthy and unhealthy, normal and abnormal.

          Margaret, you believe in a legal union between any 2 people, but there is no Biblical evidence to support this belief. Same-sex partners have the same legal right as defacto couples who have claimed all along to be “living in sin.” What is fair? There are people who are fornicators, adulterers and prostitutes or sex workers in our society and you might consider it fair to include all these people and their sexual behaviours as acceptable practices within a civil “registered marriage” practice now that you consider it fair to include sodomy. However, these sexual practices would change the meaning of marriage from a a public commitment to a lifelong, faithful “one flesh” union between man and woman who can procreate new-life. There is going to be legal issues within the healthcare sector on consenting, legal and professional practices involving sexual activities with patients/clients as these maybe considered as the same as sexual intercourse when government includes sexual activities with sexual intercourse in marriage.

          I never consider it fair to be dishonest to children, and they’re the ones who are going to live with unrelated adult/children and they will be given a “false” birth certificate which lies about their biological father and mother. I can’t forget my daughter’s friend who searched everywhere at home and she told my daughter she couldn’t find her dad. One of the mums told my daughter that her dad comes around when she is at swimming lessons. Margaret, if my husband decided to intentionally hide from his three children from birth and refused to reveal himself to them this would be considered a form of abuse and not love nor fair on his children. The Australian governments purpose of a civil “registered marriage” practice has been about supporting and protecting a stable union between husband and wife for the nurturing and raising of children as this has been a foundational building block for creating a healthy civilised society. However,not all relationships involving commitment, love have been recognised as marriage. The Victorian government are interested in introducing a legal assisted suicide practice/ euthanasia into the registered nursing and medical practice, but we all know this isn’t really nursing (caring) and appropriate treatment because registered nurses and doctors can’t treat their family the same way as would be considered murder.

          The Bible clearly warns against the practices of fornication, sodomy and adultery. Would the practice of marriage be the same if the government was to include adulterers and their sexual practice of adultery? Instead of including same-sex partners and their practice of sodomy use the identity of adulterers and the practice of adultery to workout if God would approve of a legal change to the practice of marriage. Is it fair for me to sin by lying to people so they feel good about doing sinful sexual behaviour? I am coming from a place of being a sinner and I know the difference between homosexuality, transgender, “one flesh” marriage, fornication and adultery. I have asked God to forgive me of my own sin and I am in no place to condemn others for their sins. The 10 Commandments relates to Marriage Law because the British society valued these commandments and laws were created to protect the society from harmful behaviours and practices such as coveting another man’s property, murder etc. The civil “registered marriage” practice isn’t going to last when gender and procreation are removed because nobody needs to purchase a certificate/licence for a friendship. There are many Australians who don’t identify nor believe in the sexuality and gender theories so they don’t identify with any sexuality nor gender including heterosexual, opposite-sex, nor “heterosexual marriage,” and they only identify as man or woman, biological male or female. I refuse to read any reports about heterosexual people because I have never met a person who has identified themselves as a “heterosexual.” If the government believes it can remove gender and procreation from marriage then it can easily include adulterers and the practice of adultery. You should read the WHO sexuality report because this will have marriage including sex workers by introducing short-term marriage licences.

          • Janine there is already a big difference between Christian marriage and civil marriage.The law relating to civil marriage says nothing at all about the sexual practices of those who enter into marriage, or indeed whether any sexual activity is ‘required’ in marriage.

            There is no likelihood that anyone will be told they cannot enter into civil marriage because they are incapable of consummating the marriage. They will however be told this by some Churches.

            I am certainly not arguing that there should be any change made to the Christian understanding of marriage. but only a very small proportion (20 % and falling) of marriages currently take place in a religious setting.Arguably we might have reached the point where we need to say decisively that Christian marriage is something very different from civil marriage, rather than trying to stress the similarities. As Christians we are not meant to be ‘conformed to the standards of the world’ and conversely we should not demand that the world be conformed to our standards.

