[....loading webpage - please wait a few seconds][Ctrl D to Add Page to Favourites]

Sanctuary Baptist Church
Click Here to find out how to go to heaven



The Sanctuary Surf shop window has been smashed by vandals - a person has been caught, arrested and convicted - he now must pay for the damage bill. I ran as an Independent Candidate in the 2016 Federal Election (click here to see my campaign website) and Channel 7 News interviewed me about the smashed window and my opinions on same sex marriage and homosexuality. Feel free to use any of the comments below (or parts thereof) in your own discussions to oppose same sex marriage - to find information on this page relevant to your interest, just do a word search of this page and you will jump straight to the relevant spots.


WHY NO SAME SEX MARRIAGE?....WHY HAVE A PLEBISCITE?

Homosexual marriage is the tail-end of the 60's sexual revolution of free love (more accurately, "free lust") which dismissed marriage as prohibitive to freedom to have sex with anybody and anyone at anytime - then along came the pill and legal abortion which took away the consequences. What has replaced traditional marriage - between one man and one woman for life - are the fake substitutes and token "marriages" based on convenience and self-gratification. The great damage is plain to see in a myriad of ways, especially with children (eg. the children of broken marriages are deprived of a parent and the innocent, unborn children who are aborted get the worst treatment of all - they die). Homosexual marriage is simply trying to make homosexuality look acceptable, but in the process, it takes the fallouts to a whole new level with even greater impacts on children and greater sexualisation of society away from the age-old concepts of morality and decency - it is uncharted territory. The history of the Institution of Marriage is quite clear: it was designed to unite a male and a female and provide a secure environment for raising the resultant children. The current Marriage Act makes mention of children for this very reason. I'm waiting to see how the definition and function of marriage has supposedly "changed" even though promiscuity and decadency has become acceptable and poisoned nearly every facet of society. If marriages break up, that is not the fault of the Institution of Marriage, but rather married people not keeping their marriage vows. And even if there are half the marriages ending up in divorce, what about the other half that have good marriages?....can't there be recognition that a marriage CAN work if the spouses want it to?....But no, instead of bolstering the Institution of Marriage to make it stronger (and it definately needs boulstering), the homosexuals activists say that marriage is already being trashed alot today so who cares if we trash it even further by redefining it into a love/lust/sex-based marriage (ie. "if it feels good, do it" marriage) away from the millennia-old biological parenthood-based marriage. Our children are now living in this environment with an aggressively targeted campaign in schools designed to groom them into as extreme perverse sexualisation as possible from a very young age with no awareness of true marriage or it's benefits. This means that when they become adults, they will have no desire to marry or even be aware of what true marriage means. Marriage is therefore constantly being undermined leading to frivolous commitments, lack of role-model marriages in media, music or the entertainment industry (which is why most celebrities back SSM because their own multiple marriages have all failed and they can get more money out of backing the latest trend even if it ruins the marriage bedrock of society) and higher levels of divorce - mainly due to the "no-fault" divorce laws that also contributed to the trashing of marriage over the past few decades. No fault divorce along with these other changes have brought enormous social harm, reducing marriage to an optional and disposable arrangement rather than the core institution for family formation and raising children....a pillar of successful civilisations. Gay marriage will be the final nail in the coffin, diminishing it completely and robbing it of any idea that it is about children In fact, same sex marriage only now seems plausible because the true purpose of marriage has eroded so much that it doesn't matter what you do, you can redefine any sex act to be called marriage to try and make it "acceptable". But in the history of mankind, homosexual marriage (and now the slippery slop of "gender-diverse marriage" being added to the list of marriage options - with more on the way as time passes) has never been deemed acceptable. The reason for this is simple: SSM and gender-diverse marriages (plus any other marriage options) are "sex-based" instead of "family-based". All this pulling down of marriage makes marriage look worthless, when in fact, it is not the institution of marriage that is at fault, but rather the way it is being used - people who divorce are simply not honouring their marriage vows.

