The Sydney Institute Debate – Dr David van Gend and Julie McCrossin

22 Responses

  1. An excellent presentation thank you David.
    What is overwhelming obvious from McCrossin’s remarks who claims to speak as a self-proclaimed authorative representative based on her personal experiences to justify SSM ls that “one swallow doesn’t make a summer”. She is not alone in this way.
    On the other hand, you (David) have provided much independent and relevant evidence to support your position. Congratulations to you.

  2. Congratulations to David very well done. An exercise in civil discussion that succinctly reflects the reason why the two sides of the same sex marriage debate are so polarised.
    One person speaking subjectively….even to the point of using family photographs to support her personal experience, while the other spoke objectively of reality supported by best standard research.
    One side advocating not only for the pastoral care of brokenness but for the recognition of brokenness as a normative condition upon which to establish new social standards reflective of the personal reality of the minority.
    The other side advocating equally for the pastoral care of brokenness but identitifying the reality of best practice and appealing for social standards to maintain a focus on the ideal as serving the best interests for the good of all society. ( Not least innocent children).
    Put simply the ‘love is love’ advocates are about what is good for them, while the ‘haters’ are about the best interest of others. (Whatever happened to love?)
    Ms Mc Crossin’s claim of being as supportive of the interests of children as Dr van Gend with her appeals for further research was noteworthy. Outspoken advocates for SSM have been claiming for a decade that research proves no difference in the wellbeing for children of same sex households. She made no attempt to defend such claims in the light of the evidence (cited in Dr van Gend’s book) that honest claims drawn from defective research are not worth the paper they are printed on. I guess a case of ….if first (or twenty first) time you don’t succeed….

  3. Julie claimed that she supports traditional marriage (a public commitment to a life-long, faithful sexual union between one man and one woman as they can reproduce new-life), but her female partner was married to a man and they had children together so I don’t see the Bible supporting divorce for gay sex and or blessing of a government same-sex marriage certificate.
    Julie’s partner isn’t a “lesbian” because she isn’t exclusively attracted to the same-sex, and she maintained a relationship with her ex-husband for their children. Julie appeals to Christian marriage and personal experience for justifying a legal “same-sex marriage,” but the Principal legal officer at the Family Law Branch has confirmed a sexual union (sexual intercourse) hasn’t been the bases of a civil marriage since the introduction of no -fault divorce 1975 and this made civil marriage no longer a life-long commitment. Therefore, a civil marriage is only an exclusive, legal union of a man-woman living arrangement/relationship and the scientific evidence shows that the majority of husbands work full-time outside the home, whilst the majority of wives work part-time so they can look after children and family. Same-sex couples don’t have the same type of living arrangement/relationship as the majority work equally inside and outside the home, and a legal same-sex marriage is 100% infertile (0.01% of children lived in a same-sex household according to the ABS census 2011).

    Julie has given her partner’s children no reason to get married because their mother made a promise for lifelong faithful union to their father and she broke this sacred contract. Julie tried to mix religion, marriage and LGBTIAQ PC madness together, but it doesn’t make any sense. The Australian government are only considering changing the Marriage Act because of civil marriage which allows same-sex couples to purchase a marriage certificate from the state in order to claim the legal marriage status. This is the equivalent of an owner purchasing a cat or dog registration with the local council and celebrating this with a wedding ceremony. However, Christian/religious marriage is totally different because this is based on a public commitment to a life-long, faithful sexual union between one man and one woman as they can reproduce new-life. A Christian/religious marriage doesn’t need a legal state marriage certificate because the courts will treat the breakdown of a marriage like a legal “same-sex married couple” or an owner’s dog registration. I didn’t allow my pregnancies to end in the legal practice of abortion so I refuse to purchase my NSW marriage certificate because I don’t want my marriage to be legally treated like a legal “same-sex marriage” or an owner’s dog registration.

