Why an Australian Marriage Forum?

 

Putting the child-centred view of marriage

As the debate continues on the meaning of marriage in Australia, the task of this forum is to engage the public in a more mature debate than the gay lobby's adult-centred narcissism of "feeling the love".  This forum will think from the child’s perspective as well. We must  consider the primal harm we would do to children if we validate a model of marriage & family where a child is compelled to live without a mother or without a father.

Didn't we just apologise for violating the bond between mother and child, with our national apology for forced adoptions? Didn't we apologise for violating the bond between children and their aboriginal parents? Here at AMF we think saying sorry means not doing it again.

Same-sex marriage will do it again. It is just another way of violating the bond between mother and child; between father and child. And we must not do that again!

A debate on "equal love" misses the point if it does not also consider the "equal love" a child needs and deserves from both a mother and a father. If  the institution of same-sex marriage forces a child to miss out on a mother, or a father - and it does - then that is not "equality" for the child who misses out. To normalise 'marriage' without a woman is to normalise 'families' without a mother - and that is the central offense of same-sex marriage.

This forum lays out the question before the Australian public: in the words of Professor Margaret Somerville AO, gay marriage "forces us to choose between giving priority to children's rights or to homosexual adults' claims".

We must make our choice. We stand with the child.

We affirm that our fellow Australians who live in same-sex relationships deserve all neighbourly respect - but that they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of us. Gay adults do not have the right to deprive a child - whether adopted or created by surrogacy - of their birth-right to both a mother and a father, just to meet their own emotional needs.

A more mature debate requires an understanding of what marriage is - why it exists as an institution at all, and what exactly is the 'public good' achieved by preserving marriage as defined in Australian law:

“The union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”.

This forum will re-explore the objective and time-honoured understanding of marriage, a universal structure built on the foundation of nature. It will examine he anthropological view of marriage as a social institution designed to reinforce the biological 'given' - helping bind a man to his mate for the sake of society, and above all for the sake of any child they might create. As the great 20th century anthropologist, Claude Levi-Strauss, summed up: marriage is "a social institution with a biological foundation".

This forum will note that the natural union of man and woman existed long before "society" and its laws, and will ask the question: by what authority does any political party presume to repeal and redefine this central structure of human nature, this great institution which has underpinned the wellbeing of society - and especially of children - since the dawn of time?

Further, this forum will consider the downstream implications of legalising homosexual marriage. For example, we learn from overseas jurisdictions like Massachusetts in the US that the normalising of homosexual marriage is inevitably used to normalise homosexual behaviour in school education. And we observe the inevitable expansion of alternatives to natural marriage, such as polyamory, which are now being defended in academic and activist circles as a logical progression from legalising same-sex marriage. And we also observe the inevitable stifling of free speech and religious conscience in overseas jurisdictions which have normalised same-sex marriage (and therefore homosexual behaviour) with the force of law.

Legislation to support same-sex marriage will have enormous consequences for our children and our culture, and we at AMF want an open and honest debate on this – free of the intimidation that so many defenders of man-woman marriage have been subjected to in recent years.

So, let the debate be thoughtful, civil, and ‘for the public good’ of this great community of ours. And not just for our generation, but for our children's children.

Thank you for sharing some of your time, and your thoughts, with us.

The AMF Team.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

370 Responses

  1. Henry Pennings

    I sincerely hope that the ALP conference will vote against any change to the marriage act. I will not, as a celebrant, perform a marriage ceremony between male/male or female/female.

    • Chris Graham

      On the issue of Gay Marriage – I feel it’s important we don’t let anyone change the definition of marriage.

      In the same way if I’m in a polygamous relationship with two or more fully aware and consenting female partners – you can guarantee we would be denied a Polygamous Marriage. What (if anything) is the difference?

      I believe in equal rights that don’t include the right to redefine our words.

      • Chris Graham

        I feel its important marriage remains the same being between a man and a woman. The definition of marriage’s simply a reflection of the natural and historical reality that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Marriage is much more to do with kids than recognising adult relationships. Each child has the right to equal love from a mum and a dad.

        I strongly condemn any form of discrimination against gay people – however – marriage is a unique institution that deserves government protection. A very large number of our fellow Australians hold marriage as sacred and our views should be respected.

        In the same way if I’m in a polygamous relationship with two or more fully aware and consenting female partners who all want to marry me – and I want to marry them all – you can guarantee we wouldn’t be allowed to redefine the definition to allow ourselves a Polygamous Marriage. What (if anything) is the difference? I wonder if that’s what may happen next if we redefine marriage to include Gay Marriage? Then after we’ve maybe redefined the definition to include perhaps Gay and maybe Polygamous Marriage – perhaps we’ll redefine marriage to include a Threesome and/or more Marriage? We then could lower the legal consenting age? Then once we’ve maybe lowered the legal consenting age – perhaps we’ll lower the legal marriage age – and laws may change continuously and/or rapidly until eventually maybe 10-year-olds and/or under and/or much worse currently illegal acts are perhaps allowed and/or maybe allowed to marry?

        I strongly believe in equal rights that don’t include the right to redefine sacred definitions.

        • Jo

          You are totally right in saying it wont just stop at same sex marriage. Another interesting point is that Australian Marriage Equality group has ( I have heard) launched a new webform which allows Christians who support equality in marriage to write to the local federal representatives. They are wanting to claim that their anti equality stance is representative of many Australian Christians. Because of this I expect it would be important for Christians who dont support the bill to contact their MP’s and say so…..

          A person does not have to be a Christians to oppose this bill. And a person doesnt have to be in any way against the gay people as human beings to oppose the redefining of our marriage laws.

          I agree it wont stop at same sex marriage as overseas has found out.
          Even in Australia, Polyamorists are encouraged by support for same sex marriage in Australia….In March last year I think it was the first float celebrating polyamory joined the flotilla in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. The Polyamorous community are celebrating because they believe the vote by the ALP national conference to change the party platform to legalize same sex marriage is a base on which they can build ( and build they certainly will if same sex marriage is passed as a law)

          They intend to seek recognition to demanding legislation to firstly grant them civil unions and eventually legalize polyamorous marriage. This group already has organized groups in most capitals in Aust.

          Once same sex marriage laws are passed traditional marriage will be replaced with a bewildering array of sexual combinations between various groups of individuals. It is said that the gradual transition from gay marriage to eventually state santioned polyamony and eventually abolition of marriage itself is now the most infulential paradigm within academic family law.

          Also overseas as stupid as it sounds….a man is going to court now because he wants to marry his horse who he loves……how can they refuse him as he says it will be discrimination seeing same sex couples are now allowed to marry there…..The same as brothers and sisters and Fathers and daughters and Pedeophiles and children…where will it stop….after all we cant go against discrimination laws can we??????

          Ex homosexuals have said marriage isnt desired by most gays….multiple partners is more desired….research has shown that the majority of gay relationships do not last more than two years…..and very few are faithful long term. It has also been found overseas that the great influx of same sex marriages when the law was passed just didnt happen….In Sweden the number of same sex couples who registered their union was reported to be 1,500 out of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of 140.000 This proved that 98% didnt want permanent commitments. And yet MP’s are thinking of changing our marriage laws for a minority ( who prefer multiple partners)

          The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population……Anyone bothering to search the subject out would find that this is so.

          The most scary part is that the life expectancy of gay men is up to 20 years shorter than non gay men. Maybe Aids has something to do with this….The government spends a fortune on anti smoking adds but this lifestyle seems to be more of a health hazard to society than smoking if it lessens the life span by 20 years…..

          I could go on and on….one doesn’t have to be religious to oppose this bill…But space doesn’t permit…..
          hopefully those against it will flood their MP’s with their letters and emails as that is what the homosexual lobby groups will be doing.

          There is a senate enquiry that is open to submissions on it at present, It closes in April I think….. it would be important that as many as possible write in to them in opposition to it…

          The address to write is Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee P.O. Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra 2000 ACT ( I think that is the correct address)

          • Tina

            Fantastic, thank you for sharing all the research and points that you brought up about same sex relationships. As l said in the survey why doesnt the Govt spend time researching the benefits or disadvantages of same sex relationships before they impose a law and if there are CLEAR grounds then make a decision, but from what you have just said it doesnt seem that way. I was quite surprised to read that actually. Keep going with your feedback, thank and God bless you!

          • Daniel Emery

            So what if polyamorists are allowed to marry?! Why shouldn’t all consensual adult relationships be entitled to the same legal rights as couples constituted by a man and a woman? Oooh scary, let’s spread some fear about polyamorous people… I don’t see what some people are so afraid of.

            Christians in particular make the argument that the sanctity of marriage will be destroyed, or that somehow the tradition will be defiled. Do these claims really have any merit? What is it about the tradition that will be destroyed? Really ask yourself, why is gay marriage, or marriage of polyamorists offensive? I think inevitably the honest answer is, because my church says so. People decide what is and isn’t offensive to them. These ideals are simply made up. So why not choose not to be offended by something, and simply allow all human beings equal rights and protections.

            I doubt that your argument regarding the 20 year difference in life expectancy of gay men is true. I found nothing about it on the Australian Bureau of Statistis website or on the website of the Australian Insitute of Health & Wellbeing, which is a government department. My guess is that you garnered this idea from a religious website with a vested interest in opposing and denegrating the homosexual lifestyle. Such a source of information is unreliable. But even if the statistic is true, it should not stand as a reason not to allow homosexuals to get married or have children. Indigenous Australians have one of the worst life expectancy rates of any developed nation (far worse than homosexuals as a population group); does that mean that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry or have children?
            I think not.
            Furthermore, smoking is by far a greater health risk to human beings than homosexuality is. What a ludicrous assertion to make. For starters, roughly 25% of Australians are smokers, while only 10% are homosexual. And since your life expectancy statistic referred only to men, you can halve that to a population group of 5%. That means there are approximately 5 times more smokers than gay men. Also, it is anti-gay rhetoric like that which you are pushing that contributes to disease such as HIV/AIDS. The problem is education. But when people feel ostracised by their community they a far less likely to accept advice on how to manage their health. If practices are considered socially acceptable, they are far less likely to produce abuses of that practice. On the contrary, when a particular practice is frowned upon, people who want to engage in that practice are more likely feel rebellious and to engage in that practice unsafely.

            Even if most gay people wouldn’t get married if the law was passed, is this a reason to discriminate against them? I say again, why shouldn’t gay people be entitiled to the same legal rights as other people? This is about fundamental human rights – the rights of all people – and it seems inescapable for people who are against gay marriage to claim to be against it for any good reason. They simply use their religion to deny rights to another minority group. It’s the same thing they’ve been doing for centuries; using the bible and other religious doctrine in support of slavery, the oppression of black people and extreme violence such as was demonstrated in the crusades.

            I do not know of you are a christian, but I suspect you are. These sorts of issues need to be considered based on evidence as to what will produce the best outcome, not based on religious morals or belief systems. That is why we have a secular government.

          • I can’t believe the lies and rubbish that is being shared by sites like this.

            Yes many gay couples do not want to get married. Many hetrosexual couples do not want to get married either. Does that mean we should ban all hetrosexual marriages as well?

            Lesbians and gay men already have children. Allowing them to marry the other parent to their child does not deny the child of a non-existent parent. What it does is allow that child to have both their parents fully committed to each other legally as well as to them. It allows their family to be seen as equal to the families of their classmates and thus allows them to feel equal to their classmates rather than feeling that somehow there is something wrong with them. Not allowing a child’s 2 mums to marry is not going to magically mean that the anonymous donor will suddenly move in with one of the mothers and become a dad to the child!

            If the Australian Marriage Forum truly wanted to “think of the child” they would realise that same-sex marriage is actually in the child’s best interests.

            Most lesbians and gay men who want to have children will have them regardless of whether they are legally allowed to get married so banning marriage will make no different to the number of children born to such people.

            Many lesbians and gays don’t want to have kids anyway but still want to be committed to their partner. We don’t ban marriage for hetrosexual couples who don’t want to have kids or medically can’t have kids so it is a completely invalid argument for why we should ban same sex marriage.

            In terms of length of relationships… have you ever thought that maybe the social pressure not to be gay means that relationships have added stress which impacts on them? And in terms of life expectancy some may be related to AIDS but also drugs from people self-medicating because of all the negative messages they receive from people like you who tell them they are not normal. Gay people also have a higher suicide rate than the general population because of people like you.

            I have one friend who was with her female partner for over 30 years until she died of cancer. They never wanted to have kids but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t have loved to be able to marry each other if it had been legally available to them. I have another friend who has been with her female partner for over 20 years and has a 10 year old daughter with her female partner. I know one other lesbian couple who have been together for 10 years and have two children together (8 and 6) and have their gay donor involved as a dad so in their case the kids actually do know their father, they haven’t been denied him and won’t be denied him if their mothers were legally allowed to marry. I know one single lesbian and one who is in a relationship that is less than 3 year old and one who is in a relationship that is less than 6 years old and have a child from a previous lesbian relationship as well as one they have had together (just like many heterosexual relationships the new parent has embraced the role as step-mother as well as then adding to their family). That is all the gay and lesbian people I know but just out of the tiny numbers I know I can already dispute your claim that their relationships are short-lived. To me they appear to be just as diverse in their formation and just as long lasting as any heterosexual marriages.

            Do as you say “Think of the child” and realise that same-sex marriage will actually benefit children by allowing them to have their two intended parents marry and have all the legal protections and social acceptance that such a commitment will give to those children.

      • Lourdes Dlarosa

        I am not against Gay or Lesbian relationship. But I believe that a Marriage is between a Man and a Woman. A Marriage produces children. A relationship.does not. And if you are happy being in that relationship it is ok.
        My main concern is not your relationship but the children involved.
        Regardless of how much love you give this children they will grow up to be confused. Because they will be different from other children specially when they are asked by other children who is your Mom or Dad.
        I believe it will affect them emotionally and maybe some of this children in future might even commit suicide because they won’t be able to comprehend who they really are and why are they different from other children. May God forbid this to happen.
        Even how much love is given to them once the confused mind takes over it will be very scary the outcome. Please do not force on us your ideas that your relationship is a marriage. It is not a marriage but a relationship..

        • bkratvou

          thank you very good point,I like that

        • Pierced

          Gay couples raise children all the time. This is a fact of life. How do you think it affects these children being told there is something wrong/maybe not wrong but different/wrong but tolerable/ basically wrong and perverse about their families. No one is forcing religous people to accept gay marriage. In the same way the catholic church doesn’t recognise 2nd or 3rd marriages. Or divorce at all. Marriage has been redifined throughout the ages many times. Unless you believe the earth is flat and 5 thousand years old. You say you believe it will affect the children. Have you done any research on the subject beyond a ‘study’ published on a christian website.

      • Daniel Emery

        I thought I might fill you in on someting which you seem to be unaware of. Back when John Howard was PM, he changed the Marriage Act from “…. between two consenting adults…”, to “…between a man and a woman…”
        So, if the Marriage Act is changed it won’t be the first time. What do you mean you don’t believe in the right to define our words? That is precisely the role of the judiciary and any number of lawyers who interpret legislation all the time. And who do you think wrote the legislation? Should it never be allowed to change once it has been written?
        In regards to your polygamy argument, what exactly is the issue with polygamy anyway? There is nothing to suggest that polygamy is necessarily immoral, outside of religion (provided all parties consent to it of course). It’s important that our laws are definied by secularism, not by religion

      • Kenneth Ferguson

        HI Chris,
        the big difference is that with 2 woman you will still produce a family as God intended. Marriage is a word that also defines a family as a man & a woman.
        If Gay people want a union recognised by law then call it something else but not marriage. Then all parties will be happy & can move on.
        Marriage is a word that has been used by heterosexual couples for generations. We have a right to claim this word.
        Use another word that will define the union between Gay people.
        Kindest regards,
        Ken.

    • mogana moses

      Hold fast and good on you

    • em441407@bigpond.net.au

      I commend you on your stand against same sex marriage.

      We each have a choice as to our partners, but marriage to make those choosing same sex partners feel good, doesn’t make it right

      Children born into these unions don’t get the chance to have a real mum and dad and that is the sad part.

      • Janine Patties

        If men choose men and women choose women, their relationship choice means there is no fruit from their relationship: it is sterile, hybrid.
        By this choice naturally their relationship cannot produce children. It is simply a consequence of their actions. So there cannot be children born to these relationships.

      • Daniel Emery

        There is nothing ‘sad’ about children not having the chance to have a real mum and dad. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that children who are raised by same-sex parents suffer any detrimental effects. And by the way, it is not currently illegal for same-sex couples to adopt or give birth to children (refer to the case of Penny Wong for example), so allowing them to get married won’t stop homosexuals from raising children.

        • Natalie

          There is evidence. Please refer to the recently published review of the scientific literature — compiled by George A. Rekers, professor of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine — lending strong support to the objection to homosexual parenting, adoption, and foster parenting. The article is available online.

    • Jo

      I was reading how you as a marriage celebrant said you will not marry a same sex couple…..The sad part about this is maybe you won’t have that freedom if this bill is passed…..I read an article that said a Christian cake maker overseas ( where this bill has been passed)….refused to make a cake for a same sex couple and the couple have taken the cake maker to court because they say it is discrimination….It has been said that church ministers will not be forced to marry same sex couples against their religious teaching. For anyone to take this promise seriously, they would have to believe that the gay activists have had a sudden change of heart. Their aggressive intolerance of Christians ( who oppose their views) is well known. Only the naive would believe this proposed exemption would stand in the long term ( as overseas experience shows)…
      It seems to me that is discrimination against Christians if they havent got the right to refuse to perform a same sex marriage or to not make a wedding cake for a same sex couple….surely it is still a free country where one can nicely suggest they go elsewhere ( there would be a lot of celebrants and cake makers that would be more than happy to be available). IF Churches are being told ministers dont need to marry same sex couples if it is against their conscience…..then why isnt a law being passed also to protect civil Christian celebrants and other workers in the wedding industry who are against same sex marriage..It is not just Christians who are opposed to same sex marriage..A person doesnt have to be against the actual gay people to not want to marry them or contribute their services to that marriage…..Discrimination should protect everyone not just some groups…..But that doesnt seem to be the case….
      If a Christian Civil Celebrant was asked to perform a same sex marriage ( if the bill is passed)….rather than say no it is against their religion, they would need to simply say they haven’t experience in that area and seeing they want to do the very best in their job, they advise the couple to find a celebrant that is experienced in same sex unions or same sex commitment ceremonies….

      .

    • errol

      marraige is between male and female that is how it has been for 1000’s of yaers why change it now why do they take a God given institution and demand it when they do not believe in God!!!!

      • Mango

        totally agree with you!

    • Bryan Greenwood

      Good on you!

    • Ros Chong

      Great to hear people sticking out for the right thing.As for same sex marriage, We would be so appalled and noone would think possible that a male dog would perform such act with another male dog.We have debased ourselves below animals. Think about it. For the sake of humanity, stop before it turns horribly wrong. For those who still have an inkling of what is right and wrong, We have the responsibility to keep to what is right if not for us, for our children’s sake. Stop same sex marriage. It is harmful to humanity. Use our brains if not our morales.

    • Fia

      I definitely agree and support your say. I feel for children to be born from homosexual couples. They are missing out on having natural father/mother biological relationship.