The whole gay marriage debate is not about whether any two people of the same sex can chose to openly enter into a committed sexually based relationship. They are entirely free to do so. The debate is whether the people, as represented by the state, should recognize that relationship as being a marriage. What the people recognise is entirely up to the people. To put it in an other way, the debate is essentially about how society views marriage as a publicly recognized and supported institution. This goes to its essential nature and the role it plays in society. From such understandings comes a determination of whether "gay marriage" even makes sense. A change in law always has consequences. Overseas so called religious exemptions were guaranteed but subsequently removed very quickly (less than one year in England). It's a nice ideal to not allow one "right" to trump other rights. That simply hasn't happened in the western world in countries that failed to defend and preserve marriage. Instead surrogacy laws are changed placing adult desires to parent above children's rights to their mother and father, parental rights to oversee their children's education (specifically sex ed) are undermined. Unbelievably some US States such as Oregon not only allow gender reassignment surgery for minors but parental consent is NOT required nor is parental knowledge required... AND the government pays for it! The sexual rights and gender identity movement is spiralling out of control. Marriage is the trump card. If the enemies of marriage and family can undermine marriage then it becomes much easier to negatively manipulate parental rights, children's rights to their parents, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc etc etc. So many bad consequences. Much better to preserve marriage for the good of all.

The question of same-sex marriage could not - and indeed has not - been able to avoid questions relating to both the purpose of marriage and the value of same-sex marriage itself. Indeed, to reduce same-sex marriage to simply "equality" was incorrectly categorized the nature of the injustice experienced by same-sex couples. Moreover, while the "marriage equality" slogan has been rhetorically effective in societies such as ours to create emotional blackmail, it has also been divisive and has in part to blame for the ill feeling that has sometimes characterized our public discussion. The framing of the issue as "Marriage Equality" has positioned same-sex marriage within a particular liberal conception of justice that made support for same-sex marriage seem "neutral and obvious" (especially to the humanists whose world-view is solely derived on the idea that "if it feels good, do it"), but it goes against the ingrained reality of historical, biological, scientific, cultural and institutional marriage: So whatever you think of same-sex marriage or indeed marriage itself, this tactic assumes that could not be against equality or human/civil rights or love - it is a moral and emotive desire to have these things - but the tactic ignores how same sex marriage only relates to the legal, State-derived definition of marriage for the purposes of registration and asset distribution. Taking out the emotions, desires or the Institution of Marriage as a social construct, there is no reason to redefine marriage as the pro-SSM people suggest. Do we actually want to give any government the power to control/construct the social fabric of our society?....ANSWER: only if you are a Marxist socialist (which is why they have sabotaged the SSM issue and are using the homosexual community as pawns in their political game).....of course, by destroying social communities like marriages, churches, etc, the Marxist socialists can have the State step in to fill the void - they don't like any competition.

Same sex marriage is against historical and biological marriage. It is only trying to make homosexuality look acceptable, nothing else. ....the gay activists have made it everyone's business because they have raised it in parliament (a public office) and pushed it in schools (a public institution) and paraded about it in Mardi Gras (on public streets) with X-rated exposure for all to see. If they want to keep it "private business in their bedrooms", then they should keep it in their bedrooms and out of the public sphere....they make their sexuality all public and then whinge when the public sees it. What I am saying is if they sow the wind, then they reap the whirlwind. They are making it public and then run for cover from the public responds. If it is too hot in the kitchen, then they should get out of the kitchen and back into their bedrooms. I for one don't want to know anything of their homosexual antics, so do me a favour and get it out of the public sphere. Anyhow, historical marriage has always been between a man and a woman, it has always been about biological parenthood (ie. having children....which homosexuals cannot do) and all the homosexuuals are doing is taking an homourable word like "marriage" and redefining it to make homosexuality look acceptable. There is nothing about homosexuality that is comparable to marriage. What they are saying is a new non-biological, love/lust/sex-driven "marriage" that is meaningless and worthless to all involved.