    • “The Australian government are only considering changing the Marriage Act because of civil marriage which allows same-sex couples to purchase a marriage certificate from the state in order to claim the legal marriage status. This is the equivalent of an owner purchasing a cat or dog registration with the local council and celebrating this with a wedding ceremony. ”

      Quote of the day, brilliant!

  4. I’d like to congratulate David on a wonderful presentation. He made perfect sense and made Ms McCrossin’s claims look VERY weak. I

  5. What struck me about Julie McCrossin’s description of her deep involvement in the family of her friend Melissa was that what she was really presenting is the case for multiple partner marriage. The children, Melissa and her partner Michael with whom Melissa bore the children, and Julie functioned as a united family cooperating in all manner of family events. Her photos and description of her love for the children of Melissa and Michael and her desire to be a grandmother to their children show that emotionally she has “married” not just Melissa but Melissa’s whole family including Michael. What she is eloquently presenting is the case for marriage as a trilogy or more. In old fashioned society a childless woman who satisfied her need for family like that was called an aunt, and that was 100% respected. Why can’t Julie just be an aunt, with Melissa as a deeply loved sister? What extra respect does she get by being “married” to Melissa?

  6. David, what an excellent point. Makes perfect sense to me. My parents, if they were still alive, would be horrified t to think that society had steeped so low as to even contemplate the notion of “gay marriage”. The thought of two men or two women bringing up children is beyond my comprehension. Call it what they like but NOT marriage. I fear for another “stolen” generation.

    • @Lesley

      “The thought of two men or two women bringing up children is beyond my comprehension.”

      Yes indeed, those who refuse to do what it takes to have children have absolutely no right to obtain them by other means. Men who sow their seed in human excrement don’t deserve children.

      “Call it what they like but NOT marriage.”

      Homosexuality should be subject to the same social disapproval as smoking and overeating, because it, like them, is a voluntary and unhealthy behaviour. Though homosexuality is worse, of course: not only is it reasonable even in secular terms to call it an abomination, because of the diseases and medical problems it causes; it has formed a global movement whose goal is to force everyone to hail this behaviour as moral and good, and exalt those who practise it.

      “I fear for another “stolen” generation.”

      Yes, ‘gay’ parenting is a form of identity theft.

  7. That was a good respectful discussion from both sides, though I have to agree more on the side with Dr van Gend. More strength to you sir.

    So they want us to believe that If we change the definition of marriage, it will not affect anyone except for those gays who want to marry. (whereas, obviously it is a radical shift in social norms and has ramifications which will affect the future of the human species.)

    On the other hand, if we do not change the marriage laws, there is no problem.

    I know from my own experience that pressure from the lgbt lobby has roused my defensive stance.
    The lgbtq lobby has gone too far by demanding marriage, in my opinion. I never used to be homophobic, “Live and let Live”, is what I say. But I do wonder if I’m developing a fear of homosexuals since this incessant public demonstration and attempted normalisation of their sexuality through mass media.

    If they weren’t so public about it, there wouldn’t be such a backlash towards them.

    Homosexuality and transgenderism are accepted nowadays. To demand a change to marriage laws in order to feel equal is a delusion, or an attempt to undermine the established marriage contract.
    We are all equal. whether we’re married or not.

    We could solve this if we stuck to the natural facts of reproduction, not subjective feelings.
    thank you.

    • Here’s another slant:
      Spare a thought for the children who have been, and are being abused by sexual predators.

      They say Same Sex Marriage will comfort the lgbtqi children.

      And what about the victims of sexual predators? Why are we ignored in this debate and expected to accept this recent sexualisation of children, and normalising of homosexual behaviour?!
      I wonder if some of the “bullies” and dissenters of gay marriage have been abused as children.
      And where is the compassion for US? What about OUR mental health?

      Obviously the supporters of gay marriage would include those abusers.