  2. Brenda Low

    Ditto…. We don’t want future generations of confused human beings !

    • Nick

      So rather than showing children who may be born homosexual that they will be accepted and grow to have the same rights as their heterosexual peers we should instead confuse *them*! Because people who are homosexual are surely as far from confused as one can be – why should we think about them? Talk about flawed logic.

      • Jo

        It hasn’t been proven that all homosexual people are born that way. Unlike the color of our skin in which we have no choice, sexual orientation in many cases is a decision. Therefore it is not discrimination to preserve the natural union of a men and a women and it is ok to segregate gay union as being unnatural, unlike how unacceptable it would be to segregate inter racial marriage for example.

        Until there is conclusive evidence that all homosexuals are born that way, we should protect marriage give our children the right of benefit of nurturing from both a male and female perspective.

        • Yarny

          But Jo, where is the conclusive evidence based research that sexual orientation is a choice?

          • Janine Pattie

            If sexual orientation was a voice and the majority of the population chose a homo-sexula relationship, and the trend continued, how many generations would it take before the human race would come to extinction?

        • Jenny

          Hi Jo,
          I am hetrosexual and know without a shadow of a doubt, that I did NOT choose this. I believe it was how I was born. Did you make a choice? Any friend or family member I have spoken with about this topic has said the same thing. If it was a choice, would we all not have felt as though we could choose either way and then made a decision? It just seems absurd to me.

        • Pierced

          How many hetero men on this site have chosen to engage in oral sex with their mates after a game of footy? I think the answer will demonstrate that homosexuality is not a choice.

        • Fia

          Marriage as defined in Australian law as states:
          “The union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”.
          Amen! In the beginning, God created a male and female with his plan to have children born from Adam and Eve to populate the world. It was a good intention and planning. Not Adam and another male.
          If we change the definition, I feel we are disrespecting our elders passed and present who had put this law together with careful considerations. I have a mother and father who nurtured me and my siblings. My children would benefit from having a mother and a father.

      • Sharon

        Nick, if it was solely up to same sex partnerships, there wouldn’t be any children. The union between man and woman has existed for thousands of years. By whose authority should we presume to change it? As a married woman, I don’t want my marriage redefined into something so vague as to have no value or meaning at all.

    • Peter

      Brenda. Hi there. We already have confused kids ,not to mention confused parents and adults. The whole of the human race`s values are slowly being eroded by these useless minority groups. Where will it all end up. I`ll tell you . One big mess that future generations will have to unravel when common sense eventually prevails Cheers for now.

  3. John Blair

    Marriage between a man and a women does not discriminate against any individual – they have equal rights to find a partner of the opposite sex in order to enjoy the bonds of marriage. Leave the institution of marriage alone – if same sex couples want some sort of recognition of the bond they have with each other then call it something else.
    I don’t have the right to vote for who will lead the Greens, ALP or LNP because I am not a member of any of the parties. Is that discrimination? No – because I have the choice to join the parties but I choose not to.

    • Annonamous

      It is discrimination and I think this whole web site is disgusting. Here we are trying to move forward in the times and become equals. But it’s people like you that put us 30 years into the past again. Wake up and accept that times are changing and AUSTRALIA should recognize same sex couples and let them get MARRIED.. If Being an Australian means being blind to new things and moving forward .. then, I just don’t know. Just because my life to be happy ended up with another Man I don’t feel like I should not be able to have the same things a straight couple gets. Does it make you feel uncomfortable ? If it does I think you need to look at your life and everything around it as things are changing and for the better. Stop being a HOmophobe and just accept that same sex couples exist and are happy.

      • Stella Parker

        Stop being a Heterophobe and just accept that marriage has always meant and will always mean the union of a man and a woman.

        • Lisa

          Exactly!

      • Lisa

        You are completely missing the point in your attempt to make a point. Same sex couples will be considered “equal” when you can of your own valition create life together! Oh, you can’t? Exactly. Marriage is to protect that union. Why do you want to be a part of something historically that is not made for your choice of union? You have chosen to be called something different “gay” so choose a different name and meaning for your union! I am sure if there was something separate for your situation, you would not have heterosexuals demanding to be included! You are just trying to push the boundries and claiming discrimination! I chose my way of life and marriage, you chose yours and to be excluded from the covenant that is marriage. Don’t change what is mine ( that is discrimination ) create your own! Legally you have every right a ” married ” person does. So what is your issue really? Search yourself on this. As far as I see it, you are just trying to erode my institution and rights ” discrimination” not stand for your own at all.

        • Terry

          I totally agree with what Lisa says. I don’t have anything against gays, I just think it’s ridiculous that they seem to want to enter into an institution that is meant for a MAN & A WOMAN not same sex couples. If you need to have your union recognised call it something else not Marriage. I will never, ever, ever call a relationship between same sex couples marriage, regardless of whether they get a piece of paper to call it whatever it is. I was brought up to believe & will ALWAYS BELIEVE marriage to be between a MAN & a WOMAN.

          • Melva Turner

            I also agree, that it is important for a Man to get Married to a woman. I believe that as a Christian we should stand up for the Christian Standard, and be firm in the decisions we make in this life.

        • Ripi Wihongi

          wow…ok I think I should have written what you wrote, but I aint that smart:)

      • David Vinicombe

        David V says:
        Because people do not agree with same-sex marriage does not make the homophobic. Neither does it mean they do not accept that same-sex couple appear to be happy.
        When homosexual people accuse us being homophobic because of the view we have on marriage shows they have no real understanding of the the heterosexual marriage position. We are simply saying that we oppose the re-defining of the institution of marriage.
        Making accusations as stated by ‘annonamous’ is a blatant disregard for views which may differ from his. That is hardly seeing and treating people as ‘equals’.

      • Donna

        Have u noticed that your are the only one that didn’t leave a name with your comment ( does it make you feel uncomfortable )

      • Norm

        What did GOD destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for???

        • Rita

          Exactly I agree with you, why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.??

      • Jo

        Yes! things have changed, but you have to ask yourself does what you demand is it “Right” Yes! things have changed, but the choices are “Wrong” because I look at the consequences!!!!! Let us not be selfish and put our own demands and suffer the consequences for others who want to make the “Right” choice that was existent from the beginning of time.

        • Tina

          Go Jo! Our concern should be for the vulnerable and weak and we as adults need to remember that and be responsible. If there are advantages then lets do it as mature people and discuss it and prove to the world what we beleive is right not just behind a computer. After all there is nothing to hide if we are being true to ourselves, no-one can judge anyone. But the Govt needs to wake up & think before making “people” happy and giving people what they think they need or is justified.

      • Ethel Middleton

        Sounds like you are feeling a tad guilty about your sexuality Annonamous (Anonymous)
        Give me the good old day’s

      • Ripi Wihongi

        The Gay community does’nt have a website to promote SSM, that would be surprising?
        Homosexuality is not new; for thousands of years it has been considered a sin and wrong. It was considered so heinous that the punishment was death.
        Today in many societies we have adopted a gentler and more tolerant view and we are able to live almost any life style of choice, but that does’nt mean homosexuality is any more valuable in today’s societies than it was in any of the previous ones.
        Some studies indicated a connection between increased homosexual activity and the destruction of the great civilizations of the past. (the Greeks and Romans etc) others indicated it was the moral decline as a whole. This leads to some serious doubts that SSM is a progressive step forwards or one back into the destructive past.
        As for being uncomfortable; I have been comfortable with marriage as a principle all my life and as a reality for 16 years. It seems to me that it is the Gay community that is uncomfortable with Marriage otherwise they would’nt want to change it.
        The choice to challenge the sacred institution of Marriage seems to me to be a selfish act on the part the Gay community and to demean the meaning of Marriage and to take away the happiness of those who believe in it.
        Lastly, I am so done with being called a Homophobe…if you don’t like it cause I don’t agree with you; “build a bridge and get over it”

      • Glen M

        Dear Annonamous, please understand that same-sex relationships are awarded the same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples.
        I do not discriminate against you for your sexual behaviour, race or religion, however this is a dialogue about the legal institution of marriage in Australia.

        I am not blind to new things nor am I ignorant of same-sex couples existing and happy. What I will say is that suddenly being married will not make the relationship more fulfilling or genuine. Marriage is by definition a union between two people of the opposite sex who enter voluntarily into a life-long relationship to the exclusion of all others.

        Same sex relationships simply do not meet the criteria to be named a marriage. I am a man, I can dress like a woman, have surgical procedures, hormone treatment etc however the fact remains that my DNA will always be that of a man, I will never be able to bear children. By my very nature as a man I do not meet the criteria.

        Neither can many women in Australia because they simply can’t fall pregnant or carry to full term. This debate is not that same-sex unions can’t have kids it is about meeting the required criteria to be elegible to marry.
        I am not Aboriginal, therefore I can not recieve the specific assistance put in place to help people of Aboriginal descent discrimination? No, because there are challenges both social and geographical that are particular to that of Aboriginal people in Australia. I accept that I am different, this is what tolerance is.

        I hear some same-sex advocates preach tolerance as though it is only a one-way street.

      • Ron Blythman

        To our anonymous–how sad I fell for you and all others who walk the road you are walking or feel that it is okay for others to do what they want. In the animal kingdom, (and human-being are not animals), though at times we act like them, and that is the point I want to make; in the animal kingdom the male species stays with female of that species, and the only thing that separates that relationship is death. The animal species do not what human-beings do, especially those who desire same sex relationships. Can you not see the abomination?–do you not understand what the abomination will bring about? I love you dearly, but I hate your idea of a free society to do what it thinks is right.

      • Kenneth Ferguson

        Hi,
        yes you are in a society that allows you to exist. There are places in the world where your choice of life style would not be tolerated. Be grateful that you do live in Australia & can live as you choose.
        I do not agree with the Gay life style but that does not mean I hate Gay people. I have met some very kind and generous Gay people over the years but you should never forget that were it not for a heterosexual union you would not be here. The union of a man and a woman has for many generations meant a union between a man & woman. For the sake of future generations that union must be protected. If you must have a union recognised by law then surely you can find another word to use rather than marriage.
        I have not read 1 comment that is anti Gay rights on this site. Most people just want the institution of marriage as defined by law protected in its present form.
        I thank the God of heaven each day for my heterosexual parents & for the institution of families with a mother & father. This is the only way that a future generation can exist. Were it left to the Gay community then there would be no future generation to worry about. That is just a fact of life.
        I cannot understand why you want to use the word marriage. Call it a Gay union or some word other than marriage.
        Kindest regards,
        Ken.

    • JohnTurner

      Mankind loves to interfere, which is normally accepted throughout the Ages. It is not accepted to have a homesexual relationship or being a homosexual, nor accepting evil these practices as a bystander. They need to hear what Jesus says in the Bible, His Word will always stand; equally those condoning Gay Mardi Gras, they may not be gay, but if they were Christians they see it as an abomination to God, Judgement has gone forth with Sodom and Gemorrha, a whole nation was destroyed, and those who support them will also be destroyed, Why don’t people learn from History, and wake up?. God the Father is not pleased with it, that is why judgement is happening here in Australia, fires, floods, and other calamities. It is a pity people go to hell, because they say, they did not know. Even God’s mercy will go out to the homosexuals and other ignorant people, if they only ask to be helped in turning away from this work of the devil, or simply accepting this as normal!

      • sharon

        Could not have said it any better myself, well done good and faithfull servant.

  4. Julie-Anne Pinel

    Marriage is between a man and a woman, it is vital to our children and future generations that this is maintained. Children need a father and a mother!!

  5. katherine fishley

    Marriage is between a man and a woman.
    Stan and Katherine Fishley

    • Joe and Carol Campisi

      We strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
      Joe and Carol Campisi

  6. Katelyn

    I believe that yes the tradition of marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also believe that everyon deserves to love whoever they choose and express that love the same way everyone else does. Maybe don’t call it marriage as such, maybe commitment ceremony or something of the sort but give same sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities a heterosexual couple has. We’re supposed to be a forward thinking country where we are all equal, let’s show that we are then. So maybe same sex couples can’t ‘marry’ but let them legally commit to their partner the way everyone else can.

    • Matthew Donker

      I concur!

      I believe in equality and so far I think homosexuals have had, and continue to have every right to live a normal life. Low and behold some find a partner and all of a sudden they have no rights and society is discriminating against them… Why do they want to get married? To be able to have a legal commitment to their partner like us ‘normal’ people do? Fine. Have a legal commitment but call it something else. Don’t destroy the meaning of a tradition that goes far beyond a legal commitment because you want to ‘fit in’ and be normal. Talk about selfishness, there are people dying in the world from poverty and these ‘gays’ say they have it tough…

      • oleg golikov

        Some of the best people both morally and artistically, I have met in my life are homosexuals. However I was always honest to them in declaring that in my personal opinion – “Marriage” should be only used in its original context.
        Cheers, Oleg G.

    • Charms

      Sorry Katelyn but 2 men cannot express love in the same way a man and a woman can. It’s not discrimination, it’s biology. They can’t reproduduce offspring either so are restricted in that way also. Again it’s not discrimination it is the natural order of things. So many major things are different about gay couples by nature that have nothing to do with discrimination. From my understanding they can already have a civil ceremony so why do they envy our “marriage” so much when it doesn’t even apply to them? Nobody is forcing them to live a “gay” lifestyle. If they want to get married they can find an opposite sex partner. If they decide to live a gay lifestyle then they need to accept that while there may be benefits, there are also things they will miss out on such as marriage and children. It is not discrimination. It is biology..

      • Yarny

        Hey “Charms”…

        I can’t have my own children. Does this mean I shouldn’t get married? Where in marriage vows does it mention “you must procreate?” This statement is completely confusing and close-minded, to say the least. I thought marriage was a lasting contract between two people for life, to love one another unconditionally – to reflect the love of God. A family starts with marriage, not just when children are added to the family.

        I knew from age three, that I was a female that liked boys. Every fibre of a person’s being tells them what gender they are attracted to. Sexuality is something you just know – I don’t believe that gay Christian (yes, there are such things) would choose to be such a marginalised, discriminated group (a “lifestyle”) when it is so much more comfortable to be a heterosexual in Christian circles. Wouldn’t you be offended, Charms, if someone asked you if you were SURE that you like the opposite gender?

        Homosexuality does not equal immorality. We choose to be moral and commit ourselves to one person for life; you cannot choose what gender that person is.

        Charms, please find a verse for me quoting Jesus that homosexual relationships were wrong… As far I know, Jesus did not spout a lot of rules, but LOVE.

        • Brad

          Deceptive equivocations aside, it is suspicious to me that you specifically asked for a verse to quote Jesus, as if the book of Romans isn’t good enough. From Romans 1:

          25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
          26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. ”

          Not that you or the Tempter will have much trouble convincing you that this verse is taken out of context, I’m sure.
          If in doubt about Jesus w.r.t. laws, see Matthew 5:16-18.
          Jesus was not some hippie parading around telling people to be nice to each other.
          Matthew 10
          34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.”
          In fact, why don’t you just read the whole Bible? That way you can’t accuse me of picking verses out of context, you can warp it however you like.

        • Maria

          Yamy,
          There is a lot of difference between not being able to have children and deciding not to have them. Yes you can get married…I pray that you have a child just like Abraham and Sarah with Isaac…anything is possible with God…you just have to have faith and pray to God and show that you love God…especially by keeping His Commandments…ummm yes homosexuality does equal immorality. St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 states ‘Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be decieved; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practice homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.’
          God Bless,
          Maria

        • sharon

          If you new the bible, you would find it says to procreate between a man and woman.

      • Kenneth Ferguson

        Hi Charms.
        on the mark. Great comment.
        Kindest regards,
        Ken.

    • Frank Dyson

      Total agreement with Katelyn. Legal recognition with the accompanying “benefits” and status should not be denied them. However the term marriage does not fit their situation. Why try to be “equal” when in fact you are not. Using the term “marriage” will never make their union “equal” with a heterosexual union.

  7. Mike Cronin

    I urge our government to fulfil their election promise not to change the definition of marriage as in the marriage act as being between one woman and one man for life. This is vitally important for stability in families and for the well being of our children.

  8. Debra

    I totally believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I was very upset to read in the Melbourne Herald/Sun that a young homosexual wrote that Christians were putting him down as a human being because we are standing up for the rights of marriage to stay as they are. This disturbed young man was lashing out and creating false accusations instead of maturely looking at why Christians are united on this very important act. I have many friends who are Gay. None of them want to ‘get married’. I love them as friends but I will not be silent on an issue such as this. Many non Christians that I know also agree that marriage must NOT be changed.

  9. Vincent & Lisa Ho

    We totally agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.

  10. Ross Burborough

    This is not just about a tradition or religious practise that doesn’t want to change. Marriage is like the backbone of a society that helps to hold it together. Not only in the Christian religion, Islamic and other main stream religious groups would also find this wrong. Perhaps this is a time to speak with one voice.

  11. liz

    mariage is between a man and a woman

  12. Marguerite Leggett

    Marriage between a man and woman has been a mainstay in every society on earth. It is blessed by God. It is the basis of family. We should be doing all we can to strengthen it not experiment with it.

  13. Margaret McDonald

    Marriage shoould be for men and women only.

  14. Rachel Verschuren

    Marriage is not to be tampered with, it has and always should be between a man and woman. Why are the Labor party acting on the whims of a minority of people and pressure groups?

  15. Peta

    Marriage should be a non discriminative bond between two people who are of sound mind and are committed to one another. It is comments like, it’s not normal, that are making people look ignorant…come up with a real rebuttle. Marriage is not something that should be rushed into. I believe children who have been raised in a broken home are more likely to have issues than that of a loving family, if its two mummy’s or two daddy’s is irrelevant, as much as it is of two different cultures. If you have an open heart and mind to the person you are ready to bond to, that is what is relevant. If you are committed to be there for the times that are not so easy, as well as all the beautiful times and all you have is a non malicious love, that is what is important.

    • Beth

      This is the first relevant comment in this forum I’ve come across. What difference does it make who loves who? As a teacher, I’ve seen so many children whose lives have been ruined by their heterosexual parents, through drugs, divorce, abuse, and neglect. How can ‘marriage’ as an institution be seen as only positive between men, women and their children, when it is this idea of the ‘family’ that is so often failing? Let any couple who loves each other enough to live happily together forever and raise a child (if that is their choice) be allowed to get married, it’s only fair!

      • Charms

        ..and what about the childs rights to both a mother and a father? Surely as a teacher you have studied childhood development and understand the importance of a child having a mother and father as they need both male and female role models for healthy development. Just because you have seen children that come from broken homes doesn’t mean that all heterosexuals should not have children. Statistically these issues you have brought up actually exist to a much higher extent in gay couples (particularly domestic violence) but even so I don’t believe that this is a good reason to stop gay couples from having children. I would think the most important reason is the childs need for identity and healthy development which is best provided by a mother and father. Sure, there are circumstances where staying with mum and dad does not work but these are unintentional circumstances and not deliberate sabotage of a childs stability because a gay couple wants a child for their own reasons that are not in the childs best interests.

        • Mel

          I would love to know where you got those “statistics” that children of gay couples experience a higher extent of domestic violence, drugs, abuse, and neglect.