All the reasons given by Alan Joyce, CEO of Qantas, are irrelevant to redefining marriage and are purely propaganda slogans to try and make homosexuality look acceptable - he has sabotaged Qantas to give his individual, personal opinions some credibility and clout that otherwise would be ignored. He is manipulating and engineering an artificial social change based solely on his person preference that is totalitarian by nature (ie. social activism) instead of letting the Australian culture change as the collective population steers culture harmoniously and naturally. Alan Joyce is blatantly lying to us about his motives and methods and treating us like fools to believe anything he says about the homosexual agenda - he knows that using (abusing) the airline gets huge public exposure to his views because Qantas has considerable contact with people as people fly on the planes - he gets to sprout his views as effectively as if he owned a TV/media company.. Why the Qantas shareholders allow him to do this with their assets is anyone's guess.....but he is not acting appropriately as a CEO and neither does his excuses justify his political agenda being thrust on us. His attempt to push the gay culture on us is backfiring as we see his fake concerns and excuses be exposed and his tricky, sly tactics of social engineering seen for what they are.

Section 128 of the Australian Constitution says in part "...But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first-mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Governor-General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives...".........so as you can see for yourself a referendum could be held here. The pro-SSM proponents blocked the plebiscite. It would be ironic if a referendum was held to entrench the present meaning of marriage. That would be a terrific home goal.

Same sex marriage is now an old issue - people have moved past it and are sick of the very small number of loud-mouthed activists and militant homosexual bullies still trying to push it. We already have marriage equality because everyone can marry equally under the Law as the Marriage Act defines it....however, homosexuals choose not to get married this way and instead, they want to redefine marriage away from it's millennia-old family moorings and turn it into a frivolous "if it feels good, do it" sex-based idea. A meaningless concept. They want a lifestyle choice that is contrary to biological compatibility and so they are trying to sabotage marriage to make homosexuality look acceptable by calling their relationships "marriage" when they can't do the marriage thing because their anatomies lack the bodily parts necessary for marriage to occur. If it is just sex/lust/love that they want, then they can already get these without being "married". All the propaganda slogans and so-called polls (none of which can pass the conflict-of-interest test) have been exposed as fake (which is why pro-SSM people reject a plebescite because there isn't public support for SSM) and they use bully tactics to name/shame/boycott opponents has back-fired - rewarding bullies is the last thing that decent Australians wants to see happening....so SSM is finished here in Australia bar the shouting.

The plebiscite was knocked back because of funding for a yes and no campaign. Just don't provide government money for either side, just announce the date and hold the vote with no TV/Print campaigns allowed on either side. That would satisfy both sides. People are assessing us, voting and making decisions which affect our lives pretty much every day. That's society. Our feelings are not the reason a plebiscite should be knocked back. We're just pawns in the game of politics. Homosexuals are the pawns in the Maxist socialist politics and they don't even know it - they're being played like fools. We should have a balanced and considered approach to issues and moderated opinion. That's how you get change in the modern world, not by holding your breath and stamping your feet....in my experience, that just gets people offside. As for polling that shows 70% in support of same sex marriage: interesting statistic that 70%. Of course, that was derived from an opinion poll and hardly anyone has seen the actual question. I know I haven't. Maybe Fairfax and other hard-left wing media could publish an article which explains the derivation of that number. It's equally likely that 70% are opposed to SSM.....especially if the question includes "same sex marriage" instead of "marriage equality". That's a bit different.....after all, we already have "marriage equality" (ie. everyone has equal opportunity to marry under the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act, but homosexuals choose not to marry this way because they want to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples - hence, marriage equality is not an issue, but redefining marriage is. BTW, gay marriage can occur right now if a gay man marries a gay woman, so the result is gay marriage within the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act, but once again, homosexuals choose not to marry this way - marriage is ALWAYS a choice and not a right) so obviously more people would say YES to "marriage equality", but calling it "homosexual marriage" or "same sex marriage" is far more off-putting. Even now, the pro-SSM side are admitting that only 40% are "strong supporters" of SSM and so they know that a plebiscite of any sort won't get passed. Also, the 70% polliing doesn't even pass the conflict-of-interest test and was selectively polling people in inner city electorates. For example, the Queensland Times newspaper has done a poll showing only 34% approve SSM, 65% disapprove and 1% undecided . I do not agree that "most of the public" want this. I do not know a single person who supports gay marriage and we have never been asked in any of the obviously rigged polls.