  8. Michael’s post goes to from what the whole Juggernaut of same sex marriage has risen. The underlying motive is the “blessing” of anal sex by giving it equal status to male – female sexual intercourse by extending marriage to homosexual men. This is the real reason for same sex marriage said Raimond Gaita, a philosopher at the University of Melbourne, some years ago. Treating homosexuals as disgusting because of anal sex is denial of their humanity he said, and he knows from homosexual friends (he is heterosexual) the pain that they feel. Civil unions will never do he also said, because whilst they may give all the goods and services of marriage they do not give the blessing to anal sex that homosexuals crave. Same sex marriage is now promoted as largely a women, children and family non discrimination matter. I suspect that this is a careful ploy to keep out of sight the unsavoury real objective. I am sure that the women and children who are now being used as foot soldiers for the movement would never have dreamt of same sex marriage as the solution to their difficulties. Using women and children and sad cases of people with medical and psychological sexual difficulties as camouflage is as disgusting as the anal sex that they are seeking to normalize.

    • Yes. agree with you David and the other Michael,
      There is a difference between female homosexuality and male homosexuality, and normal (yes, normal), heterosexuality.

      Lesbians and male homosexuals are minorities and opposites. Yet they stand together for the redefining of marriage.
      No wonder I’m getting paranoid.

    • David.S,
      The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators only agenda is to attack the Christians and Christian Churches whom teach homosexuality is a sin. They’re using Ministers/Priests as poster boys/girls for encouraging and promoting anal and oral sexual activities. Christians will never believe it is acceptable, normal, healthy, natural or moral for guys to place their genital into another man’s anus or mouth etc nor for girls/women to have mouth and vaginal sexual activity. No sexual activity between same-sex couples have consummated a genuine marriage in law any where in the world. There is an article in the Age today trying to expand people’s mind to believe sex as more than sexual intercourse. Unfortunately, these people will soon claim doctors and nurses are having sex with them because they’re involved in consenting, professional sexual activities such as vaginal and rectal examinations and physical examinations etc. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators claim same-sex marriage will have no impact on religious people because they’re not interested in religious marriage. However, the Australian Marriage Act recognises a religious marriage ceremony, and there are many blogs where gays and lesbians are discussing how they will change the churches teaching on homosexuality. Fortunately, “one flesh” unions and their biological children don’t need to purchase a government marriage certificate, unlike the purchase of a cat or dog registration certificate is made compulsory by the council. The Victorian government is becoming a dictator including Safe School and Resilience, Rights and Respectful Relationship programs. They have recently announced compulsory swimming lessons so it won’t surprise me if they start to force children to get married. Government’s idea that “marriage is between any 2 people” mean “child marriages,” until they change the definition of “people” to discriminate against children under 18 years of age.

      The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators will find it impossible to convince Australians that they have the same man-woman living arrangement/relationship to claim equality with civil marriage as this is not based on a sexual union (sexual intercourse). Same-sex couples are going to have to accept they can never consummate a genuine religious marriage nor have the same man-woman living arrangement/relationship for a genuine civil marriage. A genuine marriage is important for Australian Immigration and Social Security authorities for detecting “sham marriages” as a legal state marriage certificate isn’t enough evidence of a genuine man-woman marriage. The Australian government can attempt to change the criteria of marriage, but they will end up creating a legal “sham marriage practice” which is no different to the Victorian government creating a “sham private education institute practice” which they had to close down because it was being rorted by overseas students.

      • @Janine

        The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators only agenda is to attack the Christians and Christian Churches whom teach homosexuality is a sin.

        Exactly, there was an article in the Mercury in October by LGBTist Julian Punch attacking Archbishop Porteous and the Catholic Church; Punch said that “sexual abstinence causes great harm”…!! Given that ‘gays’ cannot have natural sex together, the allegedly harmful abstinence here is abstaining from you know what. This disguting attitude pretends to equalise the sexes, but actually neutralises their self-evident differences, degrading the human body into a mere double-ended alimentary canal for homosexual purposes, with girls merely having an optional extra near the lower end.