      • Maria

        The fact is that many marriages have ended up like this, because they have lost Christian principles…so many break-ups today and so many unhappy marriages. Many people go into marriage yet it seems that they don’t care about the ’till death do us part’ part of the vows. So many marriage vows today are NOT EVEN PROPER VOWS…
        This is the result of the world’s sins…Many have lost sight of what Jesus did for them by dying on the cross and opening up the gates of Heaven…back then people would go to Church every Sunday and the world was far more Christian then what it is today…Hardly anybody practices the true Catholic faith…unless people start realising what they are doing, the world is going to get worse and worse…we need to turn back to God, ask for forgiveness and do His Will. We need to pray for those families who are not happy…pray to God for mercy!

        • John Maarssen

          John Maarssen

          Yes I do agree with Maria 100%.

      • Sharon

        And Beth, I would be interested to know how many well-adjusted children you have come across from same-sex couples?

    • Frank Dyson

      That’s like saying “Australia should not be a separate country”. It is and you can’t change that. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman – that’s what it is. A union of two same sex people perhaps should and could be legalized, but for crying out loud, why do they want it to be called marriage? Let’s call Australia New Zealand – and see how crazy we would look in the world.

    • Sharon

      Peta, yes, children who are raised in broken homes may not have the best upbringing, but the difference is that was not the parents’ original plan for them. They didn’t plan for their children to be raised in a single parent family, without a mother or a father. It happened due to unfortunate circmstances. Conversely, children raised by same sex couples are put in this same terrible situation ON PURPOSE. And no matter how much you gloss over it, two Daddies do not make up for a Mummy, the same as two Mummies do not make up for a Daddy. How cruel it is to deny a child, knowingly, of their mother or father. Who would do such a thing. Think again about what is best for the children.

  16. John Godfrey

    Marriage has been for hundreds of years between a man and a woman ,there is no need for any change,this is God given,we don’t need any backward steps.

  17. Gay Lane

    I definately agree, marriage is for a man and a woman, we’ve proved it works for 52 years.
    Thank God for his blessing

  18. Tracey-Leigh

    The rights of the minority ought not to over-ride the rights of the majority. Currently, when I tell people I am married, it is known to whomever I tell that I am in a committed hetrosexual relationship. I am a lover of the sanctity of marriage and everything it stands for – including that it is between man and woman. I do not want this to be taken from me. In order to give the minority what they want, what I already have must be taken from me and re-boxed into a one size fits all. I love marriage – just the way it is. I am proud to be who I am and being married to someone of the opposite sex is part of what defines who I am. Why is it so unreasonable that we ask gays and lesbians to define, name and then be proud of their own version of lifelong committment? Let’s not forget that a gay/lesbian relationship is different from a man/woman relationship, so why not define it as it’s own special union and give it it’s own name. I support everybody’s right to commit to a lifelong partner, regardless of their sexuality – this is simply the freedom of choice that God gave us all. However, I am also proud of my sexuality and enjoy what it means to be married,as a woman to a man. Just call it something else and let me (us) keep what is so very precious to us.

    • Lea

      What is the difference between a homosexual and heterosexual committed relationship?

      • Annonamous

        Good point..

      • Margaret

        What is the difference between a black and white photo and a black and black photo or white and white photo? Only in the use of black and white can the picture be evident. For children who are born of one gender or the other, it is important to have role models of both male and female in a very secure and committed relationship. While not all relationships are as desirable as this ideal, because of individual choices and varying degrees of commitment, (and these variations also occur amongst homosexual relationships), a lifelong commitment to a marriage between a man and a woman is the very best schooling ground society can offer for children and for the adults concerned as we all learn and hopefully grow from relationships. A happy, loving, committed marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal family relationship and so it is enshrined as something special. Why enshrine something less than the ideal? To enshrine anything but the ideal is to deny society of something better to which to aspire and will ultimately lead to the fall of our society. In every walk of life today, we talk of identifying “best practice” so that there is an ideal to aspire to. Happy, loving, lifelong commitment to a marriage between a man and a woman is “best practice”. A commitment between homosexual couples should be called something else – not marriage. A co-habiting relationship, however long lasting, between an unmarried man and woman is called a defacto relationship not a marriage relationship. Same-gender couples can surely come up with a different name for their relationship which makes clear to everyone, the nature of their relationship to avoid confusion and embarrassment for all concerned. A black and white photo will always be a black and white photo. How can there be a black and white photo with one or the other totally absent? To call a black/black photo, black and white, would be dishonest. How can a marriage be a marriage with one or the other gender absent in the relationship, especially when the roots of the word apparently originally meant the union of members of the opposite sex into a new, formal, socially-recognized relationship – the start of a new family unit into which children would be welcomed, cared for and protected if they naturally resulted from the sexual union of the couple? No matter how hard they try, the sexual union of 2 males together or 2 females together can never result in a child. For same gender couples to welcome children into their relationship there must be intervention by at least a third person, which complicates the situation for the child and makes the relationship totally different from the relationship we call marriage.

        • Sheryl

          SOOOOOOO well put Margaret!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Sharon

          Very well said, Margaret.

      • Charms

        Reproduction would be one pretty enormous, life changing difference

        • Lisa

          This made me lol, exactly! The elephant standing g in front of you people! Well said!

      • Maria

        God instituted marriage to be between a man and woman voluntarily entered into for life that also involves children. Do you know that it is not a real marriage if the man or wife say that they are not going to have children…it is different if they can’t but if they won’t then the marriage isn’t even real. God didn’t make it for homosexuals. In fact, God destroyed a city in the Old Testament for homosexuality. However, God wants us to love one another and especially those who don’t know the way. He wants us to forgive and pray for one another and be kind to one another as He loves us, especially by His sacrifice on the Cross!! Homosexuals can’t even have children anyway..it is very wrong of us to tolerate such in society. The problem with us is that we are too tolerant of things that go against God! And if we don’t stop this toleration, our society will KEEP CRUMBLING!!!! God Bless and pray to God for His help for anything is possible with God!!

      • Frank Dyson

        Apart from the physical aspects, I guess none. However why should those who appreciate and want to protect the “marriage” scene have their perspectives and psyche bombarded, invaded, battered, because someone else wants to have a different relationship (not saying it is right or wrong here) and use force and coercion to call it “marriage”? Why can’t these people come up with an original title for their desired relationship? Are they so short of initiative and creativity? If they are, they discriminate against themselves.

  19. Nicole Johnson

    I strongly agree that marriage should remain as being between a man & a woman. God knew what He was doing when He created us, and that is how it should remain!
    We don’t want a generation growing up being confused, and over-run by “political correctness” which is growing out of control!

  20. Kylie Yip

    It feels awkward not to be politically correct but it’s true: marriage is between one man and one woman for life.

  21. carole Skirving

    Marriage should always be between a man and a woman.

    Call the union something else if it must be official. Not marriage

  22. Jean-Michel and Sue Allaz

    Children are best brought up by a father and a mother. the marriage act should not be changed.

    • Annonamous

      Why does it have to be about children… and how many kids are in straight families and are not loved ?? A child in a non violent same sex couple familiy has been proven to grow up just as happy… and in more cases feel more loved.

      • David

        Same sex couple can’t produce a child, it is nature, can you say that God is discrimination?

      • Sharon

        Annonamous, where’s the proof? And it is about children, because as the well known song goes “children are our future”. And the legalization of same-sex marriage is just a stepping stone to the legalization of same-sex parents.

  23. George Nicholls

    Keep marriage as one man and one woman. Why else is there male and female? I accept I don’t understand the sexual attraction between same gender people, but please call these relationships something other than marriage, for marriage is the bond in which children can be born. Nothing other union can do this and create human life for future generations.

  24. Bill Towie

    I agree 100%

  25. John and Jean Pearson

    We believe that marriage is between a man and a woman

  26. Robert Worthington

    Marriage is the UNION of one man and one woman in such a way as is not possible for same sex couples, for the growth of the family which is the basis of society. It must be acknowledged and honoured by the society and kept sacred and inviolate in order that the nation should stand in integrity.
    Because of the shortcomings found in humanity – both genders – marriage must be protected, nurtured encouraged and in all cases of failure healed where possible.
    To change the NATURE of marriage is impossible. To change the DEFINITION of marriage is to live in denial of the truth and will bring only disorder and moral, social, and economic decay in the whole fabric of society.
    Robert S Worthington.

    • Maria

      Too True!
      God Bless and let us all pray to God and ask the saints to intercede for this world.

  27. Michael

    What harm does it do? In all honesty I get accused of being homophobic all the time yet I think its wrong to punish people for being gay.

    Nobody gets a choice whether they are gay or not but why can’t they live a normal life like everyone else?

    Getting married doesn’t change any social landscape nonsense. It is just a ring on the finger and a recognition of a love between two people. A ring is a vow of commitment and doesn’t always mean children. Not that being gay means you shouldn’t be allowed to have children but thats a different issue.

    If people want to argue on religious grounds then how come non church people are allowed to get married? I don’t go to church so how come my marriage is accepted yet a gay person isn’t?

    • Annonamous

      I agree totally with you Michael..

    • Maria

      SHOW ME ONE PERSON WHO IS BORN GAY!!! Ask somebody you know say a girl who is homo if she has like girls ever since she was a child!
      First of all marriage is clearly between a man and a woman and it is not a real marriage (not recognised as a marriage ) if children aren’t involved. I don’t mean if they can’t have children. I mean if they (one of the genders chooses) not to have children then it is NOT EVEN A TRUE MARRIAGE. So the fact that homosexuals can’t even have children explains the fact that going through that ceremony is not a real marriage. In fact, homosexuality is wrong in God’s eyes and therefore it is definitely WRONG.
      In the Bible, St. Paul states 1 Corinithians 6: 9, it states: ‘Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.’
      So it can be seen that God commands us against these things. Although they might not be abel to help their feelings, they should not practice homosexuality…God wants us to turn to him and ask him for forgiveness…Ahhh if only people knew how much God loves them, they would not wish to hurt him by doing this or breaking His law. We must turn and ask Him for mercy and forgiveness and love Him above all things and love one another as ourselves…Pray for them…we are not to be unking to homosexuals and all the other people mentioned but to point out that what they are doing is wrong. Jesus Christ appeared to a saint by the name of St. Faustina and told her of His great mercy for the world…He told her that the hour of great mercy for the world is at 3:00. Jesus promised that anybody who said the Chaplet of Divine Mercy with trust and perseverance, they would not go to Hell…I implore all of you to go to http://www.ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/dmmap.htm and learn the chaplet of mercy for yourselves and also learn about the image. You will find it also on the website. Jesus told St. Faustina that ‘I promise that the soul that will venerate this image will not perish. I also promise victory over its enemies already here on earth, especially at the hour of death. I myself will defend it as My own glory. (Diary 48) Jesus, however, wants us to trust in Him and perform works of mercy such as by our actions, prayers and words.
      God Bless you all and say a prayer for me…especially ask the Virgin Mary and all the saints to intercede for us.
      God Bless you all

      • Maria

        It’s actually Corinthians 6: 9-10

      • Maria

        In relation to the above comment,
        It is importan that we trust in Jesus and accompany this by works of mercy such ad by prayer, word or action!

      • Pierced

        Your quote from Paul to the corinthians basically says no christian I have ever encounted will go to heaven. So what’s your point?

    • David

      You have all the human rights of a normal person and live a normal life like us Except, you can’t name your relationship, with your same sex partner, “marriage”. What harm does it do to you? Why do you think it is a punishment?

      • Frank Dyson

        Good question David. Actually I think the majority of people who oppose same sex unions being called “marriage” would be inclined to be supportive of these people in their quest for legally recognized relationships if they gave up the fight for “marriage” and came up with a different definition for their relationship. It would seem to me that their cause would be more accepted if they did this.

    • David

      Same sex marriage is a sin against God, so it will not get any blessing from God, as well as from the Church.

    • Sharon

      Michael & Annonamous, stop being so naive. The harm is in the crumbling down of society. It’s a case of fighting an argument just to win, when you don’t even care about the outcome. 2% of australia are gay. In Sweden only 2% of the entire gay population actually got married when it was legalized. So in australia, if we were to change the law, it would be for a maximum of 0.04% of our population. Ridiculous.

  28. Virginia

    Marriage is a covenant between man and woman

  29. Nev and Sue Reece

    Marriage is the total commitment a man and a woman with the choice to procreate through sexual union. Couples of the the same sex do not have this choice and can never call their relationship, no matter how loving and committed, a marriage in the true sense of the word.

  30. Heather

    I strongly believe that any person should have the right to be married. Who gives anybody the right to discriminate against a person on the basis of their sexual preference? In fact, to discriminate in any other way is illegal – why should marriage be any different? A gay couple getting married does not make any difference to the heterosexual marriages that happen every day. It doesn’t degrade families – families manage to degrade or strengthen themselves just fine regardless. It doesn’t make anybody gay who wasn’t already. And it most certainly doesn’t cause any form of discrimination against heterosexual couples.

    Open your mind a little, put yourself in the shoes of a person who wants the world and the law to recognise, honor and celebrate their love as being as valid as any other.

    • Mary Barnes

      Any adult in Australia is already allowed to get married. There is no discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. What the minority is asking for is change of definition of marriage. De facto relationships are called such, same sex relationships are called such, and marriage relationships are called such. I don’t have the right to call myself a Moslem without agreeing with the teachings of Islam. I shouldn’t be allowed to call myself married unless I agree to what marriage is. Changing the definition of marriage to include other types of relationships is infringing the rights of those who committed to what is constitutionally defined as marriage.

      • Michael Sarafian

        I totally agree. People who disagree with changing the definition of marriage are not discriminating in any way. We just don’t want the definition of marriage to change because it not only changes it for gay couples, but also to those already married and we should have a say in what the definition of marriage is and what we agreed to when we made that commitment. Gay couples are free to live their life the way they want to, but changing the definition of marriage is taking our rights away and that is not right.

        • Kenneth Ferguson

          Hi,
          just a short note to say I agree totatly with your comments.
          Keep up the good work.
          Ken.

      • Antoinette

        I totally agree

      • Jan White

        Well said. I totally agree

    • Frank Burgess

      Heather, How fortunate we all are to live here in a democratic society, where we can all express our opinions. Take care when you support tampering with society strongholds that there is not a hidden agenda attached to the suggested alteration. Marriage between consenting males & females is one of the last bastions supporting worldwide normality, which “new age” and now “green” activists, aided by the so called “gay” lobby, are trying to break down.
      If they achieve their objective, what will be their next target? You can rest assured there is another target in the pipeline, what will it be?
      Society must have guidelines, it cannot bend to every wish & whim of minority groups because of their “squeaky wheel” attitude of constant anti-social action. If sections of society choose to live “outside the square” they have to accept the conditions attached to that decision. The major group following accepted normal behavior must make the decisions, others have to accept the rules laid down. Such is life!

      • Pierced

        Why don’t we stone fornicators any more or burn heretics at the steak. The hard work of athiests is the answer. Not the compassion of sheep! (And yes, I realise the odd christian has joined in the campaign in spite of their religion. In the same way some christians are supporting marriage equality)

    • Lisa

      Just dont call it ” marriage ” it is not!

  31. Frances Elizabeth Miller

    The ANNOTATED CONSTITUTION of the AUSTRALIA COMMONWEALTH Page 608, Section 51. (xxi) Marriage 200: states :-
    “MARRIAGE IS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN……”
    To be continually attempting to over ride our Constitution is a betrayal of your people. The most recent example of such a process is demonstrated through C.H.O.G.M. ‘s Eminent Persons Group report, which according to Steve Pennell’s article in The Weekend West 22 Oct 2011 confronts the Commonwealth with “…a push to overhaul three quarters of its member states..”
    Proverbs 14: 34 “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” (The Bible)

    • Annonamous

      Laws are changed all the time… and so is the bible.

      • Lisa

        The Bible was and is and always will be the perfect word of God and will me er change. You are incorrect on that one.

        • Lisa

          **NEVER

          • Chris

            In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, which was posted on the Internet.

            Dear Dr. Laura: Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination …. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
            1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
            2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
            3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness -Lev15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
            4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord -Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
            5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
            6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexual ity. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
            7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
            8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
            9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
            10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/po lyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

            I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.

            Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

            Your adoring fan,
            James M Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

        • Abraham

          Thanks Lisa.Altogether perfect.God’s ways always stands perfect

      • Frank Dyson

        I concur that laws are often changed, but for a clear reason. There is no need or reason to change the definition of marriage. A different term to define same sex unions would serve the purpose well and be a lot less disturbing to the rest of society.

    • Lucille

      …between a man and a woman FOR LIFE. What part of For Life do you not understand. As far as the bible is concerned it is a fairy tale, and it is also in the constitution that there is a difference between church and state. I propose that we do adhere to the marriage act as it stands, and buggar up all those who have been married and divorced, and married and divorced. That would be a great circus.

      • Dorothy Marks

        Dorothy Marks says”I don’t support Same Sex Marrage because I think that it is neither healthy nor perminent. Let’s not encourage unhealthy relationships.

  32. J

    The word “anthropological” is used above… as well as the ramifications of marriage for everyone, not just controlled by a small mainly religious minority.

    If the anthropology of marriage was actually looked into, there are a number of societies (albeit quite small and unusual) that have strange marriage habits. Marriage for years could be between one man and alot of women (and still takes place in areas of the globe). In a couple of societies it has been between one woman and a few men. In a strange Brazilian society it can be between 2 men and 2 women- all equal partners.

    If one decides that marriage is between a man and a woman, then thats totally fine, marry a man or a woman! If one thinks they should marry whom they love, rather than base it on a constructed gender-rolled norm, then allow that.

  33. Grant Ingham

    We both agree that this law should not be passed.

    • dean watson

      what is special about marriage between a man and woman
      (1) it is natural, one of each sex is needed for reproduction.
      (2) it is moral, A historically accepted worldwide practice.
      I often hear the argument that if 2 people love each other, they should be allowed to marry. I have no problem with anyone forming a relationship of union, but call it something else, because it is not a marriage. we could argue that a man and his son could marry, if they are of age. But this is not moral, in fact we have laws against it (incest) Love is not enough, It fails the test of morality. Where does it stop? thats my question. I don’t believe that I am uninformed or that I am a bigot. I just have an opinion. Marriage is a unique arrangement that we should protect

  34. VJ Duffield

    I believe we should not change the definition of marriage from being one woman and one man joined together in marriage. I think it is very simple to see the truth of a one man one woman marriage as being the correct definition of marriage. Firstly for us to exist and populate you can only have one man and one woman in marriage to do that. Secondly in the same sex relationships they still take on the role of one becomes soft and feminine, while the other takes on the role of strength and menlike characteristics, which still proves to me that from the beginning of mankind, is the design for mankind. Nature also proves this fact, I don’t believe we came from animals, but they do not confuse things.

  35. Phil

    i believe that marriage should be between man and women as god intended.
    As for Gillard, we never voted her in, we voted Kevin in, and as for Gillards promises, i believe she said that there wouldn’t be a carbon tax while she was the leader of the Labor party, hmmmmmmmmmmm, don’t look know but there is going to be same sex marriage in this country, even though we were yet again PROMISED there wouldn’t be.
    Politicians will say anything to get a vote and then blame there back flip on the pressure of the people. God help us all.