This issue is NOT about "Marriage Equality" its about "Same Sex Marriage", the same way that the "Safe Schools Program" is a play on words specific about LGBTI bullying and support of LGBTI ideologies and NOT about bullying in general. As far as I am concerned the supporters of SSM have chosen their words very carefully to confuse and influence the public to emotionally support their cause whilst trying to avoid open debate on the matter....they don't like their emotive propaganda slogans being exposed as fake reasons to redefine marriage to make homosexuality look acceptable.

The changes to 18C of the Anti-Discrimination Act kinda makes sense. There are a lot of petty claims made on the basis that someone is offended. Anyone can be offended at pretty much anything. Being harassed or intimidated, however, is a much different matter. Having said that, this type of activity is probably already illegal and covered by other laws. I don't believe that the "wedding industry" is really struggling at the moment but the lawyers are probably rubbing their hands at the prospect of all that gay money coming their way through a boom in the "divorce industry". We are not stuck in the 1950's. The world has entered a new age, the age of Trumpism. The people decide. If that sounds deplorable, it might be the case, but this is the reality we live in. I think SSM may have to wait a long time to become reality in this new environment. The ALP missed the opportunity when they were in power. They are responsible for shattering the dreams of all those gay couples who wish to be married.

The Howard government in 2004 didn't amend the Marriage Act, it clarified it. The Act has it origins in English law that was made the foundation of the colonial self government acts. Meaning marriage, as defined in the English law as one man and one woman, became the law of the colony that was the subject of the act. When the Constitution was written, it standardised to the federal law those same colonial laws. So if you reverse the Howard amendments it still remains one man and one woman. The High Court ruled in Commonwealth v ACT (2013) that the word "marriage" in the Constitution is a "topic of juristic classification" which is not tied to any historical model, meaning the federal parliament can legislate as it wishes within that topic. In other words, marriage is whatever the Marriage Act says it is. However, reversing the Howard/Andrew amendment wouldn't automatically allow same-sex marriage because the "2 consenting adults" could then also legally include incest - there would still need to be a Law passed to specifically allow "same sex couples" but not other forms of "2 consenting adults".....so no such "marriage equality" will occur as the pro-SSM people claim. Obviously, this would infuriate all the other alphabet people in the LGBTIQAP+ gender distinctions because the debate would therefore just continue to rage on. Plus, the word "adultery" would also need to be redefined because, like marriage, it is a word that has been defined for millinnia as heterosexual (this arguement over the word "adultery" is raging on in the UK at the moment). Please note that the High Court only said that parliament CAN allow SSM, not that it should or in what the process should be....in other words, the High Court decision is irrelevant to the current push to have SSM legalised and/or whether a plebiscite on SSM should be held or not.

There is no homophobia, just a difference of opinion. The "homophobia" name-calling is an emotive propaganda slogan to emotionally blackmail people into accepting the gay culture. This sort of name-calling is bullying and intimidating and has nothing to do with diversity, inclusion or acceptance. In fact, it has been over-used so much that the "crying wolf" syndrome has started - no one takes any notice of such name-calling any more. When Christians are attacked for upholding Biblical Christianity, they can be told: "Your problem lies in thinking that God controls us (believers) like a robot. In other words we have no choices in life because God controls every aspect of it. In Islam, yes that is their culture, "God willing" as they say for every act or decision they make. That's control. If you study the scriptures you will find that God does not control the spirit. He grants freedom at creation for us to make our own life decisions. The soul is where we can go off the path because it’s the centre of emotions and feelings.We react many times in this realm without thinking through the consequences of our decisions. No one is immune from it or is a perfect person. We battle with it throughout over lives.Abraham did, when knowing Sarai was barren, he and Sarai thought they could solve the problem by conceiving the child of promise through Hagar.She bore Ishmael and it didn’t turn out well for Abraham. He repented of his mistake (what we call a sin) turned his attention back to God’s promise and sure enough Isaac was born sometime later.It’s all in Genesis chapters 17-21, worth a read." We know through-out history that the idea of being accountable to an omnipresent God (as the Judeao-Christian scriptures, the Holy Bible, teaches) has helped keep people in check - would you act differently if everyone could see and hear everything you do and say (even your thoughts) and punished you for any wrong-doing?...The very concept of "Justice" requires that the person who has done a wrong deed needs to be punished and this concept would not exist unless there was an innate awareness of an infallible, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Creator God who will one day punish us for our sins (unless you have yielded to the obvious belief that Jesus Christ has paid for your sins and therefore you avoid the punishment because Jesus took it on Himself on your behalf). Relying solely on human reasoning to determine what "justice" is would become a mere slanging match of "my opinion is better than yours"....there is no reference point to determine or define such a concept as "justice".