        Anyway, the Mercury actually printed (most of) my letter:–

        LGBT activist Julian Punch’s attempt to homosexualise Catholic doctrine is way off beam (“Doctrine that gays change sexuality or abstain causes great harm”, October 21). Instead of threatening a backlash towards the Catholic Church, Mr Punch should show more tolerance and inclusion by celebrating the diversity of views which differ from his own.

        His assertion that sexual abstinence “causes great harm” beautifully demonstrates the gay movement’s intentions towards vulnerable young people. Who would want their child to be encouraged to experiment with homosexuality, while being told they are born that way and that change is impossible?

        Also, Mr Punch seems unaware that an abstinent person has no sexually transmitted diseases, and cannot have an ‘unwanted’ pregnancy.

        Mr Punch claims that “reparative therapy” is harmful, but surely people with an unwanted same-sex attraction have every right to seek professional help to overcome it, without having to ask Mr Punch’s permission first. After all, what consenting adults do together is none of Mr Punch’s business!

        As a qualified healthcare professional, Mr Punch knows perfectly well that it is never wrong or harmful to encourage people to act in accordance with the self-evident design of their own body. The union of male and female, which is essential to both marriage and the Catholic doctrine thereof, is literally written all over Mr Punch in his DNA.

        They really hate the Catholic Church; remember the topless lesbian activists who attacked the Archbishop of Belgium, dousing him with water from bottles shaped like the Virgin Mary, and holding aloft a sign saying “Stop homophobia”.

        …it won’t surprise me if they start to force children to get married.

        Already happening; Tasmania’s evil Reproductive Health Act 2013 falsely defines ‘woman’ as ‘female of any age’, so that sexual predators can force 12 year/old victims to get an abortion without parental knowledge or consent, as required for every other legal medical procedure. I told then-Premier Lara Giddings on 14th June 2013 that this would legalise adult-child marriage; she feigned ingnorance of this provision of the bill.

        Btw, I was reading today that Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were arranged/forced to marry at ages 15 and 14.

        A genuine marriage is important for Australian Immigration and Social Security authorities for detecting “sham marriages”…

        I remember seeing on 4 Corners yonks ago, some really old bloke with a 20-somthing Filipino wife, and ASIO or some mob peeking in the windows to see if relations were taking place.

        But Australia would need hardly any immigration if she didn’t kill nearly 90,000 unborn babies every year.

  9. Dr. van Gend’s debate highlights the importance of strongly and effectively telling the truth about marriage and family. There have been comments on this site calling for a sharp, concise summary of the truth that marriage is a life-long, faithful one-flesh sexual union of a man and a woman.

    How about nine words, directly refuting the sodomites:–

    Marriage is equality between one man and one woman.

    You can download signs and posters with this message, and help spread the truth right across Australia.

    This is a strong and positive message which tells the truth about marriage in such a way that it can’t be shut out, or deemed offensive by the perpetually aggrieved, or be ignored by people who don’t want to talk about sex.

    ==> The truth is, no parent would give their child faeces to eat, and tell them it’s the same as eating normal healthy food. So why pretend to your teenager that using the place that faeces comes from as a substitute for natural sex, is normal and healthy?

    ==> We can say to people, if smokers said that their voluntary behaviour was the result of an innate respiratory orientation, and that all opposition came from a mental illness called tobaccophobia, would you believe that? Should teachers give cigarette filters to children and encourage them to practise ‘safe smoking’? Oh, why not?

    I look forward to fighting back, beginning in December, and getting stronger in 2017.

    • Michael,
      Thanks for your truth about my comments on a legal “same-sex marriage” which is a “sham marriage” as it is total depravity that should never be accepted in Australia. Unfortunately, Victoria has had a legal abortion practice, but the Victorian schools haven’t been teaching children that pregnancies should end in an abortion and showing them detail pictures of unwanted neonates being legally killed by doctors/nurses. Governments can make abusive behavioural practices legal, but this doesn’t make them morally acceptable. The pro-abortion lobby group could get governments all over the world to change the word “abortion” to “pregnancy,” but this wouldn’t make the legal practice of pregnancy (abortion) an acceptable moral practice and that all pregnancies end in this practice. Would the Victorian schools have to educate children in detail about abortion if the name was changed to pregnancy? Therefore, the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators are attempting to use the good name of “marriage” to hide their abusive sexual activities and pretend these are acceptable to educate children about homosexuality and gender dysphoria so they celebrate confused weddings and participate in these deviant sexuality experiences. Men and women are required to be warriors against this LGBTIAQ PC madness or else this will lead to insanity for everyone.