    • Joy

      Dear Phil, The Prime Minister Ms.Julia Gillard stood firm on her stance concerning marriage. This was no easy assignment in her position of leader of the Labor Party and the pressure of the Greens.
      As Prime Minister she was able to ensure a Labor conscience vote when the bill is voted on. This I believe is a mark of true leadership. I am proud of our Prime Minister. I believe in her ability to lead this nation, and I also believe that because of her unyielding position on keeping the marriage act as is, those in the Labor Party who don’t agree with same sex marriage will vote against it, and the same sex changes will be defeated again. I was a Marriage Celebrant and believe the Marriage Act shouldn’t be tampered with, or our Australian Constitution for that matter. It is just too important.

  36. Penny and Pat Lakey

    We believe that the definition of marriage should remain between a man and a woman. This is not discrimination. If this changes the god given age old institution will be discriminated against.Heterosexuals need a voice also. Civil unions are available for all. Whatever the union let their be love!
    If you change the marriage law,we will not be voting labor in the future.

    • Darren Blackburn

      I have to totally agree – Marriage must remain between a man and a women and nothing else. If a same-sex couple want to go down this path, then it should be called a Civil union. If the present government changes this, they will never, ever get my vote and any candidate either Labor, Greens or Independents will be placed last on my voting slip.

      • Darren Blackburn

        I still agree with a lot of comments made that the definition of marriage is between a man and a women and should remain so. If a same-sex couple wish to go down this path, then it should be defined as a Civil union.

        • Dorothy Mathieson

          Amen. He instituted the union from the very beginning. It has been that way for centuries. Why should a minority change what has been the majority for all of time as we know it.

        • Lisa

          Amen to that

  37. Deborah Hoad

    I absolutely disagree with the reasoning and goals of this website. Marriage equality is long overdue. All of the same ignorant, illogical arguments being made about same sex marriage now were made about inter-racial marriage 50-60 years ago and they have been proven ludicrous. Similarly, marriage equality has not had any of the predicted negative impacts in countries where it has been introduced. What it might change though, is the attitudes of intolerance and bigotry we see in a minority of Australians towards gays and lesbians and their children.

    As to the religious aspects of this issue, marriage was a social contract long before it was a religious one and any religious meaning attached to it should be observed outside of the civil law. Changing the civil law will not (and should not) in any way alter the ability of churches (which are voluntary organisations) to define marriage for their own purposes as they choose.

    The fact is that these couples and their children are already part of our communities. Refusing to give them marriage equality in the law is an attempt to render them invisible in our society and deny them rights that all families should have. Civil unions are not enough. I support marriage equality and believe that the Marriage Act should be changed so that the definition of marriage is for ‘two consenting adults’ and not include the qualification that they be ‘one man and one woman’.

    • Lisa

      You Are not equal to what the meaning of marriage is! Fact not discrimination! You are just a bully and ignorant At that. Stop trying to manipulate society.

    • Joy

      Deborah Hoad,
      Why imply marriage is the only way homosexual people can be recognised as couples, equal in our society? Are you inferring that those of us who are heterosexual but are de-facto and not married are in some way inferior, invisible, or unequal?

    • Sharon

      Deborah, Yes, and marriage was a social contract between males and females.

  38. Glenda

    Marriange is between a man and a woman

  39. Graeme Bradford

    I strongly believe that marriage should only be considered marriage when it is between a man and a woman.

  40. Graeme Bradford

    It is important that marriage is between a man and a woman and I am convinced that is the conviction of the overwhelming majority of Australians.

  41. Jennifer Kift

    I believe as did my parents and grandparents, that marraige is a union between a man and a woman. It is to be a place of love sharing and saftey for the children and the parents. It is designed as a union between two people man, who is able to father the children and the woman who has the ability to provide a place for babies to grow, and be born. It is the natural way it has been since time began. To change this is against nature, the Male of the species is unable to carry children, as is the female unable to provide the genetic material to create a new life form.
    Leave it alone, it will break down our society and as in years past nations have crumbled and died out , when the basic structure of our lives are are made. Learn from the past.

  42. David & Margaret Caldwell

    Marriage is between a man and a woman.

    David & Margaret Caldwell

  43. Salome Candy

    I believe that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. As adults we need to think about what foundation we are establishing for future generations. Males can not reproduce together, so is the same for females… It is a simple truth of natural relationships for the foundation of marriage… I am fully aware of not discriminating those who have sexual tenancies but this shouldn’t change our basic law for marriage between a man and a woman.

  44. Mike and Dora Meyer

    Marriage is between man and women only

  45. Christine Patrech

    I fully agree with Lois Maynard. I couldn’t have expressed it any better.
    Because the family unit is God’s basic building block for human society Satan is trying every trick in the book to tear it down. We need to be firm and build our families on His foundation.

  46. Conrad

    I strongly believe marriage is between two people who love each other.

  47. Amanda ferguson

    Why does a majority group now feel like it has no voice? Disagreeing with same sex marriage is not descrimination, it’s being realistic. Marriage is sacred and needs to stay between a man and a woman. If this gets passes, what’s to say that legalising polygamy isn’t next…? Let’s wait till the next election… I believe the greens got so many votes only because of the lack of alternatives. If that’s not the case with the next election we will easily be able to see that majority of Australians don’t want this type of change to our laws!

  48. Katrina Kelly

    I totally disagree, I believe that someone’s gender should not matter in marriage, let alone parenting. Rather then excluding people from marriage, Australia should be focusing on building strong, loving and committed relationships. I am unlikely to persuade many on this issue, but as person in a heterosexual relationship with wonderful child, I strongly believe that as long as marriage is taken seriously by both partners it should be everyones right.

    • Sharon

      Katrina, to knowingly and deliberately deny a child to a mother or father is, in my opinion, abuse. To say that genders do not matter is to say that we are all the same, when, clearly, males and females are very different, each playing a specific and important role in society, and in families.

  49. Maria Lawson

    I am concerned about the current issues and the affect gay marriage will have on children. Today children are bamboosled with so much media and social opinion and advertising pumped into their minds to increase desire and tempting them to access defiling material. Today they face so, so many choices and decisions to make, and I wonder if they have enough space and time to just be innocent children exposed to a wholesome life with truth, peace and security. Today they face much more than we ever did and it is not fair to them because I remember as a child navigating the path to life took decernment and careful note of the voice of my conscience to keep out of trouble and make favourable choices that would bless my life. It was not easy, even with a good upbringing and I was not exposed to a lot of the junk out there now.
    With all the madness in the world today that children are exposed to, life is confusing enough for them, without having 3 parents and the large assortment of ramifications involved therein. What if the gay couple decide to end their commitment, and enter another, then we have more implications because more parties are involved contributing to more confusion. Is this fair to children? I think not. Legalising same sex marriage, does not make it right, but would mean the beginning of a mirky slippery slide into further problems that the children of this nation do not need. They need protection, and so do all the precious unborn babies. Who will speak for the defenseless who do not have a voice, if we do not raise alarm bells now? Let us not sink into apathy and lethargy when urgency requires effective action and a strong stance on this issue.
    This is not hate mail as I do not hate homosexuals. We have social boundaries and laws for a reason and the reason is protection and in this case it is protection for children.

    • Annonamous

      There isn’t alot of difference between a gay relationship and a straight one.. we have all the same problems relationship wise as straight couples. Basically you are saying we are unfit to be parents just because of how our bodies made us. How GOD has made us.. please rethink your statement. Or walk a day or 5 in our shoes as you obviously have no clue what it’s like or what we are like.

  50. DC

    My 9 year-old niece surprised us all by expressing an opinion about a TV report showing a man ‘marrying’ another man; “That’s silly!” she exclaimed. Apparently that makes her ‘homophobic’, whatever that means.

  51. Elaine Sim

    No – I do not support same sex marriages. There is a reason why it takes a man and woman to come together, start a family and have kids. Same sex relationships, distort reality, and provide our future generations with a totally distorted view of love, marriage, family and relationships. Please do not allow this to happen here in Australia.

  52. Harriet

    I believe Australia should allow Same Sex Marriages and I don’t believe its anyone else right or business to say otherwise. I believe marriage is all about true love no matter what sex you are. Everyone has a right to marry their love of their life. Same Sex Marriages are not normal? What is normal is this world?

    • Annonamous

      that is completely true.. what is normal? Why does NORMAL have to be defined? Who is being hurt if a man loves another man or a woman loves another woman and wants to show their undying love to each other in a sanctum called Marriage… Why does religion have to OWN the word Marriage? Or why do they think they do OWN it ?

  53. Dorothy Mathieson

    I also strongly believe that marriage is between man and woman. Children need both parents to be, one a male and one a female, as both partners contribute to the upbringing of the child. I have been a single mum and I know my children missed out on what the biological father needed to contribute to their upbringing. A female cannot teach the boys only what dad can teach them. In the same ways, girls need their mum, as a dad cannot teach them what only a mum can teach.

    • Robyn

      I totally agree, having been a single mother for ten years and now remarried. I know and have watched the benefits of having both male and female raising children together!!! And also have watched the effects on the children missing out on the vital influence that an absent parent has!!!!!! We owe it to our children to provide the ultimate best for them and their future to have a secure environment from one male one female leadership in our homes of Australia especially in our modern messed up society. Australian men & women are awesome people who need to STAND UP & be amazing examples of husband & wife to create solid platform/foundation for our beloved children & society!!!!

  54. Mari

    The rights of the “noisy” minority ought not to over-ride the rights of the majority in this country. I am proud to be who I am and being married (to someone of the opposite sex) is part of what defines who I am. Why is it so unreasonable that we ask gays and lesbians to define, name and then be proud of their own “version” of lifelong committment? It certainly does not fit within the definition of “marriage”! Let’s not forget that a gay/lesbian relationship is different from a man/woman relationship, so why not define it as it’s own special union and give it it’s own name. I support everybody’s right to commit to a lifelong partner, regardless of their sexuality – but I enjoy what it means to be “married” , which is as a woman and a man. No-one is denying lesbians and homosexuals the right to live as “couples”, just call their union something else, other than “marriage”, which it is certainly not, and let me (us) keep what is so very precious to us.

    • Annonamous

      your ‘majority’ is being quickly becoming the Minority Mari..

  55. Jude Fernandes

    Please preserve the context that a marriage is a fruitful union between male and female for the purpose of producing offspring within a legal framework designed to protect and nurture moral behaviour now and for the future.
    It is a serious committment made by a man and woman to define, commit & selflessly work towards propagating and sustaining new life for a future generation, especially in these troubled times where it is becoming ever more difficult to sustain relationships given the present nature of existance.
    Please do not contaminate this sacred process which has taken centuries to build and millions of lives to accomplish, with your selfish needs and ideas capitalising on the power of the internet and the strength of numbers.
    You will only have yourself to thank for the downfall of human civilisation.

  56. Chrissie

    The definition in Australia of marriage being “between a man and a woman” has only existed since being introduced by John Howard in 2004.

    I would question how allowing same sex marriage would affect anyone other than the same sex couples who would like to get married. Will it affect you, your life, your marriage?

    It also should not affect the church’s right to choose who they will or will not marry, since they already have the freedom to marry only those of their faith.

    • Gwen

      Yes it will affect me and my children. Already in California schools are being legally required to teach homosexuality to children as young as 9yo. This is just the next step. It may now be about rights, but it’s further ramifications is to indoctrinate our children without our consent.

      • Beth

        You are aware that “teaching homosexuality” is telling them it exists, right? Probably along the lines of “Sometimes a man loves a woman (heterosexual), and sometimes a woman loves a woman (homosexual), and sometimes a man loves a man (homosexual), and sometimes a man loves a woman or a man (bisexual) and sometimes they don’t fall in love with anyone at all! (asexual)” and so on an so forth. They’re not, you know, showing porn or anything.

        Also, you actually can’t indoctrinate someone into a sexuality. It’s inborn, not chosen.

        (seriously, if the reason you’re against people getting equal rights is “One day they might do some nebulous thing that could be bad”…you need to think about why you’re against people having fair rights.

        • Theresa

          That is ridiculous Beth. If you are born gay that means there is a gene that determines our sexuality. Well Prove IT! There isnt a scientist in the world who can prove this, the media first ran with the story that they are born that way, and now everyone has picked it up. Just a tip,…the media aren’t scientist. Look up genetic scientists, they give there findings to the media saying that sexuality is a social factor and the media changes their reports to say, “this scientist says they can’t prove that your not born gay”, however they spin it,….the scientists CAN NOT FIND A SEXUALITY GENE. Did it ever occur to you that if you are saying our sexuality is genetic,..that means paedophiles are born that way also and cant help what they do, so they are born a deviant without choice, well that would change the whole court system. And what about bi-sexuals,..is that gene just confused? Scientist in Canada did research on set of twins, who have identical genes, it was found that there were some couples where one was gay and the other straight. How do you explain that with the ‘born that way theory’. And the explanation in the gay community would be, that person is gay they just dont know it yet. how judgemental is that? it is a choice,…its just they dont want to own that decision. I hear alot of ‘its not my fault, I was born that way’. Thats an easy way out to say I have no choice. Saying it isnt a choice, is comforting to the minority but its an utter lie. Understand take ownership for your choices, stop blaming it on something or someone else. If your born that way,…Prove it!

          • AMF

            Theresa, you are correct that there is no simplistic ‘gay gene’ or gay brain, or any clear biological cause; there is likely to be genetic vulnerability worked on by environmental / psychodynamic factors, as with other complex human conditions. But AMF would not agree at all that one’s sexual orientation is a choice; the roots of the same-sex attraction that people feel are far too deep for conscious control in most cases. For example, if it arises from the classic pattern (see Bieber et al) of the hostile or distant father and dominant enmeshing mother, the consequent resistance a boy finds to identifying as ‘male’ (like Dad) develops way back in the formative years, and later same-sex attraction is in no way a choice. So while I understand your emphasis on taking responsibility for one’s actions – and perhaps implying, correctly, that there are may long-term gays who do in fact change and live a s married men and women with children – it is not true of fair to say a gay person ‘chooses’ their orientation (in most cases at least).

      • Annonamous

        If you haven’t got the hint already… it’s not a choice to be gay.. Please listen.. NOT A CHOICE… it’s ingrained in people. Like being straight it. Why if schools are letting kids know about it do you think they are going to turn out gay? are you scared that your kids might be gay. Will you disown them if they are ? why should it bother you. If your kids are happy then isn’t that a good thing? Their bodies will let them know if they are gay or not… Definately NOT a CHOICE !!

        • Antoinette

          This is about what is true and what is false. People being born gay is a lie from the pitt of hell. The devil comes to kill, steal and destroy. He is determined to plant confusion in people as early as he can. This can even be in hetrosexual relationships where there is abuse etc. The lies that affect our identity, that we are anything less than precious and valuable children of God… all of us… Gays just the same. Truth is so important… and I think it’s interesting that this debate is making people think about truth. The reason i’m so passionate about this is because I think legalising gay marriage just means more confusion in an already confused world. Confusion arrises when truth is weak!
          We need to stand up for the truth. And yes we need to LOVE everyone… which is equally important as truth. But loving people doesn’t mean agreeing with them. We can love them by acknowledging them as equal children of God… precious and valuable. Truth can’t be taken out of love, even in a hetrosexual relationship. Only the TRUTH can set us free!!!

        • Tina

          Its a choice. I don’t like it when people say otherwise because its like gays are ashamed or are looking for an excuse for what they are doing. To say “oh, it’s not my fault that I’m gay” or “I was born gay” just seems weak. Own it. Why deny what you want to do with your life? But in saying that it is a choice, this also means that people can be swayed to change their minds about their sexual orientation. Just saying.

          With regards to redefining marriage, leave it as it is. Technically, marriage was God’s permission to: 1) join a man and a woman together, and 2) produce children from that union. And even though we are talking about a definition in Australian law, it does affect us socially. We have one side that wants marriage defined as a man and a woman. We have another side that wants official acknowledgement for their relationship. My bias is don’t redefine marriage.

    • Russ Davidson

      Chrissie

      You are sadly missinformed if you think that John Howard was the first to define marraige.
      Marriage was ordained by God at the creation of men and women and has been the coheisive force that has given you life. God also gave us a free will to exescise responsibly and to follow the commandments He laid down. There is nothing new, 9Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed because God saw rampant homosexuality as an abomonation). All ethnic societies have recognised that marraige between a man and women is the natural outworking of creation and that homosexual relationships run counter to the wellbeing of mankind.

    • John L.

      Marriage has always between a man and a woman. any efforts by persons who for any reason however do not agree generally are welcome to do so but you have no right to interfere with this law regardless of what your opinions may be in fact there is a suspicion of an ulterior motive behind your message, why all of sudden must the law be changed for the benefit of a few just like you.???

    • Dennis

      The minority groups such as Gay lobby try to make us who disagree with same sex marriage guilty, they tell us that we hate them or perpetrate hatred towards them or homophobic, none of that is true. Homosexuals who want to marry cant produce children by having anal sex which is unnatural and does nothing to increase the population, who knows what lesbians do, that also cannot produce children. In short it is unnatural and against Gods word “The Bible”. You can rest assure that we all will have to stand before God one day to give account for all our actions. May God be gracious to you and draw you to himself before that day.

  57. christina

    marriage should be about love, not about gender. if you dont want to marry a member of the same sex, dont marry a member of the same sex. but dont stand between two people who love each other just because your parents raised you to be a bigot.

  58. Don Humphrey

    By all means, legitimise the “union” between homosexual couples but please don’t call it marriage.

  59. Robyn P

    Sorry but I think marriage can be for all – same sex couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. However, I don’t believe same sex couples should have children – if you choose or your biology chooses an attraction to the same sex then biologically you cannot conceive. You can’t have it both ways.

  60. Don May

    Marriage is between a man and a woman, If same sex couples wish to commit themselves to each other, let it be called something else other than marriage.

    Marriage between a man and a woman has been ordained by God and is therefore the best way to raise a family, ie a child needs both biological parents to help prepare for their own adulthood.

  61. Maureen Perry

    Let the Goverment keep their promise—Not to change the deffination of marriage

  62. Edwin & Angeline

    We strongly believe that the Marriage Act should remain as it is, marriage should be between a man and a woman.

  63. LG

    I have a very close family friend who has been in a homosexual relationship for some years now and both he and his partner don’t support same sex marriage. Not all homosexuals do. Some strongly believe there should be no change to the marriage act.

  64. Terri

    Marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

  65. Rodney

    It is interesting that one of the findings from the Government Report “To Have and to Hold” back in 1986 was that stable father-mother marriages were the most beneficial to children and to society. The report even provided economic value to stable marriages. However, it seems as though our recent government has been neglecting this advice with its allowances for the alternative de facto relationships and now the conversation on same-sex relationships.
    Unfortunately, our society (since the Enlightenment) rejects age and wisdom (this includes lessons from history) preferring instead our new thinking.

  66. Terry Lavelle

    The argument is often put in terms of what same sex couples are being denied. It misses the point that to redefine the meaning of marriage denies heterosexual couples the continuation of traditional marriage. My wife and I entered into a “union of one woman and one man, voluntarily entered into for life”. If the meaning of marriage is changed what is the nature of our agreement now? Is every married couple in Australia to have their relationship redefined?
    If same sex relationships are given legal recognition it should not be on the same terms as traditional marriage. There is a fundamental difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Why pretend otherwise by redefining an institution that many Australians hold sacred?