Same sex marriage is part of the "Green political agenda" which involves the assumption (belief) that the physical universe is the "be-all-and-end-all" of everything (ie. Gaia) and that the human intellect is sufficient enough to "know" and/or "comprehend" every fact that exists in the universe (ie. atheism/humanism).....so the words "scientific", "rational" and "logical" are ascribed to everything they say/think/believe/theorize/makeup in order to give themselves credibility. The people who support the Greens Party generally hold to these assumptions and they don't use religious terminology so that they can maintain the allusion that they are not religious - but honest people know that they are being religiously "non-religious"....and that: 1. unable to know or comprehend every fact in the universe (ie. they "don't know what they don't know" and so they cannot legitimately rule out the existence of a divine Creator), 2. they "theorize" to fill in the gaps of knowledge and call these theories "scientific" to give them credibility (most of their theories are categorically ludicrous and even if they actually dreamt up a theory that worked, they still can't know if the universe happened the way they theorized because they cannot go back in time to prove the theory to be true - the best that they can get is "beyond reasonable doubt"....but people who believe in "green fairies" actually believe that their theories are factual), 3. rule out the possibility of a divine Creator even when scientific evidence shows the existence of such (ie. they have a pre-determined belief and therefore interpret ALL facts to fit into their pre-determined worldview rather than let the facts speak for themselves....they are selective with the facts), 4. ignore non-tangible facts like emotions, desires and reasoning because these are not chemically-physically determined (ie. somehow all these non tangible things evolved in a tangible-only universe....they doggedly ignore the innate awareness that every human has about the existence of God and yet they cannot explain it away other than to use the throw-away line of "being stupid". What a cop out), 5. they actually worship "random chance" as their god because all the physically impossible facts that exist somehow occurred because "chance" made it happen (ie. they believe this when the only scientific answer for all these physically impossible facts to exist is for a divine Creator who lives outside of time and space to design and create such facts), 6. they believe that "secular politics" excludes all other religions except their own "non-religious" religion when in fact, they are imposing their own subjective ideals of "ethics", "rights", "good deeds" and "morals" onto us when they have no reference point to even know how to determine what such things are.they actually have no reference point to even know how to determine or define what such things are. They base all this on their own opinion(s) without any more authority than someone else who has the opposite opinion(s). In other words, they are "the blind leading the blind".

Polling results are only the results of the people polled....and the way the pro-SSM people commission and conduct such polling doesn't even pass the conflict-of-interest test. Did they use the words "marriage equality" in the question or "same sex marriage"?....there is a big difference - we already have "marriage equality" in Australia (legal marriage is equally available to everyone within the current Marriage Act), but homosexuals choose not to be married this way. Same sex marriage however requires a complete new concept of marriage never tried before in the history of the world - it redefines marriage away from it's millennia-old definition. Bring on a plebiscite to know the true support (or lack therof) for same sex marriage.