      • Yes, exposing themselves (literally in some cases) to the children the LGBTs choose to be incapable of having, was the endgame of ‘gay law reform’.

        The Pinkshirts (‘gay’ activists) masquerade as angels of light, by sanitising the lurid and sordid details behind a facade of love, equality, and rights. When we try to warn and alert people about their destructive agenda, they want to turn the tables and reverse reality, by making out that //we// are the ones obsessed with sex, when the opposite is the case. They show their obsession with sex by trying to turn non-sexual body parts into sexual organs.

        Gay supremacists are engineering a society in which they envisage no restraints on sexual behaviour. I pray that their political activities will be as fruitless and destructive to their movement as their sexual activities are to their bodies. They can hurtle down the Gadarene slope into the lake of fire if they want to, but they will never take us or our children with them; nor this nation or its laws. Over my dead body, I mean it.

        Public health policy is now insane: you can be a fag in drag, but you can’t have a drag on a fag.

    • Michael,
      There is a problem with saying, “Marriage is equality between one man and one woman” because male and female are different and it is a marriage of difference not sameness so the law can legally treat them differently for their gender in a breakdown of a marriage because only a woman can deliver a baby and this often requires time out of the work-force in order to nurture and raise a child, whilst the majority of husbands works full-time to provide for their family. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators are arguing that because men and women are equal in marriage and there should be no difference between them like same-sex couples, this allows the law to treat man-woman married couples in a divorce the same as same-sex married couples which is insanity

      • Thankyou for your comments, Janine; having read most of your comments on AMF, I have learnt a lot from the wisdom God has given you. (I usually read a blog for a year or two before joining in, no hurry, eh 😉

        The slogan came from a letter I had printed in the Mercury at the end of my septimana mirabilis when by the grace of God, I had four letters printed in seven days (July 7-13 2015) refuting anti-marriage writers.

        My goal was to get people to start thinking for themselves about the absurd “marriage equality” mantra spouted so endlessly by the media. Sometimes we have to break up the unploughed ground first, like Paul did in Athens; when he started telling the truth about Jesus and the resurrection, they mocked him, so he had to first get them to think about their altar to the ‘unknown god’.

        Here, the equality is one of symmetry, not identity. It is like your left and right hands, both equal (though one is stronger), both different (though the range of tasks each can perform overlap), and both having the same essential quality of ‘handness’. The ‘law’ of your body, your mind, can still treat the hands differently because of your right- or left-handedness, while recognising that each one is the essential compliment (marriage of difference) to the ‘one flesh’ of your body. It is precisely because of the equalities of symmetry that the hands are treated differently, because they are different while sharing the same essence and complimentarity.

        A person with two right hands or two lefts is clearly deformed and incomplete, like a ‘marriage’ with two members of one sex, rather than one member of each being one flesh with the other.

        Will pass on commenting on the employment situation, as I have great deal of difficulty there; perhaps I have been pinklisted because of the letters I write to the paper…

        • Michael,
          Thanks for your kind words, and if you’ve been reading my comments on this blog then this would have taken you a lot of time. God has made us like jars of clay, but I believe God is rising up warriors like you to defend marriage between one man and one woman. Marriage can’t become the equivalent of purchasing a cat or dog registration certificate which local councils forces on owners. These could get blessed in a wedding ceremony if the church is forced to change its teaching by blessing government or non-government registration certificates.