    • Dorothy Mathieson

      Yes, I also agree that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

    • heather dudley

      I also believe that marriage should remain between one man and one woman. That is what marriage IS. Other relationships do exist and each has a right to his/her own beliefs, but partnerships, if so desired outside of marriage should remain just that! Partnerships with whatever commitments and love exists between them.

      • Kenneth Ferguson

        Hi Heather,
        a view point I 100% agree with. Keep up the good work.
        Kindest regards,
        Ken.

  67. Alison

    What you fail to consider is that Marriage in Australia is NOT a religious institution, it is a GOVERNMENT ACT therefore should not take in to consideration any religious beliefs. “Marriage” existed well before religion was invented/discovered.
    My marriage was performed by a Civil Celebrant without any mention of religion, nor is there any religion in our daily lives or the lives of our child. Yet, we were allowed to marry and our marriage is legally recognised in Australia. Why should we be allowed to marry and not a same sex couple?

  68. Vanessa McGregor

    I believe the true and complete definition of marriage is between one man and one women. While not all married couples either have children or are able to do so, most marriages do include children. All children where ever possible should have both parental role models. All chn need a mother and father. While some marriages fail no one deliberately intended to have their chn. Raised without the mother or father figures. In a homosexual marriage, family laws will change to accommodate them and they will be raising chn deliberately and intentionaly without either mother or father. This is not right and the chn do not have a voice in this. Marriage I believe should be the one relationship that is set aside for heterosexual couples only.

  69. Daniel

    Marriage constitutes a form of sexuality in its own right, forming the basis for a distinct expression of sexual identity.

    Legally redefining a homosexual union (or any other non-marriage relationship) as marriage does not make it marriage. Doing so only leads to people in non-marriage relationships to claim they’re married because the law says so, while in reality they remain fornicators and not married at all.

    The discourse to ‘end marriage-discrimination’ or promote ‘marriage-equality’ vilifies marriage by refusing to recognise the legitimacy of marriage as distinct from fornication. It is an absurd, pushy and incredibly shallow approach to a complex set of deep ethical issues.

    The power to make legislation does not constitute the right to meddle in these matters.

    • Antoinette

      I totally agree with your comment. They make a lot of noise and the pressure to agree with them is huge for not just our young people but everyone. They believe what they are doing and thinking is right. They don’t acknowledge that what they are doing is not natural instead they would feel justified if everyone agreed with them. But we need to stand up for what is true and right, there is a time for peace and a time for war… this is our time to stand up for the sake of what’s best for humanity and our precious children.

  70. Michael Sarafian

    Gays have just as much rights as anyone else in this country . . . they can go where ever they want, they can do whatever they want, there isn’t any segregation in society between gay people or couples and anyone else, but what right do they or anyone else have to change the definition of marriage. Marriage is a union between a man and a women and has been for centuries, legally, culturally and religiously. For a minority group to expect the definition of marriage to be changed for all people is unfair and selfish. This does not have anything to do with discrimination, but a legal definition that has been established for thousands of years. It is not a fashion that should be changed just because a small group of people think it should be.

    • Kenneth Fergusin

      Hi Michael.
      Well put. I agree totatly. Marriage is a divine institution between a Man & a Woman.
      Keep up the good work.
      Kenneth Ferguson.

  71. Sarah

    For anyone concerned about children being raised by same sex parents, please take a minute to watch this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ

    Same sex marriage will not affect heterosexual marriages. It will not cause the ruin and degradation of society. People will be allowed to marry the person they love. Simple as that.

    And Jo, homosexuality is not a ‘lifestyle choice’. I certainly never made an active decision between gay or straight, or anywhere in between, and I’m sure you didn’t either. There’s your evidence.

  72. Terra

    For a country that has 1 in 3 marriages end in divorce that damages kids so bloody much, Australia fighting for the “sanctity of marriage” and “oh-no-think-of-the-kids!” is ridiculous.

  73. Megan Claridge

    sheesh what are you all afraid of? It really sounds like you’re homophobic and are worried about ‘catching’ it. Some of the best people I know are gay. It is not a decision they made. To say they can just decide to be straight is ridiculous. Explain how exactly a man marrying a man affects you. you just don’t like it.

    For thousands of years women had no rights to vote or have the job of their choosing. Didn’t make it right that it was like that. And we made that change for the better.

  74. Patrick Miller

    A galaxy poll from August 2011 indicates 53% of Australian Christians are for gay marriage.

    62% of Australians are for gay marriage.

    This is not a minority.

    You are the minority!

    I was raised a Catholic, and I find the ACL’s view prejudiced and discriminatory.

    It is as bad as denying women the vote, or Aboriginal people Australian citizenship.

    Jesus would have been saddened by your views.

    Kind Regards

    Patrick Miller

    • Faye

      Jesus actually applauds the stance taken to preserve the institution of Marriage as between male and female, as ordained by the Father from the beginning of human-kind on this earth. We live in a ‘fallen’ world of sin and corruption and people will do what people want to do (God gave us all freedom of choice), but “Marriage” is sacrosanct between male/female. If same sex couples feel they must be together in some formal manner, call it something specific to yourselves, because of itself is unable to procreate and therefore it is not “Marriage”.

    • Glen M

      I was never polled. Does that make me pro gay marriage? No. Yet I am not discriminatory toward anyone’s sexual choice. It is my understanding that all couples (same sex or defacto) already have the same rights as married couples.

      I believe you remove the right of children to be raised in what has through extensive study been proven to be the most helpful in developing children, healthy both emotionally and psychologically. Marriage is the voluntary union of a man and a woman for life exclusive of all others, 1961.

      Gay unions will never be marriage because it IS different, not edgy or new as it has existed throughout history as a minority of behaviour not race or ethnicity.
      To say you are discriminated as a group in the same light as the Aboriginal people of Australia or the African Americans, wow, you must be kidding.
      Never place a small counter-cultural group segregated by a behaviour to that of a people who were systematically genocided almost to the point of oblivion. This is not about rights, the is about guarding a legal distinction of what is considered marriage, by its definition exclusive of all others.

    • Paul White

      I’m sorry Patrick but you seem to be very misinformed about Jesus as He himself was saddened by Homosexuality. He died on a cross for the sin of the world and in the bible, (since that seems to be what you are alluding too) the act of homosexuality was indeed a sin and was punishable by death, and that of stoning so I don’t see how Jesus would be saddened by the responses of the majority of the people who a standing up for a God ordained institution which was given to Adam and then subsequently reiterated right the way through the bible. I think if you would like to comment on things about the bible and especially concerning Jesus you had better read and study it first! As far as the Christians who support Homosexuality I would challenge them to read their bible as well. If we accept homosexuality as the norm then Why did Jesus die on the cross it was futile….

    • Grant

      Patrick, I also saw a galaxy pole result takenin 2010 that had 87% majority result in favour of keeping the Marriage act as it stood, and was against the legalisation of same sex marriages.. You will be suprised that it was a pole taken in a pro- GLBT bar in Perth where over 300 people were poled on their views…

      If im not mistaken i also responded to the pole that you refer too, and i believe it was joyfully referred to by Bob Brown and the Greens… i just laughed!

      If you took a pole on this sight as an indicator of the general society and the churches acceptance of the proposed same sex marriage issue, well then it is clear you would be in a minority of less than 1%… So i would be questioning the supposed 53% that identified their support of same sex marriage that your galaxy poles refer too.

      Moral of this is ” Any Pole can be manipulated” to advance the views of an organization or political persuasion, but a National Refferendum of All people must be upheld.

    • Jack Langton

      Thank you! Glad to see someone talking sense!

  75. June

    If marriage is redefined so that it’s between any 2 consenting adults regardless of gender, will this mean 2 sisters or 2 brothers can marry, or a brother and sister, or perhaps a father and his daughter, or a son and his father? May a mother marry her son, or a daughter her mother? Should they also have the right to children within these relationships?

    I bet the majority of those who are pro gay “marriage”, and profess to be against any form of prejudice and discrimination would then be seeking to have marriage ‘re-re-re-re-defined’ to exclude these other ‘unnatural’ relationships between ‘two people who love each other”.

    Who will decide for the whole nation what is right and what is wrong?.. Gays..Polititians..Governments?? GOD help us!! It’s all too crazy for words!! Stop tampering with the laws of God and Nature and preserve traditional marriage, our future generations depend on it!

    • Margaret

      Well said.

    • Angelo

      I could not have put it better myself.
      Weel said

    • Kenneth Ferguson

      Hi June,
      a very informed comment. We are opening a can of worms by tampering with the institution of marriage as it now stands.
      Keep up the good work.
      Ken.

  76. Brett Davis

    Having lived next door with a same sex female couple with kids, I was often called upon to be the `man’ in their boys lives. I supported this couple and their boys. But I do not support redefining `marriage’ as a same sex couple. I personally watched how this was far from ideal, kids need a father and a mother. I say this equally to mixed sex couples!

  77. Ali

    It seems strange, at 22 years of age, to perhaps have to specify in the future that what I’ve had the for the past three years is an “opposite sex marriage”, rather than just marriage. While nobody is perfect, and thus no one marriage is perfect, I see no need to willfully dilute an institution that is part of the fabric of society. If homosexual persons wanted to be mainstream, they wouldn’t be homosexual. Call committed same sex relationships something else – that way you don’t have to worry about calling the eventual breakup “same sex divorce”.

  78. Alis Cocis

    I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I also agree that same-sex couples should have the right to a civil union or union/beneficiary legal rights, if this is what they choose. Research shows that same-sex couples have highly dysfunctional relationships, and will distort the relationship of long-lasting marriages, the nurturing relationship required for children and impact our society.

    If you don’t think same-sex marriages will impact our society, have a look at what is happening in other countries who have legalised same-sex marriages:

    Pedophiles Want Same Rights As Homosexuals:
    http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2011/October20/2081.html

    What same-sex “marriage” has done to Massachusetts
    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

    Let’s protect our society, future generations and our families.

  79. Aleesha

    Marriage should only be between a man and a woman, enough said!

  80. Aleesha

    Marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

  81. Ed Peucker

    We agree that marriage is between a man and a woman for the good of both and for the wider community. A homosexual relationship is not marriage. The marriage act must not be tampered with.

  82. Liza

    I feel very opppinionated about this argument since through high school homosexuality was alla round me, even now i have a best friend who has “gay” family member and i am completely fine with it.

    The thing that homosexuals need to despretly understand is that most of us heterosexuals are not in any way homophobes, me as a person would never discriminate against anyone, weather they are black, white, asian or even lesian, gay or bisexual. I find people of all races and sexual orinetations beautiful and yes i do feel that as a whole population we should all have equal rights to voice our oppinions and enjoy the sacred and beautiful joy that marriage brings but the thing that people with homosexual orientation need to see is that marriage has had its meaning for hundreds of centuries and we would like to keep it that way. God mean for marriage to be between a MAN and a WOMAN.

    I believe that “gays” have all of the other rights that “straight” people have and this shouldnt be made into such a sensitive and aggressive issue.
    As for the argument that children are born with a sexual orientation i feel that that is a load of rubbish. You cannot know what sex you are attracted to even if you are at the age of 18, for some people they are even confused at the age 30 and there is no scientific proof to prove otherwise and i feel that the selfish and dramatic adults are just using this as a pathetic excuse to try and bring sympathy to changing the marriage act by using our innocent children.

    If homosexuals want to get “married” then i guess that i feel that the best way to accomplish it will be to just make another form of “union” to suit the sexual orientation they chose beacause i am sorry but marriage will always be hostorically stated as “A union between a man and a woman” and no ammount of protesting and arguing will ever change that.

  83. keryn

    Marriage is the ultimate commitment and the coming together of one man and one woman in LOVE.
    The end.

  84. sherry007

    DONT TAMPER WITH IT. marrage is between a man and a women ONLY .God made it that way for our benefit and quality of life .If they are changed then it will only bring roth upon our nation.the consutation of this country was built on these values. .Dont brake your promise to this nation, like you have acused others of doing.

  85. Angie

    God created a woman for a man, not man for man,, or woman for woman. Humans has made up things that no wonder there’s a lot of unfortunate things happening in the world because we have violate what God has created. He said in his word that if people shall humble themselves and turn from their wicked ways I (GOD) WILL heal them and their land. Have we ever sit and think and consider what God intend for the human race that we live on this borrowed world of God. All humans and any living thing on this world have to remember that we are only here temporarily.We have to stand as well to be judged as well what we do on this world. The things that we love that so dear to our hearts are just borrowed, they are not ours at all. God through Jesus Christ his Son only let us use them to brighten our lives so we have to continue to ask our God to remind us of that. The breath of life that we have is a gift. When it’s taken away, we end there as well. I believe we are lost because we don’t believe and honor what God has promised. And he said in his word, that people are perish because of lack of knowledge. I honor marriage between a Man and a Woman, They make a Family. God Help Us All.

    • sharon

      Totally agree Ang.

  86. Pia Aarts

    Marriage is only between a man and a woman.
    This is how God created it to be,

  87. Andrew

    While we’re at it, lets remove ALL of the “discrimination” and redefine marriage to be “Marriage is the union between anyone or anything of any age entered into voluntarily or by force for any specified period of time”? LOL

  88. Rosemary

    Marriage is an institution designed by God. It is a sacred union between a male & female.
    If somebody wants to shack up with some one is up to them but don’t expect the rest of society to give up good Christian values.

  89. Rick

    Agree with the comments, but the horse has bolted on this issue. Just a matter of time before this is legislation is changed. By and large the general public has swallowed the propaganda being dished out by lobbyists and anyone who speaks otherwise is labelled a homophobe and looked upon strangely.
    Yet to see the general media/papers/TV present any balance on this issue and dont expect it to happen anytime soon.

  90. Dezso Incze

    Marriage is an institution designed by God. It is a sacred union between a male & female.
    Marriage is only between a man and a woman.
    This is how God created it to be,
    Dead for homosexuals!!!

  91. gwenda

    i work with children in schools and am saddened by what is becoming acceptible and the impact same sex relationships have on children give me the good old days anytime where children new what a mum and dad was

  92. Lynette

    I really think that the homosexual community need to remember why this subject even came up in the first place.

    Was this argument not raised because you want to ensure that by law your partner is recognised as your next of kin? is it not to ensure that in the event of death your partner can and will be the recipient of any insurance/superannuation etc and thus ensue that your partner does not have to take family members to court to receive what is rightfully theirs? Is it not to ensure that by law your partner and you are recognised by the governement as being in a life partnership and therefore to ensure the respect for your partner to that effect by governement bodies &/or organisations in general?

    We are not talking about marriage as marriage is a union created for the purpose of pro-creation, to ensure that any children born of a union is legally recognised; to ensure that children are not born ‘bastards’; marriage in essense was created for the future of humanity. We may be in the future where relationships are concerned and there are many out there that differ from the Man/women basis of marriage but that does not change what marriage is for. Yes in today’s world we do marry for love, we marry for money, we marry for convenience but these are not the reasons that anyone should really enter into such a committment. Marriage is essentially not really about the parties who are married, but the unit that they create. Thus it is not marriage that the homosexual community really desire, but government recognition of their sexual orientation, choice of life partner and their committment to a single person…

    Why confuse the issue by arguing about marriage and attempting to redefine the meaning – why not keep it simple and stay focused on the real goal and intentions behind it – there is no need for such claims of discrimination just because the word marriage is not being defined to what you want… No government should have the right to re-define the meaning of any word to suit themselves or anyone else, neither my nor your agenda.

    I whole heartedly support your quest for legal recognition, but I do not agree with the redefining of a word to suit you when there are other options you SHOULD be fighting for and putting your effort into.

  93. John Martin

    Same sex Marriage,Relationships,Is AGAINST NATURE.. Both God and nature teaches us , it takes a male and female to reproduce.There is that which is natural, and that which is un-natural..Marriage between Man and Women is Natural..

  94. rex balthazaar

    MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE _ BETWEEN A MAN AND WOMAN.
    nobody has the right or mandate to change the moral and actual meaning of this word – MARRIAGE ! Read the Dictionary please.
    friendship or relationship is very very different and should always remain so

  95. Ev. Hale

    Hi. I would rather obey Gods commandment on marriage, being between 1 man and 1 women. Then to follow mens desire which would lead us down the same road as Sodom and Gomorrah may God bless men with wisdom and guidence then to be a generation of confusion
    Ev H

  96. sharon

    It is amazing to me, that so many people have missed the point, marriage is based on the BIBLE, it actually states that a man should leave his father and mother and embrace his wife. They become one flesh. Which means to have children and multiply. No where does it say man and man (husband) or woman and woman (wife) to become one flesh. mmm If you dont like what I have said, to bad, the truth hurts. Marriage is an institution blessed from God, not man, it was made by him and this will not change regardless of all your ranting and raving. So if you are a practising christian and want homosexual relationship with the same sex or maybe your not a christian , why do you need to have the marriage act, are you not contradicting your values and what the Word of God says. Just a thought.

  97. t mourani

    I sincerely hope that the ALP conference will vote against any change to the marriage act. I will not, as a celebrant, perform a marriage ceremony between male/male or female/female.
    and strongly appose it.

  98. GranT Batchelor

    Too be married..
    Is Literally the coming together of Two into One with the Intent, Social Acceptance and Expectation that the Marriage should lead to the Birth and Rearing of Children born from that marriage.. Thus becoming “a Family “.

    The understanding of this action called “Marriage” in Australia is enshrined in the founding of the Australian Constitution from which “ALL Values, Understandings, Interpritations, Laws and Judgements ” are defined from a “Judeo-Christian Heritage”. Period.!
    This is A Foundation which dates back Some 6000 years.

    It is apon this ” Judeo-Christian” Foundation/Heritage that the ” Precidence, Princible, Understanding and Practice ” of Marriage that is Clearly Defined as being Solely between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN ( with the Intent that Such a Sole Union Shall not be Corrupted by another or others ), that forms the fabric of our society.

    Also it is to the acceptance of these Judeo-Christian Foundations that the Values Laws and society within in Australia has been IMPLIMENTED, and as such cannot be changed..

    To RE-DEFINE the Meaning of what Constitutes MARRIAGE is to DENY and REMOVE the Very Foundation of AUSTRALIA’S HERITAGE and the Very Susbstance of Australian Society. This then NULLIFIES All of Her Institutions, Values, Understandings, Interpritations, Laws and Judgements BY PROXY,and in doing so RE-ORIENTATES and RE-DEFINES the VERY NATURE of all the founding principles of ALL OF AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY, to the wants of Looby groups than form less than 2% of the population.

    This proposal is a MUCH BIGGER ISSUE than Just a few words in a definition of a union between two people called Marriage…

    At the HEART, It is the RE-DEFINING of Social understanding and PRACTICES as A WHOLE, DICTATED by EXTREEMIST LOBBY GROUPS, REPRESENTING A MINORTY SECTION OF SOCIETY at the COST of RE-WRITING and SEVERING of AUSTRALIA’S HERIATAGE and BIRTH-RITE, Counter to the ACCEPTANCE, UNDERSTANDING and WILL of the MAJORITY!

    It is the Sworn Duty OF elected polititians to UPHOLD the WILL OF THE MAJORITY of the PUBLIC in a DEMOCRACY.. To do anytthing else is a DICTATORSHIP and an ACT OF TREASON!

    I Believe it is the WILL of the MAJORITY of the AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE , and my PERSONAL WILL NOT TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, OR TO COMPROMISE THE FOUNDATION OF OUR HERITAGE.!