Beliefs and principles are not currency to be traded in the transactional politics of the regressive left. If same sex marriage is the right thing to do, then argue the case and convince people of its merits rather than pursue some sleazy backroom political deal. That is what a civil society would do. And while we are talking about a civil society, we should remember that this issue, like so many others, is not about politics but about peoples' lives. Sure there are same sex couples who would like to have their relationships or their lifestyles legitimized in their own eyes or the eyes of the rest of society. However, we should not forget that there are also many people who have chosen to be married because that marriage meant something to them. Granting the right to call same sex relationships a marriage effectively redefines the relationships of all other married couples. Now that may not mean anything to some people, but it does to many. So before we engage in useless commentary about trading reform on same sex marriage for reform of the racial discrimination act, we need to understand that the same sex marriage debate is a trade-off in itself. It is about trading the rights of those who have entered into a traditional marriage for those who want same sex marriage.

Through-out history, marriage has been parenthood-based and the examples of post-menopausal women, infertile couples, kids getting married, and marriages with unrelated parenthood issues are not the main reasons for people to get married - these examples are actually examples of these people NOT wanting to get married because they don't see the need. Even homosexuals, since the beginning of the human race, never wanted to get married for this reason (ie. marriage wasn't meant for homosexuals). Until the last few years, marriage has been targeted simply to make homosexuality look acceptable....but it requires trashing marriage in the process. So even with the examples of marriage outside parenthood (constituting a minuscule percentage of marriages), why should marriage be redefined into a trashy, worthless, meaningless, futile and pathetic concept just to make homosexuals "feel good". By the way, homosexuality won't be seen as acceptable if gay couples marry so then the barttle will start all over again on another social engineering agenda (eg. target impressionable naive young people to groom them into the gay culture, sabotage the public service, place homosexuality into arts/music/movies/sport/social services) to condition people to view homosexuals as normal?....many of these things are already happening, but people think for themselves and are not fooled by all the leftie trickery and smoke'n'mirrors. "Marriage Equality" is not the highest aim or virtue that homosexuals can achieve - it is not the be-all-and-end-all of living for homosexuals - particularly when that equality is artificial. "Marriage Equality" is a misnomer....it is "Same Sex Marriage". Marriage is a specific institution coopted by the State to protect children - not recognise love. The pro-SSM lobby say its not about kids - its about love, therefore admitting that marriage is not appropriate for them. They are wanting a new love/lust/sex-based "marriage" that has no resembleance to millennia-old parenthood-based marriage that we currently have. How is your love effected by Govt sanction? Homosexual activists claim that certain legal rights are being withheld, yet MANY people deliberately choose not to marry at all, meaning the so-called rights are not very important, and that marriage says nothing as to the validity of their "love" or relationship and do not make them 2nd class citizens in any sense, or all those who choose not to marry are idiots who are deliberately put themselves in inferior positions legally. Such marriage "rights" are a farce - marriage is a choice.....always has been and always will be.

My marriage would function the same no matter what the Legal definition of Marriage becomes (even if same sex marriage becomes legal, my marriage will function the same), but how I define my marriage changes because the word "marriage" will be redefined....like all other words that are redefined, it will mean something different than what it means now - hence, redefining marriage as the SSM proponents want affects EVERYONE who calls themselves "married". The function of their marriages are the same (ie. their love, business, religious, thoughts, obligations, opportunity, etc, etc don't change) and so to side-step the issue with all these emotive claims is irrelevant to legalising same sex marriage - it is not the function of marriage that is changed, but the DEFINITION of marriage is changed. Marriage will mean something different and EVERYONE who uses the word "marriage" will be saying something different to what they are saying now - this is the issue with SSM and why public debate rages over it.... it will be rigorously opposed until there can be a legitimate reason to redefine marriage. None has been given yet. All the propaganda slogans being spewed out by pro-SSM people, the feigned offense and horror that they display, the sabotaging of our public institutions to groom people (particularly young people) into gay culture and the bully tactics don't justify redefining marriage. To the contrary, they will destroy marriage. Marriage is something that was not created by politicians (it pre-dates secular politics), they merely codified it in 2004 according to the accepted interpretation at the time. Politicians have no right to legislate for a different version of it. Any changes must come from the people or completely lack legitimacy.

