Still Think Redefining Marriage Won’t Affect You?

A lot has changed in the USA and Canada since the gender diversity requirement was removed from marriage.

Claims that the change wouldn’t really “change” anything have been quickly proven wrong.

Perhaps the most startling change of all has been just how quickly basic freedoms have been removed from the general population.

Freedom of speech, freedom of trade, freedom of expression and freedom to feel safe in public bathrooms, to name a few.

Once gender is removed from marriage, it has quickly been removed from every aspect of society and anyone who doesn’t comply is punished to the full extent of the law.

From birth certificates to bathrooms, biological reality has been replaced by gender theory.

According to CBN News: California has proposed jail time for using the wrong pronoun for Transgender people.

Those who use pronouns that are consistent with biological reality, face fines that “could be as high as $1,000 and a jail term of up to a year.”

“The bill will also mandate bathrooms and rooming situations be designated by gender identity and not biological sex. There are no exemptions for long term care facilities run by religious institutions who integrate their beliefs about gender into their policies and practices.”

And the Daily Signal reports: “Canada passed a law Thursday making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training.”

Fascism at its finest, and this is only the beginning. Terms like “Husband” and “Wife”, “Mother” and “Father” are already deemed “heteronormative” and offensive, now only used by “bigots”, according to many who subscribe to the radical rainbow agenda.

Still think redefining marriage won’t affect you?


Like what we're doing here? Please make a secure online donation:



Please note, you don't need to have a PayPal account in order to use PayPal payment gateway to make a donation via credit card.
Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

13 Responses

  1. A legal “same-sex marriage” normalises placing children with unrelated adults/children in a legal family institute despite the evidence of the Royal Commission into institutional child sexual abuse showing that all these children were sexually abused by an unrelated adult/child and in the majority of these cases it was only reported as an adult and many years after the sexual abuse.

    Some asylum seekers have family connections in Australia but this is irrelevant because Australian governments have already decided that keeping biological families together isn’t important because of a legal same-sex family institute. Australians have witnessed the cultural change to the word “homophobia” to now currently meaning a person who believes marriage is an exclusive union between one man and one woman for life. The word “transphobia” now means a person who believe their gender is based on their biological sex.

    The sexuality and gender theories are based on no form of discrimination whatsoever between the truth and a lie, moral and immoral, healthy and unhealthy, normal and abnormal, natural and unnatural. This ideological belief system directly attack the scientific evidence and the basis of the Christian belief system which both discriminate the truth from a lie. The words “heterosexual,” “heterosexual marriage,” “opposite-sex,” “straight,” and “cisgender” have all ambiguous meanings in order to confuse people. The objective truth is the binary genders of male and female are based on biological sex and this creates “complementary sex” (sexual intercourse) which consummates an exclusive genuine “one flesh” marriage between husband and wife for life. This complementary sexual relationship between one man and one woman can procreate new-life (natural human reproduction) and a child needs to be procreated, nurtured and raised by their biological father and mother.

    The state governments regulates the natural behavioural practice of legal abortion and prostitution so they could regulate the legal practice of sodomy in a civil “registered marriage” practice by separating “one flesh” marriage as an “independent marriage.”

  2. Well said Janine, I agree.

    Apparently, transgender people do not accept their natural selves, but demand by law that everyone else accept their opinion/feelings of themselves?
    If so, objective truth gives way to their personal subjective experience.

    If I am expected to tolerate someone’s subjective opinion, then I expect my opinion to be tolerated by them.
    Accepting their pretense is just like suspending disbelief when watching actors play a part in a movie…. We might pretend it is real, until the show is over.

    Deep down, we all know (and science demands) that objective truth is superior to subjective emotions and anecdote.

    • I don’t mean to sound callous. I want to make sense of it all.
      I have a close male relative who decided to transition into a woman. He is an atheist and believes there is no absolute truth, so he can believe whatever he wants including believing he is a woman.

      I have to respect his personal belief, (actually I have to humour him), otherwise he will reject me.
      I feel sorry for him. Anyone who criticises him/her is a bigot. Whereas I believe his ego has overtaken his mind.
      I see him as an actor playing a role.
      Or should I say actress! … Just like Dame Edna is an actress.

      But since I believe in the creator God, I have to keep my thoughts to myself because it offends him!

      • Mikel I think it is worth noting that the report from California refers to elderly people in care.

        So I’d suggest that just the same principles of love and compassion might be appropriate for staff in such facilities to exhibit as you exhibit towards your family member. In the end there is a need to respect the choices of others even when we cannot agree with them.

        The Canadian story, though I am sure AJ has quoted it in good faith, is misleading. I do not think it helpful to the overall debate to quote from subjective commentaries (‘Critics say…”) as though they were objective reports.The Canadian legislation itself does not contain the kinds of provisions the ‘critics’ suggest.

        • Perhaps. But changing the meaning of marriage is going too far. When that happens it opens up a pandora’s box of more problems as the article shows.

          Quote: “Terms like “Husband” and “Wife”, “Mother” and “Father” are already deemed “heteronormative” and offensive, now only used by “bigots”, according to many who subscribe to the radical rainbow agenda.”

          This is true.

          • Mikel I don’t support the redefinition of marriage.

            However as the article also points out these changes are happening (and will continue to happen) regardless of whether the definition of marriage is changed.