  5. Ash to dismiss the legal differences between de facto relationships and full legal recognition as “it just requires more paperwork’ is disingenuous.It requires more paperwork on the basis that it is not fully legally recognised.
    I have already said I support a form of legal recognition of same sex relationships other than marriage, and i have noted that i do not equate same sex relationships with the Christian view of marriage, or rather the various Christian views of marriage.

    For easy reference here is a Wikipedia article setting out 3 basic Christian views of marriage .

    Not authoritative i agree, but from my perspective (partly as a professional historian) a good summary.I hope you will agree that all are well grounded in biblical teaching.Many of us in speaking of biblical marriage also note the evidence of how marriage was actually practised, believing this is central to understanding the teaching of both Jesus and paul on the subject.

    There would certainly be differences within even the Baptist tradition (some Baptists for example tracing their spiritual ‘lineage’ back to john Calvin, who certainly subscribed to the threefold purpose of marriage I outlined earlier).

    I’d welcome a discussion on which of these you support. I recognise your right to reject other views out of hand but I would suggest that recognising they exist may hep you understand where other supporters of traditional marriage are coming from.

    I would respectfully suggest that unless as Christians we make some kind of effort to do so the defence of traditional marriage will become an even more uphill battle than it already is.Within our own denominations we will of course celebrate marriage according to our own beliefs. Whether we wish to retain the current situation of automatic civil recognition of religious marriage ceremonies is a separate issue.

    PS My source for denominational affiliations is the ABS figures from the 2011 census.’Other Christians’ were 18.7 % of the population (as opposed to 17.1% Anglican and 25.3% Catholic). In the category “other Christians’ there would be many “Churches of the Reformation ” holding what I have termed the traditional view of marriage,as well as Orthodox Churches.Some would in addition view marriage as a sacrament.
    And yes indeed I may well learn something to add to the 50 years of experience.All i would gently observe is that I still hold to the understanding i had in September 1967, am very grateful for God’s grace in living out my vows, and find rapidly increasing meaning in the ‘sickness and health’ part. I hope that you are similarly blessed.

    • Ash

      It is not disingenous if “it requires more paperwork” such that it can be “fully legally recognised” just like a de facto couple. The point is with the paperwork, a de facto same sex couple has the ability to act as an enduring power of attorney and make both health and financial decisions on behalf of their partner in the case of death or morbid disease.

      The article from Wikipedia focuses on three more legalistic viewpoints as varying standpoints on what “Christian marriage” is, but that is all complicating a very simple picture God painted for marriage. The very same article sums it up in the section about Jesus:

      The Bible clearly addresses marriage and divorce. Those in troubled marriages are encouraged to seek counseling and restoration because most divorces are neither necessary nor unavoidable.

      “Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

      — Matt. 19:4–6, Mark 10:7–9

      In both Matthew and Mark, Jesus appealed to God’s will in creation. He builds upon the narratives in where male and female are created together[Genesis 1:27] and for one another.[2:24] Thus Jesus takes a firm stand on the permanence of marriage in the original will of God. This corresponds closely with the position of the Pharisee school of thought led by Shammai, at the start of the first millennium, with which Jesus would have been familiar. By contrast, Rabbinic Judaism subsequently took the opposite view, espoused by Hillel, the leader of the other major Pharisee school of thought at the time; in Hillel’s view, men were allowed to divorce their wives for any reason.

      Some hold that marriage vows are unbreakable, so that even in the distressing circumstances in which a couple separates, they are still married from God’s point of view. This is so in the Roman Catholic church, although occasionally it will declare a marriage to be null (in other words, it never really was a marriage).

      William Barclay (1907-1978) has written:

      There is no time in history when the marriage bond stood in greater peril of destruction than in the days when Christianity first came into this world. At that time the world was in danger of witnessing the almost total break-up of marriage and the collapse of the home…. Theoretically no nation ever had a higher ideal of marriage than the Jews had. The voice of God had said, “I hate divorce” (in Malachi 2:16)

      — William Barclay[65]
      Jesus brought together two passages from Genesis, reinforcing the basic position on marriage found in Jewish scripture. Thus, he implicitly emphasized that it is God-made (“God has joined together”), “male and female,”[Genesis 1:27] lifelong (“let no one separate”), and monogamous (“a man…his wife”).
      No ambiguity. One man, one woman. That’s the view of the Bible and the only one I support.