In the past, "gay marriage" wasn't an oxymoron, but would literally describe a marriage with one or more gay parties, still one man and one woman who are happy people (the original meaning of the word "gay" was to be happy) or a gay/homosexual man can marry a gay/lesbian woman so you end up with "gay marriage" but still legal as defined by the current Marriage Act. Same sex marriage, however, is the oxymoron, because for the majority of the population, (by age) the definition was and still is between a man and a woman as it always has been, since well, the word is going on 1000 years now, and the meaning, which has evolved in every way but man and woman, predates the word. The fact is, we are the generations who are changing this word. Some countries have already in the late 20th century, but speaking of this time frame, It has never gone this far out of its original context that I know of. This isn't the transition from more contract/commitment to romantic connotations which were necessary for the rise of gay empowerment. Institutions are artificially altering survived original use significantly from what it ever was before our culture catches up. A gay man could still form a lasting union with anyone without bastardising the word marriage. There was never an issue of rights. What was wrong is that gay people thought marriage was about love, and political motivation lead to the sacrifice of sanity. Gays, more notably the progressive body, wanted recognition and the legitimacy of the state acknowledging "same sex marriage", not the equal rights to adopt and equal tax benefits, separation procedures etc....whatever. Marriage is a formal long term union, generally contracted or vowed, between a man and a woman. A wedding is one traditional ceremony where this is performed....all this changes into a flimsy whim of "whoever you have sex with is marriage" with same sex marriage.

The Coopers Beer saga is a beat-up. The homosexual activists are just being bullies and the more they brow-beat people into submission, the less we care about their perpetual, confected shrill because it is all feigned ouutrage. The homosexual pubs that have boycotted Coopers Beer are also being boycotted by the drinkers that want Coopers Beer....so the pubs get a sting in their own sting. Such irony. By Coopers giving in to such bullying tactics rewards the perpetrators and emboldens them to bully more people who oppose their twisted view of reality. The issue is not about SSM being "strongly supported by the Australian population" at all. It is about the VERY prominent practice of supporters to disrupt and damage those who don't also actively support it. Coopers didn't make the video and the video was not anti-SSM, but still Coopers got the clear message that nothing short of overt support would end the economic terrorism. They gave in and issued their "I now welcome our new overlords". Australian businesses are forced to ‘take the pledge’ of spriking propaganda slogans like "love is love, "rights for all" and "marriage equality" (none of which are relevant to redefining marriage to incluude same sex couples) and conform to the same-sex marriage agenda with a reputation gun held to their heads. Coopers is just the latest example of this. By winning the battle, they have lost the war. The idea of homosexual marriage is now a thing of the past. Australians don't want it and beating up on people like Coopers exposes homosexuality to be a devious, deceitful and destructive lifestyle to choose. The lesson we are learning from the homosexual, gender fluidity, rainbow saboteurs is to stay away from their ideology and political agenda (as the Bible clearly says so in Romans 1:18-32).

The Australian Federal Parliament approved the Marriage Act wording in 2004 (it was not just the Liberal Party, but the Labor Party as well - including politicians like Penny Wong), so it was a parliamentary decision. Plus, there were no homosexuals decrying the word change in 2004 because marriage wasn't a right back then (nor is it now), but a choice....and homosexuals have ALWAYS chosen not to marry because marriage was ALWAYS a heterosexual thing - hence the wording in the current Marriage Act reflects the British Common Law defining marriage for centuries as between a man and a woman. Nothing changed in 2004, just common sense prevailed. The feeble effort by homosexual activists to make a grievance about it is a farce, along with the claim that homosexuals have a "right" to be married - it is also a farce. There are no homosexual "rights" and Australians know it. If the "love, tolerance, rights and equality" propaganda slogans (none of which are relevant to redefining marriage) are all that homosexuals have to make their homosexuality look acceptable, then it is certain that redefining marriage to include homosexuals will never happen in Australia. The more that homosexuals whine about all this, the worse they look, the more they parade their sexuality around the streets, in schools and thru-out public social/media/institutional/sporting forums, the more different they look and the more they try to name/shame/boycott their opponents, the more hateful they become.