  99. Mrs Rhonda Monkhouse

    Marrage is between a Man and a Women to come together and multiply, reproduce. This intern brings forth FAMILY.
    NO Government should be able to alter the meaning of marriage just to suit a minority. It is what it is. HANDS OFF……

  100. Grant Batchelor

    Marriage in Australia is Founded in the the Judeo/Christian Heriatage (Dating back 6,000 years) This clearly defines marriage Solely as between a man and a woman… Not same sex or other gender…

    The understanding of marriage is distinguished on a matter of natural biology with the intent and purpose of producing children by birth and nurturing the development of family from that union.
    The union is descriptive on what it is and what it should be according to the Judeo/Christian heratage on which the Marriage Union is founded.

    This Heritage of Marriage is DEFINATE in its UNDERSTANDING AND FUNCTION, and cannot be interpereted as discrimination, and therefore cannot and should not be changed. To remove this foundation is to reject and abdicate from our Nations heritage, and step out of the constitutional bounds of Marriage within our society in Australia.

    It is not descrimination to opperate and keep marriage defined as what it clearly is.. You cannot redefine the definition and meaning of Marriage without removing that Judeo/Christian foundation, The peoples of Australia have accepted and undertaken Marriage under THIS UNDERSTANDING, being “SOLELY BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS” thoughout the history of our nation…. regardless of whether the people subscribed to an active faith.

    Any Changes to the DEFINITION of Marriage in Australia without a Full, Legal REFERENDUM to the People of Australia, denys their Constituinal right to define the Nations core values and morals, and thus annuls and makes illigitimate all marriages that have been forged on that Juedo /Christian foundation by Stealth!.

    Australia’s Laws also currently recognise other unions outside of marriage, (Such as Defacto relationships, and same sex partnerships) both within the provisions of taxation, the reciept and calculation of support benafits, superanuation, benificiarys of wills and estates etc, and the right to live without the threat of violence and persicution..

    The homosexual trans-gender community already have the benifits of these IN FULL within Australia, and as such should NOT IMPOSE Their Choices of union on the rest of society.

    Australia needs NOT and CANNOT recognise any such same sex or trans-gender OR PALIGAMOUS Partnerships or Marriages undertaken from ANY OTHER COUNTRY OR CULTURE as a Legal Marriage within Australia’s Borders, as it is an act of TREASON to Subvert Australian Law and Uphold any FORIEGN LAW ABOVE OUR OWN.

    To make any such established society, foundational and constitutuional changes Can Only be carried out by a LEGAL REFERENDUM OF THE PEOPLE of Australia, AND Not by a Ammendment Bill proposed before the House of Representatives, expressing either their OWN or Political Partys View on the matter that can be swayed by Minority Lobby groups (THAT IN THIS CASE REPRESENT LESS THAN 2% OF THE AUSTRALIAN POPULATION) with a Set Agender to REDEFINE the culture and life of the WHOLE NATION WITHOUT THEIR CONSULTATION, OR THEIR WILL TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE CORE VALUES, MORALS AND ACEPTED INSTITUTIONS WITHIN AUSTRALIACLEARLY HEARD..

    SUCH a PROFOUND SHIFT in the CULTURE, FOUNDATION and UNDERSTANDING on the ISSUE and DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE AND MARRIAGE UNIONS can only be carried out through a FULL AND LEGAL REFFERENDUM Expressing the CLEAR WILL OF THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE.

    Thank you.

    • Kenneth Ferguson

      Hi Grant,
      more power to the people. I agree totatly. Keep up the good work.
      Ken.

    • Margaret H.

      I agree with you about the the Referemdum. How can such a minority, however
      vocal, manage to legally get this bill to parliament.. Haw dare the Government
      decide for the people in a so called democratic country something that will personally affect all our lives. This should go to Referendum.. The repocussions of a yes vote will create all sorts of legal and other problems
      Margaret.

  101. Geo Mappil

    Enacting same sex law will just bring about how low we have become.
    This will lead to polygamy , marriage with a dog or any animal.

    NO NO it should never happen.

    Marriage should be a man to woman
    and nothing else.

  102. Emily

    ‘Marriage’ has its meaning is much more than just two in-loved people live together. Its has sacred commitment ordained by God between a man and a woman. It has important responsibilities to their family, community and country; particular to the future children/generations. The right modellings of manhood and womanhood, and further as parenthood, are the solids to help children to grow in a secure and healthy environment without confused. A healthy family structure/system is the very basic key to establish a strong and harmony society, I understand there are also many gay people are very kind and nice. We respect their sexual choices. However,we should stand up for protecting our children and family structure. Try our best to provide them the best ideal environment to grow. That is the true meaning of marriage and a family for.

    • Kenneth Ferguson

      Hi Emily,
      thankyou for your wise comment. Keep up the good work.
      Ken.

  103. Sarah

    I believe marriage can only be between a man & a woman.
    Homosexuals are man made; not made by God.
    I worry about the eroding away of moral social standards & children being given very poor
    such standards.
    Same sex marriage is yet another of these standards being eroded which we must not let
    happen. Do not be manipulated by others egos.
    We must keep marriage vows to between only one man & one woman.

  104. Diane Moller

    Marriage is ordained by God and is between a man and a woman.

  105. Rod Cameron

    The invention of marriage between a man and a woman came from God. I wonder if the people trying to change the laws believe in him or not. If there answer is no then we should not be having this discussion.

  106. Rose Devilliers

    marriage must be kept clean, it is between a man & a woman. Romans 1:27 The men leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful. God designed marriage. There should be no child involved.

    • Matthew Donker

      To Scott Shirbin,

      The difference between the black civil rights movement and the homosexual marriage activists is immense. First problem is that to call the entire percentage of society that is black “a few” is ludacris (no pun intended if you know your rappers). Homosexuals make up approximately 2% of Australia. I’d hazard a guess to say the percentage of ‘blacks’ is significantly higher, a lot more so in America. In that regard you’re comparing a minority to a whatever the smallest form of minority is… Secondly, one fights for the fair treatment of normal human beings, who are equal in EVERY way except skin colour. The other fights for the right for normal human beings (who supposedly can’t live a normal existence with their current rights) to alter a bond that has stood the test of time for as long as it has been recorded in history.

      Funny how the homosexual’s kick are kicking up a ruckus about the rest of society discriminating against them, saying how they don’t get a chance to voice their opinion, ‘woe is me’ etc. yet when the majority of society speaks up and reaffirms what traditions have uphold society for as long as we’ve at least been alive, we are told to sit back, shut up, go with the flow and watch society crumble. Sounds awfully hypocritical… Oh and if don’t think society is going to crumble if gay marriage is legalized, like the gay marriage activists put it, “it’s not a matter of if, but when” 😉

  107. Hoa Vu

    Marriage is something very sacred. As a Christian i know that marriage is ordained of God. Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. I feel sorry for those who have a feeling toward same gender. I know they chosse not to have that feeling. Legalise the same sex marriage act is against nature. the changes in legislation should not be impacted by the changes of society. Passing theme sex marriage bill is against nature.

    • Kenneth Ferguson

      Hi Hoa,
      a great comment. Keep up the good work.
      Ken.

  108. Tony Le Vannais

    I Believe marrage should not be allowed between two people of the same sex. If they want to have some other form of recognition let them have it.

  109. shari bryan

    Marriage has always been between man and woman. If people want this to change then let their union also be a change.i.e. a change other than marriage. Let them find another name or language for their union! Who do they think they are just because they choose a certain passage why does the passage of traditional marriage have to conform to change!!!

  110. Barbara Fox

    I think that its about time we ALL took responsibility and it is not normal for same sex marriage. Havent people learnt anything that we are disobeying the law of our God. Those who disobey will pay. There are enough problems within the family unit without making more. Marriage should only be between a man & a woman. What will be next.

  111. Belen

    To Whom it May Concern
    I am writing to voice my opposition to changing the definition of marriage.

    Marriage is a unique relationship between one man and one woman.
    Marriage is the foundation of family, which in turn is the foundation of society.
    If marriage can be redefined to include two people of the same gender, why not three or more people?
    Marriage is deeply valued by a large proportion of the population for cultural and religious reasons and this should be respected.
    Redefining marriage has potential serious consequences for religious freedom and freedom of conscience.
    Same-sex marriage sets up a new family model that trashes the truth that gender is vital to a child in family formation.
    Research shows that a child with married, biological mother and father do best.
    Children should be given the chance to start life with both their biological parents.

    Thanks for your consideration of my views.

    Name
    Address
    Email
    Phone

  112. Paul White

    To whom it may concern,
    In writing to this debate I am putting forward my view, that marriage is a sacred institution that has been a integral part of every culture since the creation of man. By marriage I define a man and a woman who are joined together in marriage to form a family unit, this includes the conceiving of children through sexual union. If same sex were normal as we are being told then for a start there wouldn’t be any children as a man and a man joined together can’t produce a child without the help of a surrogate woman, and the same applies for women they can’t conceive a child with out the help of a man or at least his sperm.Marriage is built around the bonding relationship of a man and a woman and has many facets that make it what it is. Yes it has been cheapened by society and is now being eroded away based purely on the bases of a sexual preference. I cannot see how we can change the one of the oldest institutions involving the family unit based purely on the sexual preferences of a minority group. If this is allowed to proceed the next step will be that a court case will result through a minister refusing to marry a same sex couple in church and end up prosecuted for infringing on the human rights of the individuals. So where will it end. When it reaches this point I would one of the people who files for desecration of a sacred sight. If marriage is sacred, so then the church where the marriage takes place is sacred. How is it sacred? By the fact that that is where we go to worship God, the same God who gave us the institution of marriage that is celebrated by every culture in the world and this is between a man and a woman. To the God we worship the homosexual union is a stench and punishable by death in the bible, strong words, also spoken by Jesus Christ. Called sin and as such punished by God as such. If Homosexuals want to have a union let them live together. It is not natural so why change an institution that is very natural just to accommodate the so very minor group.

    • Annie

      Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and i strongly believe in it.

  113. Anne

    The world we live in is in such a mess and it is all bought about because we want to change the perfect world that God has created. A perfect example can be taken from china when they decided that they want boy babies only well guess what you need girl babies to make boy babies and now china is almost a male society and those boys have all become gay as there is not enough girls to go around. I may not live to see it (thank God) but I can see that in the future babies will be born from sperm that has been frozen and one could be giving birth to their own sister or brother and boy forget about finding out “who do you think you are” because you will find out that your ancesters came from a frozen sperm…….if by then they will have enough intellagence to work it out because the close blood relations will not allow it……..they will all be crazy by then.
    Please leave things as God has created them, we will all be so much happier and contented. Marriage is and will always be betwen a male and female no matter who wants to change it.

  114. Bruce Stanhope

    We ask you to support the traditional and biblical
    definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
    My professional background is science and mathematics. Since retiring I have
    worked as a voluntary for a foundation for people with hereditary eye diseases
    for the last 20 years. During this time I have studied Medical Genetics and
    have had access to the library of Prince of Wales Hospital. A number of
    independent clinical DNA studies have searched for a genetic link with
    homosexuality but have failed to find such a link, meaning that
    homosexuality is not hereditary – people are not born homosexual. Why should
    such people claim such orientation as natural rather than acquired. No one
    should claim protection against discrimination when it is a matter of choice,
    not something they cannot help, like race or nature.
    The most desirable state of upbringing for children is with both father and
    mother as parents not just by a one sex couple, and should be the norm with
    extra support where a single father or a single mother is left to bring up
    the child. To normalise ‘marriage’ without a woman is to normalise ‘families’ without a mother or without a man is to normalise ‘families’ without a father– and that is the central offense of same-sex marriage We also ask that upholding a valid part of the constitution be a
    matter of government policy not open to conscience vote which is so
    vulnerable to the noisy lobbying of the very small portion seeking change
    and the undermining of traditional Australian culture.

  115. Johan Greyling

    To whom it may concern,

    Marriage is exclusive to a male and female only, because that is in the best interest of children and it was an institution of God. This must not be changed. Gay and lesbians are not in any way stopped from having their relationships. They can do so as they will, but not in marriage. This holds the approval of the majority of voters in this country and if the definition of marriage is changed there will be a lack of confidence for the leaders of this country’s government.

  116. terri

    I do not have all of the fance words and facts, but what I have to say is simple. Marriage is a Christain ceremony and is a promiss made between husband and wife and God. I don’t believe that this should be changed. I dont hate nor do I judge homosexual relationships, however it would be so sad to have the institution marriage warpt so much.

  117. Gina

    This is not what our Heavenly Father intended when he divinely instituted the marriage between man and woman, the first being Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

    Same sex unions, let alone marriages, are in direct violation of God’s laws!

    Nothing can ever come of such unions and any child that is raised in these conditions only confuses them and produces more homosexuality in the rising generations.

    This world, with all it’s crime, greed, hate, war and intolerance to human beings, is in a very sad state indeed, so let’s not add to the corruption and confusion.

    POLITICIANS – STAND YOUR GROUND AND SAY “NO” TO SAME SEX MARRIAGES.

    • kelvin

      Politics will not change a nation, people change a nation, we all have a vote, lets use voting power to make the change

  118. Ron Blythman

    What a sad moment that has come before us in this blessed land called Australia. Civilizations rise on a foundation of strong moral strength. When that foundation crumbles, that civilization is doomed to fail. The swift and sudden collapse of past nations have happened because their strong moral core values have been replaced by a core system that has no lasting substance–“It will fail.” What an abomination that has crept into our society–listen carefully, “You will reap from the seed you have sown.” These abominations before our Federal Parliament, and if allowed, will surely bring a great sorrow to this great nation. This nation was built upon a strong moral foundation; do not allow a few voices conquer the majority. I, myself, rebuke “same sex marriage” All you politicians, say no to these abominations and stand upon the strong moral strength that this nation was built upon.

    • Pierced

      The strong moral strength this nation was built on. You mean butchering a million aborigines?

      • christina lawrence

        Dear ‘Peirced’,
        I work (teach) in the history dept of one of Australia’s largest universities. You seem to have a lot of mis-information. There is NO historical or scientific evidence that “a million” aboriginal people were killed by the arrival of Europeans. Certainly there were some deaths but the evidence rates it at a fraction of what you are stating. I’m curious to know where you obtained your interesting figure from?
        Also, your point about marriage having previously been about the trade of a product (a woman), you are again misinformed. The earliest civilisations did not function like this. Although some groups have at times in history, it is incorrect to attempt to factualise such sweeping and untrue generalisations.

  119. christina lawrence

    I do not believe abusing, harassing or in anyway mistreating another human being. I believe in treating all with love & respect.
    I also don’t believe homosexuality to be natural (nor do I believe it to necessarily be a choice). A point I make is that there are MANY sexual desires people experience – check out the movements campaigning around he world for biologically related adults to be allowed to legally have sexual relationship, e.g. father & daughter, brother & sister etc (if you don’t believe me Google it). So, is there a point where the line is drawn – Are there some relationships that actually are Neither healthy nor normal???
    To me, if we mess with what is nature, eventually we will do great harm. This is the only reason I would not vote for same sex marriage – because I believe, in the end, it WILL do HARM.

  120. Pierced

    Marriage has only recently been defined as a gift from god for a man and woman to raise children. It has throughout history in most cultures been an exchange of property. Namely a woman. Some people have an amazingly distorted view of the history of the bible!

    • Melinda

      Pierced. have you actually read and researched your Bible on this subject or are you going on what you’ve heard others say? If you have read your Bible what Bible were you reading?

      • Raymond

        In the bible a woman can be passed to brothers and other relatives – without a say in it for all sorts of reasons.

        Also Christians are not the only people who get married and marriage pre-dates Christianity.

        • Richard

          Actually Raymond, monogamous marriage was recorded as law by the Israelites (for the Israelites) around 1400BC, in response to the way the peoples around them were living.

          This is where monogamous marriage comes from.

          Some further reading may help you with this:

          A series of articles by Jewish historian Dennis Prager may be helpful for you to understand history a little better (yes it is on a Catholic website, but was written by a Jew) http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html

          Can you tell me of a people who instituted monogamous marriage prior to 1400BC?

          • AMF

            That is a remarkable article on the hypersexualisation of the ancient world, thanks Richard. Well worth a read.

  121. Robyn Degenhardt

    I do not believe same sex marriages would do any good to our society only confuse the children of this generation more – we already have enough problems with the highest young people suicide rate in the world.l
    I believe we should leave alone the laws as they are now, a marriage is between a man & a woman.

    • Jeune Gersbach

      The true value of marriage is between a man and woman, any other partnership does not have a christian blessing.
      Please remember that we have always have and will be a christian Australia.
      Male children of so called partnerships are always seeking something that is lacking in their life.

  122. colleen

    Well, let us all stand for the true value of the Word of God. He created male and female and has said that a man must not lie with a man as he would with a woman nor female to lie with female likewise. It is people who are always demanding their so called rights without understanding the consequences. It not only affects the people themselves but familes – it destroy the true lineage of families. You cannot go against what has been divinely ordained without repercussions. Stand on the Word of God and not allow any changes to the sanctity of marriage between a man & a woman.

  123. Melly

    It is interesting that the Australian law definition of marriage is “the union of one woman and one man, voluntarily, for life.”
    No one seems to talk about the “for life” part, that doesn’t really happen too much.
    As for same-sex unions; I that this unfortunately is a case of “shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.” The big problem with this really is them raising children, which is already happening!!!
    While I don’t agree with it all – I don’t know if legalising it or not will change that.

  124. Rhonda Marshall

    I agree that the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman must be retained. Anything else is contrary to the word of God and totally against His written law. Christians unite. let’s stand up and let our voices be heard. This is the only chance we will have to keep the marriage act the way God designed it to be.

  125. Elaine Mcculloch

    Why do gay and lesbians want to get married? It is a christian ceremony and designed for a man and a woman to produce children, it seems this minority group are desperately trying to push onto the rest of society their wants, children have a right to a mother and a father, leave the marriage act alone. There is enough confussion in this world, don’t create more!

  126. Tony

    The rules and legislation governing the legal status of a man & a woman being married have been extended to cover people united under Civil Unions. It is rubbish to say that discrimination between different things is wrong. Because both couples have similarities as partners, that does not make them the same. One (Married) is male and female. The other (Same Sex Union) is not the same. Marriage is the very thing the latter have made a stand against. They do not want to be married.
    Example: Engineering : Nuts and Bolts of the same thread work together to clamp or hold a structure together. I am sure you would not consider the structure safe if it was only put together with sets of ‘bolts’ (this example would become absurd to try to only use nuts without any bolts). Clearly while these two structures may look the same from a distance, we need to discriminate ( that is not a filthy word ) between the two.
    Example: Parliament : People are elected to Parliament. Some may belong to the Labour party. They do not want to be identified as Liberals or Independents. Others may belong to the Liberal Party. They do not want to be identified as Labour or Independents. The ‘look’ the same, they may sound the same, but they are different. Discrimination has put them in that office.

    • Kenneth Ferguson

      Hi Tony,
      brilliant definition. I agree a nut & a bolt make a safe union. 2 nuts or 2 bolts not a safe union. The later can hold nothing together.
      I agree with the comment you have made.
      Keep up the good work,
      Ken.