      Now back onto the secular view, none of these matter because as you know the “world” hates Jesus, so using religion in any form to debate the definition of a biblical institution is going to fall on deaf ears. More so, it will polarise non-Christians further away. So I tend to steer clear from using religion as a justification for maintaining the current Marriage Act.

      What I tend to argue, however, is that the family unit that works for government and for the future of society is the man-woman union. Other loving unions will both involve incomplete biological progeny, creating its own problems particularly in the child (mental health especially), and biological dissonance that no amount of surgery/hormone therapy/otherwise can rectify. The complexities became more apparent with artifical reproductive technology and the lawyers can now take a few more pieces of the pie when it comes to custodial issues and the like with same-sex couples.

      But from the point of view of the same-sex couple, there is no real reason they ‘need’ to call themselves ‘married’ as opposed to ‘life partnered’, yet they INSIST on wanting to be married. After all is said and done, the motive for wanting marriage rather than lobbying for something else is the rebellion against the Judeo-Christian foundation of the institution. Breaking it down from the inside provides another avenue for the removal of God from more aspects of life.

  6. Ash the point about more paperwork is that evidence of the relationship has to be provided over and over again.For a married couple this is not required.Regardless of the specific circumstances in which this recognition is required it is a pretty fundamental difference.

    So the first point is that I am suggesting that a national system of relationship recognition is required and that this needs to provide the same kind of recognition as marriage does,.In that strictly legal sense it needs to be equivalent.

    Yes I am aware that many would argue it is not ‘enough but a comparable system is operating well in Croatia after a very strong defence of traditional marriage . was mounted (see

    Again just quoting Wikipedia for ease of access: Croatia now has a system of ‘life partnerships’.
    I believe this would have been a real possibility in Australia had the same approach been used by the defenders of traditional marriage.Whether it is still a possibility I now doubt.

    As far as a Christian view of marriage is concerned my point was simply that it is the contract model (rather than the covenant model or the sacrament model) that was carried over into English law and hence Australian law.Understanding this is to me at least helpful in the current debate.

    Should same sex couples be offered a comparable contractual arrangement? Yes in my view they should.

    Should it be called marriage? No in my view it should not.

    And if, as now seems likely, we have closed off other options , we should at least clearly recognise the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage, however we Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics, Churches of the Reformation, Hindus, Jews, Muslims etc etc ) understand the latter.

    If that means giving up the automatic recognition of religious marriage as civil marriage I personally think that might be a price worth paying.

  7. BRAINS have been likened to the INSTRUMENT, MINDS to the PLAYER

  8. While I was asleep on my back, a girl friend came into the darkened room and gave me a gentle prolonged kiss.
    I gradually awoke to a delightful sensation & wanted more. recent thoughts made me enquire: “If it had been a
    male who kissed me awake, would I not have responded to that kiss in the same manner?” The answer is “Of course!”
    “At night, all cats are black.”
    Sow a thought, reap an act, sow and act, reap a habit, sow a habit, reap a character.
    Whether or not male and female brains are hardwired from birth, we must all agree that all MINDS ARE FLUID.
    Acts which are pleasant enough can become addictive. I believe the majority of homosexuals have been enticed
    into that habit. How else can we explain why so many practicing homosexuals become heterosexuals when the
    situation changes for them?

    • John, unless you have homosexual tendency, upon waking you would have been outraged at being sexually touched by a man while you were asleep. All cats may be black in the dark, but no longer once you turn the light on. There is a real life case that I have a memory of. I think it involved two footballers and the girl friend of one of them. One of the men had sex with the other’s girl friend while she was asleep. She cooperated in the dark thinking it was her boy friend. When she woke fully she was outraged and had the man charged with rape. It is sexual assault to sexually interfere with a woman who is drunk or incapable of resisting because she has taken drugs, as men who have done that have found to their cost.

    • I’m sorry john,
      but you were deceived.

      If you think it is ok, God help you.

      • I mean, God help us all. Not just you 🙂

Leave a comment