          I do agree with you that man and woman compliment each other, but God has made us very differently (a penis and vagina are different sexual organs), but united together they become “one flesh” and is able to create new-life. Jesus Christ is different to his church but when united together they become one and Christians are given new-life (this is a mystery like marriage and procreation). I am so thankful to God that you’re willing to fight back with people like me against the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators and their supporters. Gay politicians are representing their gay identity and the LGBTIAQ agenda and are re-directing taxpayers money on their own LGBTIAQ agenda which is a direct attack on the homeless and poor. They’re influencing governments in western countries into changing laws which change the meaning of words like marriage, family, infertility, people so future generations won’t be able to understand the Bible and God’s laws of creation. Also, governments are creating laws that remove the words mother, father, son, daughter. Plus, they’re changing the meaning and purpose of a birth and marriage certificates. Australians need to fight the LGBTIAQ PC special language madness because this is a direct attack on language, moral conscience, marriage, family, relationships, culture, history, religion, science, social science and the Australian way of life. This isn’t a physical warfare, but a legal-warfare which Australians can’t afford to lose. When Australians lose their religious freedom then all other freedoms are lost including free speech. My German forefathers understood the importance of religious freedom and this is the reason they risked their life on a ship and travelled half way around the world to escape their dictating King. Genuine Christians in Australia have no where to escape as many western countries have lost their religious freedom over the past decade. Therefore, they have to stand up and fight against the self-centredness, narcissistic left movement of government which has been supporting the LGBTIAQ madness in Australian society.

  10. Yes, I agree that God has made men and women very differently; even the things they have in common are so different, like male and female hands. It is part of the mystery of marriage and procretion that God designed our bodies so that the parts which differ the most (sexual organs) are the parts that must be put together to consummate marriage and be one flesh. Continuing the theme of difference, the sexual organs even enter a different state in preparation for the marriage act.

    I agree that marriage reflects the union of Christ and his church; in both cases, it is the groom who sends forth life, and the bride in whom the life grows. There is also quite an analogy to be drawn with the temple in Jerusalem, which was set out like female organs. This is why Satan so viciously desecrates the womb during abortion, because it is the most holy place of the temple, where not even the woman’s husband can enter. Abortion is Satan’s rage that he could not kill baby Jesus.

    I have had some success with SSM supporters, as a rhetorical device, when a SSM supporter asks, do you support marriage equality, and one responds (with the correct emphasis on the words) of course, Marriage is equality between one man & one woman, the SSM supporter knows that “the parable has been spoken against them.” But I agree that one then needs to follow up with the one-flesh truth about marriage.

    The sods don’t own the English language, nor the words marriage and equality; men and women must re-establish the true meanings of words. They talk about ‘diversity’ while rejecting the most fundamental diversity of all: male and female. Equality should mean that there is an equal requirement for both sexes to be present in marriage, only a man and a woman can consummate a marriage. Equality of the sexes happens in coition when the woman’s womanhood consumes the man’s manhood, while the man’s manhood fills the woman’s womanhood; any new life gets one chromosome each from father (X or Y) and mother (always X); an equal amount of genetic material from father and mother gets written in the DNA of the child.

    Natural sexual intercourse is the only sexual act in which the genitals of both sexes are treated equally by uniting as one flesh. There can be no “marriage equality” without the genital equality of the marriage act. The man goes into the woman who was taken out of him, and the woman takes in the man from whom she was taken.

    For the homos, “marriage equality” really means a mouth is a vagina is an anus.

    I agree we must take back our language and culture, our Australian way of life. The dictators’ goal is really to literally ‘bugger’ everything.

  11. Very good discussion. I noticed that the pro-SSM (anti civilisation) “conservative” argument consists of:
    1. Cultural Cringe
    2. Deference to the young

    Cultural cringe is:
    – the other rich countries did it why cant we?
    – this person had a miserable time growing up because society didn’t absolutely affirm them when they became sexually confused

    Deferring to the young is the culture of youth worship, ie “Here is some young person who just cannot believe that in [insert year here] anyone would hinder me doing whatever makes me feel good in the moment. What on earth could wisdom or experience have to do with anything?

Leave a comment