  127. annette L.

    according to the word of God marriage is between a man and a woman and is a sacred institution, not to be tampered with by any human. Even if you do not believe in the only one true God and his word, common sense shows us that homosexuality is not natural. You cannot create children without both a man and a women. Many have been hoodwinked and been desensitized over the years to accept that it is o.k.Please vote with your eyes wide open realizing that this is a very important issue for society and our future families.

  128. Paul

    Marriage is between a male and a female – always has been and please God it always will be.
    If two males or two females wish to live together, call it a union or some other name, but do not call it a marriage.

  129. Maggie Owens

    My husband I believe that marriage is between a man and woman as defined in the Bible. If ‘gays want to join in some civil way let them do so under another name. They have destroyed so many words in the English language that can no longer be used don’t let them destroy marriage as well
    A family consisting of a husband, wife and children is the foundation of a stable society and nation. Now we find marriage is under question with the general acceptance of single parenthood (unavoidable in a number of situations) and same sex unions. I believe that Nations passing laws to accept same sex unions can expect to reap instability and undesirable consequences in society.

  130. Eddy and Alison

    This is just discriminating against Gods design for marriage..
    Yes we have Atheist PM and Gay Parlimentarians… But Democracy is about the majority of people not the minority who shout loud..
    I Challenge the Government to stop wasting taxpayers money on these debates and put the issue to a REFERENDUM..

  131. Kenneth Ferguson

    Ken says:
    the comments on this site are not anti Gay but about protecting the institution of marriage as meaning a heterosexual union between a man & a woman.
    This has been the case from the beginning of time. Were it not so then none of us would be here today having this debate. It is just a fact of life that the human family will die out if left to the Gay community. As Heterosexual people we have a duty to protect the institution of marriage for future generations.
    The Gay community have rights in Australia but surely they can find another word to represent a same sex union in law.
    Heterosexual unions must be protected to insure that future generations will be there to continue the human family.
    No offense to Gay people but they have to face facts that they cannot insure that future generations will be there to carry on the human race.
    They can never be equal to heterosexual people as far as children & family life are concerned. Equal in many other ways according to law. They can have a union recognised by law but it should not be called a marriage as it now stands in law. The two unions need to be separate definitions acording to law.
    WE CAN ALL HAVE WHAT WE WANT IF WE USE GOOD SENSE AND RESPECT THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE AS IT NOW STANDS.
    kindest regards,
    Ken.

    • prueppower

      I agree whole heartedly with above statement.

  132. Stephen Jones

    Marriage is for male and female, Civil union is for gay couples. End of story.

  133. Enzo & Julia

    Marriage is between a Husband and Wife. Their union will produce offspring/children. This is God’s design and Natures way.

  134. Dora

    Marriage is between a man and a woman and it should remain as such. If gay people want to have a permanent union with their significant other let them. Just use another word. Is that REALLY asking so much? Gay people are treated equally in society. They work alongside their heterosexual colleagues without fear or prejudice. They get paid according to their position of employment. They don’t get paid less for their sexual orientation. Places of employment have added in their policies about sexual harassment and have included that as a reason for dismissal. Society doesn’t segregate between gay and straight people. Society doesn’t say sit at the back of the bus/train etc. Gay and straight people sit next to each other without any issues involved. They just ignore each other and switch on their ipods. So PLEASE invent another word to signify a permanent relationship with a significant other.

  135. Michael

    First off I have recently had a friend tell me that she was told that anyone that doesn’t agree with this person on the issue of gay marriage needs to be re-educated. I find this disgraceful. Secondly as has already been said Marriage is clearly between a man and a woman as God Intended. To change this is clearly wrong. Also the gay rights movement claim that we are “disciminating” against them by not changing this. Where does the discrimination that will be unleashed agsainst Christians if this change is passed come into it,or is it OK for them to persecute everyone that doesn’t agree with them?

  136. Ed Koch

    I object to the term “Same sex marriage”. There can be no such thing. It’s a contradiction in terms. Marriage is for companionship, for family, for life. Two people of the same sex cannot be in the family way. That is absolutely contrary to nature, and to the Great Creator. And it is adventuring into chaos. Family of father, mother and children is the basis of all human society. Don’t mess with that. And don’t say homosexuals are discriminated against by being refused marriage. Father can’t marry daughter and other close relatives aren’t permitted to marry each other either. Nor can the under aged marry.
    Discrimination ? Not at all. Just common sense and good order.

  137. Nonci

    Marriage is a privilege for those who choose to accept it, for people who both appreciate and value it for the reasons it was created and intended by God, whcih was to unite a man and woman not for same sex individuals. If same sex couples feel the need to be ‘united’ for whatever reasons then why devalue an institition that you can never appreciate because you evidently dont know the creator of marriage and what it stands for?

  138. Kerry

    If same sex “marriage” (analogous to legislating that a goose shall henceforth be known as an elephant) becomes lawful then I could no longer encourage my children to marry under the law – marriage would become a debased institution. I would encourage them to make a promise before God and their church community but not under this law. How sad!

    If the law were to require Christian ministers to marry homosexual couples then I would have to leave the established church and find a new kind of Christian community that can live under biblical precepts.

    I feel that the times of oppression prophesied in scripture are upon us in the Western world, as in other ways they have already come upon Christians in other parts of the world.

  139. Stephen

    I Believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and this is the way it was meant to be. If you believe in evolution (which I don’t), if the same sex animal was attached to each other the species would eventually die out… while male and female are able to reproduce. This is the way it was intended. People may have other preferences, this does mean we should or need to change the rules we live by. To change this is clearly wrong. It makes me sad to think that people who hold traditional values are wrong and we ourselves are being discriminated against. I believe that we live in a lucky country because there is a Christian heritage. If you look at the Bible it clearly shows this isn’t the first time we have been in this situation.
    If same sex couples what to live this way, you can. Gay people are treated equally in society. They work alongside their heterosexual colleagues without fear or prejudice. They get paid according to their position of employment. The word marriage is the union between a man and a women… and not meant for anything else!

    • Wanda Jane Thompson

      I so, so agree. Time to stand strong on this matter. Marriage is between Man and Woman and no, it’s got NOTHING to do with discrimination. We’re destroying ourselves and our children by making a case for Gay Marriage and EVEN if the entire world chooses tomorrow, to make destructive decisions and align themselves with what’s wrong, I feel WE ought to stand strong on this. Why are we willingly destroying the fabric of society this way?

    • RAY BRYDON

      I agree totaly with Stephens statement,you put it very well, Thanks

    • cliff hollings

      You have expressed your belief very well and I totally agree.

      Same sex couples attitude is totally against all that our Creator God designed and approved.

  140. Greg Chalmers

    This debate about redefining marriage is ridiculous and a waste of public time and money. Think about what it really means… It is like vegetarians asking to redefine Tofu as beef so they can say they are eating steak.

    Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a women. By the very definition, it impossible for a man to “marry” a man, or a women to “marry” a women. If gays want to be together, they need a different term which does not violate the very meaning of the word marriage. We need to give our future generations the best possible chance to flourish and thrive, and (statistically speaking) the best way for this is a loving father/mother upbringing, I certainly do not think the country should be supporting and subsidising a choice decision that is of no long term benefit to our future generations.

  141. Barry Rooney

    Marriage is a sacred institution, given by God for us to glorify Him .
    He created us for himself and because we have defiled his gift to us we suffered . God is the 3rd person in the sacred marriage and inviting him into a relationship that is tainted with sin causes Him great pain . Sin is sin , no matter what others want to call it , God is God and cannot lie , so he has not given permission for this new thinking to take place as many would like to think , by watering down His Words to us and selecting their own truths , just to justify their actions. We need to stand together and declare a national day of prayer remember . 2 Chron 7/14
    If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
    Cheers
    Barry

  142. Michael O'Donoghue

    Surely a marriage is only truly a marriage when it is consumated by sexual intercourse. If it is not consumated, not matter how much two people love one another it is not a marriage

    • Jack Langton

      Same-sex couples engage in sexual intercourse. Therefore, your argument supports same-sex marriage. Glad to see you being so open-minded, even if it was an accident.

  143. Janette

    Please keep up the fight to save marriage – it is against the law of nature, let gay couples who choose to commit keep their relationship as a ‘partnership’. It can never be a ‘marriage’. Our children are being brain-washed and de-sensitised by this movement.

    • J

      Thats an interesting point you have there Janette. “Our children being brainwashed and desensitised”

      It could just as easily be said that “our” children are being “brainwashed and desensitised ” by people forcing their religious beliefs onto children.

      I think desenstitising people and making homosexuality part of conversation is a brilliant thing.

      How would you feel if your child grew up a closeted homosexual and commited suicide because they grew up with parents telling them it was unnatural ?

      I just think people need to think a little harder about what they are doing here.

      Are you scared of homosexual people ? what have they done to you to make you feel this intolerance?

      Research the history of marriage, times have changed, views have changed, society has changed.

      • Ann

        Having good communication with ones children is ideal especially as they are maturing into adulthood. If they know they are loved for who they are & not for what they do is a good start. They will feel free to be the person they are comfortable with & have a voice.
        Our children are being brainwashed & desensitised to a degree because of the lack of morality displayed in society. The attitude of ‘anything goes’ is seen as a passage to adulthood, but @ what cost?
        Having an opinion which differs from a minority group’s does not equate to ‘being scared’, quite the contrary. It is showing you have the courage of conviction & will not be bullied into believing otherwise just to ‘move with the times’. Things have changed but not all change is for the better. It is because of complacency that ‘bad’ change happens. The loudest voices are not always ‘Right’ they are just heard more easily & don’t shut up long enough to listen.
        I would hate Society to go back 100 years & treat homosexuals as criminals. Why can’t we all exist with acceptance & respect for the feelings & well being of all God’s children? Who we are is His gift to us. What we become is our gift to Him.
        If we are not guided by a Higher authority we are doomed to failure.

  144. valmai kerr

    Let’s leave this for 12 or so years. We can assess how children of same-sex couples are doing. THEN make a decision. Isn’t it wiser to delay a major change of this magnitude? The next generation trusts us… we should not let them down.

  145. Ian Shallcross

    Ian

    It is morally and spiritually wrong for persons of the same gender to live together
    as man and wife, regardless of whether a formal marriage takes place
    or not.

  146. Raymond

    It should be said at this point that the original article is incredibly biased and includes such strongly incorrect and misleading statements such as “This forum will note that the natural union of man and woman existed long before “society” and its laws”.

    Homosexuality and homosexual pairing has occurred in almost all species and has been exceptionally wwidespread throughout humanity since as far back as our records show.

    It should also be noted that whilst marriage has always held a predominantly Male-Female archetype this has not always been the case and exceptions can be noted at various points in history. Marriage is ceremonial, not necessarily religious. It is also not uniquely christian nor unique to any given religion.

    Studies have already shown that same sex couples can produce just as ‘normal’ children than heterosexual couples and in several cases these children are significantly more tolerant of the differences between people.

    Case Studies:
    http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx
    “…the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents. For instance, Huggins (1989) interviewed 36 adolescents, half of whom had lesbian mothers and half of whom had heterosexual mothers. No children of lesbian mothers identified themselves as lesbian or gay, but one child of a heterosexual mother did; this difference was not statistically significant.”

    http://people.virginia.edu/~cjp/articles/pwInPress.pdf
    “Their findings revealed that children and families were functioning well. They reported no significant differences in children’s conduct or in family functioning associated with parental sexual orientation”

    I could pull up many more studies.

    The article above also states “To normalise ‘marriage’ without a woman is to normalise ‘families’ without a mother – and that is the central offense of same-sex marriage.” Which undermines itself inherently. Same-Sex marriage can consist of two women.

    The bottom line is that all people deserve the ability to be treated equally and that includes marriage and the associated rights that go with it. Marriage does not inherently belong to any specific religion. It is only a sacred union when it is a religious union. There are many, many non-religious heterosexual marriages. It should also be pointed out that not all religions forbid homosexual marriage.

    Under the mantra here of ““In the name of equality of adults, future children should not be deprived the opportunity to be born of a man and of a woman.” I would have thought that the pro-family people would have been directing this sort of thing towards Single Parents, who cannot provide their child with two parents, or unmarried couples, or de-facto relationships. The inconsistancies as to which group is selected out of the above indicates that the issue is not about families and the impact on the children – it is about sexuality – and that my friends is discrimination and illegal.

    Also:

    “gay lobby’s adult-centred narcissism” – Slander

    “We affirm that our fellow Australians who live in same-sex relationships deserve all neighbourly respect – but that they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of us. ” – It is not a definition you own. The people of Australia and their elected representatives have this right. This is a Democracy. The majority speaks for all.

    In the comments I see a lot of reference to Marriage as a God Given right. Which God? Which religion? Which of the hundreds of religious and not religious marriages are we referencing?

    In regards to the poster “Jo” who wrote:
    “The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population……Anyone bothering to search the subject out would find that this is so..”

    http://www.datehookup.com/content-abuse-in-same-sex-relationships.htm
    (just the first link I found but If requested I can source the actual scientific studies)
    “in fact the rates of domestic violence in same-sex relationships is about the same as in heterosexual relationships”

    and From another article “partner abuse concluded that “[r]esearch suggests that lesbians and gay men are just as likely to abuse their partners as heterosexual men,”

    There is a wealth of research out there that indicates the rates are the same.

    Directing your attention towards things that will have a real impact on society, not an impact upon personal beleifs would be far more constructive and far more in-line with the reasons given or at least research your statistics…

    • Andrew

      Raymond, if you look hard enough on the internet there is research that will support anything you want to believe.

      ‘Homosexuality and homosexual pairing has occurred in almost all species and has been exceptionally wwidespread throughout humanity since as far back as our records show’ You make your own unsubstantiated comment and then go on to be critical of everyone else. I think ‘widespread’ is a bit extreme, like it is normal.

      ‘“We affirm that our fellow Australians who live in same-sex relationships deserve all neighbourly respect – but that they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all of us. ” – It is not a definition you own. The people of Australia and their elected representatives have this right. This is a Democracy.’ The Australian Government is currrently from a party that did not get the get a majority (in fact didn’t even win if our preference system was applied nationally as well as in each electorate). Your definition of democracy seems to suggest that majority rules and therefore if there are more hetrosexual relationships than homosexual relationships then the majority suggests that marriage is between a man and a women.

      ‘There are many, many non-religious heterosexual marriages. It should also be pointed out that not all religions forbid homosexual marriage’ Yes, that is true you cannot have a homosexual marriage. Well put. Not all religions forbid homosexual marriage, some don’t forbid multiple marriages or abusing your spouse but that doesn’t make it acceptable.

    • Kim

      A woman and a woman can’t have a child together, neither can a man and a man. You need one man and one woman.

    • John W

      Raymond, if you check history you will find that every civilisation that allowed its moral and ethical boundaries to be progressively eroded including in the area of sexual perversion, perished.

      Nor is it legitimate to argue that failures in one area justify another state when in neglects the norm for the first.

  147. Seb Khor

    He calls himself gay instead of man and is proud of it.
    She calls herself lesbian instead of woman and is proud of it.
    Every year we have the grand parade of these gays and lesbians, and they are very proud.

    Why suddenly they want to muddy the definition of marriage? Why can’t they invent another word to define their own relationship?

  148. Len Harker

    There is only one marriage, that of male and female. If the same sex want to live together, I don’t object but it is not a marriage, and I strongly oppose the suggestion that is is.

  149. Barry Rooney

    Sorry Raymond
    In the Christian world there is only 1 God , The same God who loves you and me equally . I am a sinner and not proud of it , But I am living my life to become a better person and have a completed existance with God
    I could have easily turned to other aspects , But My God gives me all that I need , I have 44 Years of marriage with my beautiful wife , we have kids and grandkids , I could not think of another situation that would give me such joy …Our life is full , I cannot be a part of something that is different and not of God ,, which is sin
    Cheers
    Barry

  150. Anna

    The arguments that same sex marriages can’t reproduce is not relevant in the 21st Century.

    There are many ways to procure children (and there always was).
    adoption, mating with casual partners and ivf for example. Gay marriages do produce children, but what of the children who want to know their birth parents? Maybe this “need to know” will lessen in years to come if there are so many children who don’t know.

    • Grant

      Anna,
      i find your use of the word PROCURE most interesting, As its definitions in the Macqurie Concise Dictionary include the following>

      1. to obtain or get by care, effort, or the use of special means: to procure evidence. 2. to effect, cause, bring about, Especially by unscrupulous means: to procure a persons death. 3. to obtain for the gratification of Lust or purposes of Prostitution. 4. to act as a procurer or pimp.

      This word describes very well the intent or GLBT and Activist groups.. to redefine the Act and Meaning of what Marriage is, and what it is not… By use of care persuasion byspecial effort and unscrupulous means to bring about the Death of Traditional marriage and its role in Society, family and Law.

      This is the rational of the thinking Rather than the creation of Children or their best interests in todays society!

  151. Gary

    Why are gays now trying to make us feel guilty for being normal?

    Is it payback for us making them feel guilty for being abnormal?

    I don’t have to search my conscience either way.

  152. Heather

    I am so heartened by the outcry from our society against gay marriage, thankyou all for your support of what is right and true. Marriage is between a man and woman, it is a beautiful & God blessed union. I have numerous gay friends whom I love for who they are, not for this aspect of their lifestyle. I hold with God’s word on homosexual relations. It hurts to know I hurt some of these friends by my views, but we must stand strong to what is right, or we will allow ourselves to weaken easier the next time we are confronted on an issue or belief. It needs to also be noted that not all gays support gay marriage, they believe marriage is the same as what God has defined it to be & have no desire to change it.

  153. susan

    I believe marriage was created by God and was meant for a man and a woman only. It was designed for the creation of children and support and encouragment for one another.
    I feel for the children brought up in households where the parents are of the same sex. I believe they are ridiculed and mocked at school and have difficulty making friends. What emotional problems will these inocent young people suffer as they go through life.

  154. Russell

    We will get nowhere in this debate unless we realise that discrimination is NOT morally wrong. The whole point of Law is to discriminate- it says certain behaviour is good and other behaviour is bad. It punishes certain acts but not others. In discrimination based on race it is the beliefs about race that are wrong. All humans are descendants of Adam and Eve and so are all equally human. Race is simply minor differences in physical features. All are equally human so a person makes an error when he discriminates based on race.
    The law discriminates against thieves. It does not say a thief is less human. It says stealing is wrong. Nobody says, “You can’t discriminate against thieves”. If stealing is different from honesty we should discriminate- this is a sign of sanity! Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally human. But are homosexual sex acts wrong? That is the first question we have to ask. To say, “It is wrong to discriminate!” is nonsense.
    The second thing we have to realise is that intolerance is also NOT wrong. In fact in many instances tolerance is wrong. To say, “That is intolerant!” as a condemnation of a person is just a big bluff devoid of logic. The whole point of law is to be intolerant. Sure, for some wrong behaviour we may decide as a society to tolerate it. But tolerance assumes that it is wrong, or at least some don’t like it. We may tolerate a little thieving, but only a fool would say it is good.
    So is homosexual behaviour morally wrong? We need to decide and be free to decide without being accused of the imaginary sin of discrimination. If it is wrong, as the Bible most definitely says, do we tolerate it or not? Presently the law has taken the position that it will not say homosexual acts are wrong (decriminalisation). This means those who believe it is wrong have to tolerate it. Amending the marriage act so that it can include homosexual relationships is effectively stating that homosexual relationships are good and that tolerance is not enough- it is a demand for acceptance and affirmation. This goes beyond the normal bounds of law. Law usually says wrong. But the marriage act was essentially positive discrimination toward those who were willing to make a public legal agreement binding one man and woman together for life. The law then favoured those who had done this because as a Christianised nation we believed in the Biblical view of sex and marriage. In the push to not discriminate between married, de-facto, and gay relationships most of this positive discrimination has been removed. The push toward homosexual marriage is aimed at removing the final legal remnants. It is also intolerant of the Christian belief that homosexual acts are wrong as the whole point of legislation for marriage is to affirm and encourage the sexual relationship between the two people.