            School newsletters for example have been addressed to ‘Dear Parents and Guardians’ for as long as I can remember (so for at least 30 years).That includes faith based schools.

            Unisex bathrooms are commonplace in shopping centres and in public hospitals.

            Team sport competitions for primary school age children routinely include boys and girls in the same team.

            No one has ever suggested that any, let alone all, of this has come about because of a radical rainbow agenda.

            We need to be addressing core issues such as freedom of conscience rather than jumping at shadows.
            And if we want to retain the traditional meaning of marriage we need to be proactive in suggesting an alternative form of legal recognition of same sex relationships.Though that one I fear we have left too late.

          • Yes Margaret, (in reply to July 31 post), I see what you mean. And I agree an alternative form of legal recognition of same sex relationships is what is needed. Something like ‘Civil Union’.
            I don’t think it’s too late, it might be the compromise we need to please everyone.

          • Mikel I’ve thought a lot about the practicalities of this (whether it is too late to campaign for a national system of civil unions).

            Right now so many suggestions are being made in the media to the effect that by the end of the month (or even the end of next week) it could be ‘all over bar the shouting”.I think that is a real possibility.

            Logically the time to test public support for civil unions as the appropriate form of recognition for same sex unions would be in a (two question) plebiscite.

            Bill Shorten pointed out last week that the referendum on the republic issue was lost because we had one question rather than two,I’d say the situation is comparable with marriage.A clear majority are likely to favour full legal recognition but some if offered a form of recognition other than marriage would prefer that. That of course applies to the LGBT Community too (certainly if they are choosing for themselves).

            i honestly think a fair amount of support for marriage ‘equality’ is ‘soft’ support. People in that category are NOT going to be swayed by scare tactics, but they might well be swayed by an option that allows for the traditional meaning of marriage to be retained.After all in the UK heterosexual couples are campaigning strongly for civil unions, from which they are currently excluded. They believe civil unions more accurately describe their relationship.

            What is needed very urgently is some leadership.Preferably from the churches (who have shown far too little ongoing leadership) but otherwise from groups such as AMF. I don’t see any signs that this is forthcoming.

            No disrespect to this blog but i don’t think it has a huge readership!

          • I agree with your whole post there Margaret.

            Instead of one question and only two options, if we had a choice of (for example)…
            1. Legislate Same Sex Marriage
            2. Accept Civil Unions for any two consentng adults
            3. Do nothing
            Would be an interseting result. Why isn’t there a poll along those lines I wonder.

          • Mikel I think our best hope at present is a postal plebiscite. There seems to be general agreement that this would deliver a higher NO vote than a full plebiscite., simply because younger people would be less likely yo take part.

            Tactically I suppose it becomes debatable whether this should be in effect a multiple choice question or whether we should hope for a majority on the NO side in a simple vote, which would allow other options to be canvassed.

            If it proceeds straight to a parliamentary vote it is unfortunately very hard to see a way of defending traditional marriage.

      • Mikel,

        Registered nurses and doctors are not allowed to use the word “appears” in any medical records because this word is ambiguous and can be misleading as it isn’t based on facts. I recently watched a musical performance where 2 biological girls decided to identify with a male name and dress in masculine clothes and both had a masculine haircut in order to “appear” as a male. I can remember doing men’s work on the farm and wearing boy clothes. Plus, I had a boy hairstyle which gave me the appearance of a “tom boy” on the farm but this never changed me into a biological male. A photo of me as a child appearing to be a boy could never be used as evidence in any Australian court to prove that I am a biological male. A personal desire and feeling of being a boy in a girl’s body is only subjective truth and this was influenced by my parents desire for me to be a boy for the farm. However, the objective truth is very different from this subjective truth as I was born a biological female and have had naturally 3 biological children with my husband. It is a delusional fantasy to separate biological sex from the binary genders of male and female. Our family can joke with my son about him being a “girl” with his passion for shopping and we can even call him by a female name when he expresses his desire to shop or takes forever to look good. Unfortunately, the ability to joke around and pretend to be the different sex is now seen as offensive by people who identify as LGBTIA because they believe this identity is real rather than total fantasy. Barry Humphries has to decide if he identifies as a woman in a man’s body or is he justing pretending to “appear” like a woman in order to joke around with Australians, but registered nurses and medical doctors can’t report in Barry Humphries medical history that “Pt appears to be a woman” as there is no scientific test or measure to support this claim? When parents and teachers can no longer teach children the difference between objective and subjective truth then the English language isn’t going to make sense to anybody.

  3. Please use social media to let Chinese readers know that the excellent video “What same-sex marriage did to Massachusetts” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZXzUpzHLkA) is now available with Cantonese soundtrack and Chinese subtitles: 同志婚姻自2004年立法後,美國麻省的改變 ( 廣東話附字幕版)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWD0aToGboU&feature=youtu.be. May Confucian cultures in the world be a bulwark against the madness of the radical rainbow agenda.

  4. The lbtqi community already has all the freedoms as anyone else. Changing the meaning of marriage is obviously not the end of this campaign. There are untold complications that it will lead to.
    Why don’t we multicultural Australians wait and watch and avoid the mistakes of the so-called West , instead of rushing in and making the same mistakes for once?
    We are not pawns in their politics.

    With all of this lgbt activism, I’m beginning to feel that being heterosexual is unnatural!!

Leave a comment