    • Richard

      Well said Russell. “intolerance” and “discrimination” have been redefined to mean bad, when they are not. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

      It is sad to see words turned bad or their meanings changed for the purpose of agenda. Interesting that “gay” used to mean “happy” not “homosexual”.

    • Grant

      Totally Argree.. Well spoken!

  155. Billy

    Great video you have showing why marriage should be between a man and woman……………..but it has a MAJOR flaw in it.
    The video’s main message seems to be that only a “boy and girl” should be allowed to marry in order to produce other “boys and girls”.
    Hang on…My wife and I are Christians who have been married for 17 years – but before we married we decided we weren’t going to have any children (not due to medical issues…it was our choice).
    If I stick to the message you are saying in that video – then I’m assuming my wife and I should never have married.???

    • AMF

      Billy, marriage as an institution exists for the ‘typical case’ of marriage, which is where the marriage leads to children. Of course there will be infertile couples (by necessity or by choice) but that has no bearing on the institutional purpose of marriage as the historically ‘protected space’ for the creation and nurturing of children. And even infertile couples can still fulfil the social goal of “a mother and a father for every child” when they care for an adopted or fostered child – so they still meet the job description.

  156. Andrew

    In the beginning, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam for Steve. He knew what He was doing and why. We should simply trust His model and design. To ignore this is pure foolishness. I pray wisdom for our politicians and our people. Do what’s right and true and good.

  157. Richard

    Same-sex marriage leads the way for fatherless or motherless families. The following excerpt from a recent study – Miles, M 2006, FATHER PRESENCE MATTERS: A CASE FOR FAMILY, Lynchburg, Virginia – shows some of the adverse effects of a childhood without a father:

    “The presence of an involved father significantly increases the chances that the child will experience positive outcomes, such as increased cognitive competence, improved academic achievement, and a stronger sense of self-worth.
    Correspondingly, fatherless children more often suffer negative outcomes, such as developmental and behavioral problems.
    Children who lack father figures are more prone to experience diminished levels of cognitive competence, exhibit poor school performance, and display
    low self-esteem.
    In addition, these children are more inclined to promiscuous sexual
    activity, and are at a greater risk for emotional problems, substance abuse, violence and other delinquent behaviors
    Fathers influence their children’s moral development, academic achievement, and competence in social interactions and emotional and mental health. Children are more secure in their identities, when the
    father is present and actively interacts with them. Horn says, “Fatherlessness is our most urgent social problem.” ”

    http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1180&context=doctoral PAGE 14

    • AMF

      Thanks for the reference, Richard.

  158. Malcolm

    Have a look at the research this wedsite is only one of many serious concerns relate to high levels of domestic violence, high levels of drug usage, low rates of relationships lasting more than seven years, extremely high rates of infidelity. I say why are we even having this debate, children are subjected to the above and also are denied a basic right to have access to both natural parents this is their basic right, this is only one research their are many more look around.

    : http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/getting-the-facts-same-sex-marriage/

  159. Joy

    The 2 major parties of the Parliament promised at the election, to protect marriage as it now stands. I see no reason why they should go back on their word. Whether you are religious or not, God instituted marriage and he instituted it for male and female only. Whether you believe that or not, is irrelevant. Whether you believe something or not does not change the truth. God is truth and he doesn’t change. So also, marriage shouldn’t change. Why do these politicians believe they have the right to change marriage anyway? Did THEY institute marriage in the first place? NO! So therefore, they are trying to take the right from God in redefining marriage. Marriage between man and woman was instituted by God and therefore, God alone can change it. I would not like to be in the shoes of the politicians fighting for gay marriage on the judgement day. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. It is spiritually and morally wrong to redefine marriage as male/male or female/female. It can not naturally produce children and it cannot bring children up in a way that supports both their paternal and maternal needs. As others have also said, it takes away the right a child has to know both their mother and father and subjects them to living in a home where the adult relationship is unnatural and cannot provide all their needs… Marriage should stay as it always has been – between man and woman.

    • Andrew

      Well articulated Joy. I agree with you 100%.
      Let’s respect all people, but let’s not accept their misguided beliefs or behaviour regarding homosexuality or same sex marriage.

    • Tom C

      Its awkward because God is nothing more than a mythical being invented by primative people to explain events they cannot explain themselves.

  160. Lisa

    Ah, you people are hilarious! Bigoted, ignorant and hilarious. Can’t wait until it is legalised and you all have egg on your faces. I feel for children born into hateful, discriminative viewpoints such as those you have all expressed on here. Think of the children and maybe get a bit more openminded?

    • Jess

      Thank you, Lisa. This is exactly what I was thinking. Also, there are children that live without one parent for their whole lives and sometimes they are better off without it. To be raised with two parents, no matter the gender, is a very good thing. But as i said, some kids only grow up with one mother and no father or the other way around, and they are fine, so having two mothers and no fathers or two fathers and no mothers would surely be better than nothing for those children who are adopted by same sex couples. If the couples give them a life, food, shelter, and happiness, who are we to judge them? Think about it.

      • AMF

        Yes, Jess, there are always tragic situations where a child cannot have both a mother and father – such as the death or desertion of a parent. But would you wish that loss upon a child? Would you agree to government inflicting that loss on a child by allowing two men to create a child by anonymous surrogacy (like Elton John & his partner), or allowing a single woman to create a child by anonymous sperm donation? And if government allows same-sex marriage (which carries with it the absolute right to obtain a child by surrogacy or IVF) government facilitates the creation of motherless and fatherless children.

        And yes, there are some two-parent or single-parent households that are abusive. But that abuse does not justify creating another abuse. We should restrain parents who would inflict abuse on a child, and restrain governments who would inflict legislation that institutionalises the motherless or fatherless family.

        Finally, adoption: the number of local adoptions in Australia is so tiny (just a few dozen a year) and the queue of infertile married couples is so long, that there can never be a need to place a child with two men (or two women). On criteria of suitability, there will always be a married couple who match a pair of men (or women) in every variable (education, wealth, character references etc) and therefore the one deciding difference is whether a child should be placed in a household of two men (or two women) or of a married man and woman. What sane policy maker, faced with such a choice between otherwise identical couples, could ever justify depriving a child of the natural experience of a mother and father figure?

  161. gary

    why doesn’t this organisation, and others like it, just come clean and state that they have a religious bent? australian marriage declaration is exactly the same. you make the claim that marriage is for one man and one woman for life but fail to mention that this is due to religious beliefs.
    marriage in a society where state and church are separate is governed by the state. the state licences certain people, including church ministers, to conduct a wedding. marriage is not owned by the church and was around way before a church or the bible even existed.
    marriage provides legal protection for the two parties involved and their immediate family. it has nothing to do with god or religion unless that choice is made. similarly, it has nothing to do with children unless children are brought in to the equation.
    if you are trying to protect/uphold the rights of children to be raised by their natural parents, why is there no mention on here about lobbying to outlaw divorce? or lobbying to prevent unmarried couples from having children? or lobbying to insist that unmarried parents tie the knot?
    why not just be honest and state that you don’t want gay people getting married because you think gay sex is icky?

    • AMF

      AMF agrees that marriage is not a religious invention, any more than it is a social invention. It is – in the words of the great anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss – “a social institution with a biological foundation”. Marriage is the social attempt to bring order to bear on the spontaneous natural relationship of male and female mammals, which typically results in offspring who require long-term care. It is not a religious institution – although in every r=culture, the dominant religion is very important in enriching the meaning of marriage, elaborating the customs and supporting the civil objective of keeping men and women together so that children can be ‘legitimate’ with both a mother and father.

      So, you are arguing with a shadow, Gary. AMF agrees marriage “has nothing to do with god and religion unless that choice is made”. Marriage does have everything to do with mammalian sexual behaviour and offspring, and that is why it is always and only and bleedingly-obviously between a male and a female.

    • Joe

      “why doesn’t this organisation, and others like it, just come clean and state that they have a religious bent?’
      That is a rather stupid thing to say. Who cares if they have a religious bent. Your bent could be homosexual, atheist or political. Should we now invalidate your cause? This is known as a genetic fallacy.

      “marriage is not owned by the church and was around way before a church or the bible even existed.”
      Again, think before you make such inaccurate comments! There were marriages before any government was organized. Marriage did in fact exist before the church but not before Adam and Eve. The “one flesh” in Genesis 2:24 & Mathew 19;4-6 talks about the marriage between the first man and women, Adam and Eve.

    • Margo Logan

      Gary. All that is being said is ‘leave marriage alone’. A man and woman marry and do or do not conceive and bear their children. That’s what it’s all about. Same sex union is a different deal altogether of no balance of male&female parenting and the necessity to ‘procure’ children. The well documented benefits brought to the upbringing of a child by the active role of father and mother can’t exist in this situation and never can. What is achieved in a marriage is not what same sex couples want so please move on and stop selfishly trying to change the world to suit your choices. Be happy! And let everyone else be happy too.

    • Abraham

      Hi,
      Marriage is not created for the sake of religion,Religion means having our own methods and laws.Instead Marriage was created to have relationship and it was
      instituted by God.It was MAN and Woman relationship and together with the creator.

    • Denise

      Icky, yes, un-natural, yes, men and women were made for each other, they can produce off spring, two men cannot the institution of marriage is made to support and nurture families. Human beings are not always nurturing , they can get it wrong but that doesn’t mean the whole concept is wrong.
      You are right, the church does not own marriage it was instated by God, for the benefit of male and female./

      • paul

        When a homosexual or anyone can explain how nature has accommodated the homosexual act between humans I will agree 100% with their views and will elect to re-sit my human biology exams. Until then, with the greatest compassion, marriage as supported by nature is between a man and a woman.

    • Mich

      Hi Gary

      Just one note about the last paragraph – I think that the reason this issue is being defended so strongly and in most cases without reference to the unmarried or divorcees etc, is because same sex marriage is the matter that is currently before our Parliament, with efforts being made to change legislation that is solely to benefit same-sex partners seeking marital status (and many argue, at the expense of many others for varying reasons). I don’t believe “icky” has anything to do with (the majority at least 🙂 ) the emphasis currently being placed on the same sex marriage question. It is simply because it is the question that is before the public eye and the Parliament at this point, and not any of the other lobbies you suggested above.

      And while protecting children’s rights play a big part in many people’s defense of the current marriage definition, there are still other aspects of the question at hand that play a role in the formation of the view that marriage should remain the way it is. As a result, some might feel that the ‘children’s rights’ point is an incomplete argument for retaining the definition of marriage – this is, simply, because there ARE other factors involved, so it is in fact not the person’s complete argument, which would rightly make a person feel that the argument is incomplete.

      Thanks for reading.
      Take care

  162. Mrs A Morris

    Marraige in my view should remain the Union of a Man and a Woman.
    It was God who instituted Marraige and Family!
    My concern is for the children,It is not right for children to be raised in a home with same Sex parents.
    I see Gay people are taking away Childrens rights and Children do not have a say.
    If Gay people want to live this lifestyle..let them live their life, but do’nt take innocent children with you.
    I have seen how Gay people live and quite Honestly it is not the place for Children to be raised.
    The Government has to have a Voice about this very issue and say NO! to Same Sex Marraige

  163. Warren williams

    I am pleased for our generations to come that they will see that a real fight for the protection for the rights of all children was so they would be able to say the words Dad and Mum without feeling that they were frowned upon by a section of the community that frowns upon Normal Heterosexual relationships,the fight has not finished but only begun. Morality cannot be diminished without a devastating effect upon mankind.

    • The Voice of Reason

      Because the legalization of marriage equality has had such a devastating affect in New Zealand. I mean, the freedom to marry the person you love, what a horrific miscarriage of justice! The sky is certainly caving in over Wellington!

  164. Joan R.

    We have so much equality, benefits and more in Australia already. Not allowing same sex marriage does not mean they disadvantaged or discriminated. It’s just that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Sacred, meaning something that is secured from violation and infringement. The essence of marriage will never be the same if same sex marriage is allowed. Nothing wrong with same sex couple living each other, but leave marriage alone as it is now.

  165. George

    Redefining marriage is like redefining gravity. Lets suppose, all our parliamentarians in Canberra had the opportunity to redraw laws of Physics. Say, they all sign a bill that there was no Gravity and passed a unanimous bill to take the form of a law and all of them decided to celebrate their achievement and decide to take a plunge from top of the parliament building, I wonder if that law would do any good to our parliamentarians.
    I would urge them to work for God’s kingdom here on earth and make decisions that has been entrusted to them by God for His people. Their authority comes with great responsibility and care not just for the present but for the future of this country who are the Children. We need to bear with the proponents of same sex as being misguided and seeking their own interest. As Cardinal Pell says, do not limit your understanding of persons with same sex orientations as the only dimension of their being. They need our love and respect. A billion people may say its OK to get the marriage between two people, does not matter what sex they are, well its not right for us to turn what God has made perfect in the union of one man and one woman. This presents the true nature of God in the procreation of new life. So please support the effort to preserve the sanctity of marriage.

    • Wal

      Totally agree…

  166. Aurora

    God made man and woman for each other… not man for man, nor woman for woman. In the Bible, God blessed the union of man and woman, but cursed and punished unnatural relationships, hence doomed and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. At the moment, Australia is blessed, please don’t let it be cursed. Say “NO” to same sex marriage!

    • The Voice of Reason

      Actually, you’ll find that the Church of England recently announced that same-sex marriages should be celebrated in Anglican churches. Therefore, that renders your argument that same-sex marriage is sinful nothing more than idiotic hate-speech. As for your claim that Australia is ‘blessed’, well Australia is legally secular, meaning that officially the bible is nothing more than a collection of fictional books. A yes for same-sex marriage is a yes for equality and freedom.

  167. CheVelj

    A big NO to same sex marriage. Please, have a dignity to not destroy the solemnity that God has ordained to a created being man and woman.

  168. AMF

    Thank you for your encouragement, Mr and Mrs Bell. Will do!

  169. Why do homosexual people expect the nation of Australia to redefine something that most people hold sacred – the union and committment between a man and a woman. Our constitution never considered marriage between same sex couples, why? Because inherently, most people know that it is exclusively meant to be between a man and a woman.

    This isn’t about equality – it’s a push to accept homosexuality as the norm. It never has been the norm and it never will be the norm, no matter what umbrella you choose to put it under. Sex between men, think about it – this is not natural people. Sex between women?? Something is very wrong. Please don’t bow to the pressure of the minority. Being gay is legal in this country. Please get on with your lives and don’t touch what is a foundational truth in this country. Australians, please continue to stand against this tide that seeks to dismantle our society. Our children and our grandchildren will carry the burden of this distortion if we don’t. Please send your MP emails and letters voicing your concerns.

  170. AG

    The definition of marriage and its associated sacrement (blessing) of life cannot be changed. It is so entwind in years of spiritual tradition with faithful, from which it was conceived, that it would fail to mean anything else. As it would also be an injustice to deny them a freedom of belief.
    However, marriage also is a commitment to devote ones life to one another and i cannot see why it cannot be applied to same sex couples as there is no better word to define this commitment. Marriage has also been applied to people united out of church and different cultural unions. The creation of life is a marriage as this too is a union and family. So whether two female same sex couples have children by whatever means the joining of the two gene pools is a marriage and therefore a right and duty to care for that life belongs to the male and female who have conceived and accepted this blessing. Children of the state and others in need of adoption have no choice, so it can only be the duty of the authority to place these children in appropiate care. As a confused divorced religious person i would like the children to be taught about faith, so we can all see how complicated this isssue can get but what worries me more is the divison it can cause. I hope we can all agree because it doesnt matter what we personally believe on this matter
    we cannot deny people the freedom of choice and cannot exclude what already exists.

  171. Don’t know whether it’s worse for a country to bully other countries like it was nothing, or bully it’s own people and force them to accept change without proper debate like the labour party would have done, or is trying to do.

    This needs careful examination as it can be classed as a form of child abuse but the government isn’t doing a thing about it. Why? because children cant speak up for themselves so it’s easier to listen to the gay person’s nagging.

    Protect the weak and innocent! This should be first priority.

    Study after study shows children have the best upbringing with a mother and father. If gays really loved children they would want what is best for them.

    Boys are very close with their mums but still need dad to play rough and tumble. And studies show that boys that play this are stronger emotionally than boys that don’t. What makes a gay person’s right more important than this right?

    Girls are close with dad usually finding a partner later in life matching up to dad. They need mum for all that girl talk and secrets. What makes a gay person’s right more important than this right.

    The world belongs to children! Children are the future!

    A man and a woman has served many generations well. If it aint broke why fix it.

  172. PJ

    I am a high schooler and am reading this in 2017. This is absolutely disgraceful. Do you realise that the comments people write and the homophobic posts effect peoples minds. As a high schooler who fully supports marriage equality and the LGBTQ community I find this awful and painful to read. This post is upsetting. Lets say if you were apart of the LGBTQ community how do you think this post would make you feel? How do you think you would feel if people were saying that it is wrong that you cannot marry someone one day who you love. Imagine if you couldn’t marry the person you love?

    When this website says ” think of the child ” it really is hypocritical. Think of the child. Yes, think of the children , the teens and even adults that might be at home scrolling through these comments and this website. And then they think like me, that it is wrong to love some one and that they can’t open up about this because it is wrong. Think of the children that this website is badly influencing. Mental health is a big factor in this too, many teenagers suffer from depression and anxiety just because of their sexuality and that is wrong. And this information is being fed into children’s heads.

    People should be able to love who they want to love. No matter of their gender or sexuality. From a teenager to the adults reading this, love is love and you can’t stop who you fall in love with. it doesn’t matter if children grow up in a home were the parents are apart of the LGBTQ community. All that matters is that they have love surrounding them. I am disgraced as a teenager to be seeing adults acting like children and the children acting like adults. If you ‘stand with your child’ as this website says then you should be able to support them in anything and love them no matter who they end up marrying or loving.

    From a teenager to the world, love is love and don’t be in the way of that.

  173. Hi PJ,
    I’m sorry to hear of your very real angst on this matter, as a young person. You say “you can’t stop who you fall in love with”, which is true; but you can choose not to go through with establishing a relationship with such a person if you discern beforehand that they are an abuser within relationships. This is a mature response – you still may have feelings for that person, but you choose not to associate or relate to them, as you know you may well be harmed emotionally/physically as a result.
    So its not all about ‘love’ by itself – it is very much about a range of life issues, and choosing to pursue some relationships but not others.
    I see this column is not about making life hard for those with same-sex attractions, its about not institutionalising something that would create a lot more unhappy people in the long run.

Leave a comment