Marriage isn't a human or natural right - so says the UDHR, EU and other courts - and it's nothing like slavery or women's voting rights.....to say it is, is to trivialise slavery and women's voting. Legal marriage (as distinct from the millennia-old social marriage) has always been contingent on society and government involvement in marriage is only a recent thing - government "legal" marriage is, in affect, solely a government register of people who are "married" and how to deal with assets. Legal marriage was never the excuse to cause social re-structuring. In fact, it's the other way around. Giving governments the role to define social structures is giving governments too much power. Plus, denying SSM says nothing as to the worth or the value of the person, just that a certain institution doesn't involve/ apply to/ include them as they don't fit the criteria - like me not be able to play women's volleyball just means I'm not a woman and I can't play volleyball and that's all. Slavery reduces people to sub human status, but being married or not doesn't. Homosexual people have the exact same rights currently as everyone else - the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. What SSM activists actually mean is that they believe that the definition of marriage should be changed to accommodate a new right - that of marrying someone of the same sex. This is why this debate continues on and people opposing SSM aren't fooled by the emotive "love is love", "human/civil rights", "marriage equality", "discrimination causes suicide", "if you don't like SSM then don't marry someone of the same sex", "it's none of your business what homosexuals do in their bedrooms" and "other countries do it so we should too" propaganda slogans, because none of these slogans are relevant to redefining marriage to include same sex couples. People have different understandings and beliefs of exactly what a marriage is and what it represents....so same sex marriage proposition is turning marriage into a purely sex/lust/romance-based concept that is completely different to the millennia-old parenthood-based marriage that we currently have - it is uncharted territory and we don't know how a bedrock of society like marriage being changed will affect our society. If same sex marriage ever occurred in Australia, any other people who are "in love" with anyone/anything can equally be "married", so traditional couples who marry will forever then refer to themselves as Legitimate Marriage....as opposed to the view of minority gays who hijacked their marriage. BACK TO SQUARE ONE.

Because marriage has been trashed so much, the idea that anyone can marry anyone/anything is now an option. The same sex “marriage” laws that have been passed in Western countries (except Australia) are not marriage and never can be - it’s just a stunt to make homosexuality look acceptable. As a result of this redefining of marriage to be just a “label” for sex acts, anyone having sex with anyone/anything can now be seen as “married”. If you want incest to look acceptable, then you will try to get marriage laws to allow family members to “marry”, but it is not marriage and never can be….neither does the trashing of marriage make such relationships acceptable. Like I say, this trashing of marriage makes sane sex “marriage” meaningless and worthless. Any such “marriage” that you seek with family members will be equally meaningless and worthless. Same sex marriage laws will never get passed in Australia for this reason because Australians know that real marriage is intrinsically linked with biological parenthood (which only heterosexuals non-family couples can do).

The homosexual activists steal the word "gay" to make their sodomy look innocent and fun, then they steal the rainbow to symbolise their sodomy as being bright and colourful and the word "marriage" is being stolen and redefined to suit their purposes in trying to make their sodomy acceptable....now they want to steal the word "adultery" to suit their purposes in breaking up their sodomy "marriages". There is clearly a slippery slope with all of this leading down in to the social sewer of decadency and sexual perversion. Marriage is far more than just a wedding ceremony and calling someone "husband", "wife" or "partner" and it is also far more than just "two people being in love" (or more likely in today's way of thinking, a lot of marriages are more built on lust rather than love and so they are doomed to fail even before they start). For same sex marriage advocates to say that “You couldn't use term husbands and wife in same-sex marriage, but otherwise it wouldn't be any different to heterosexual marriage” is an incredibly shallow and meaningless view of marriage. Real marriage is a family-based institution for the nurture of children through to the next generation unlike same sex marriage which is a sex-based concept never tried before in the history of human existence. The latter is for the self-gratification of the individual (ie. to make them feel good) and in a political sense, same sex marriage is solely trying to make homosexuality look acceptable - in other words, there is nothing about same sex marriage that compares to real marriage. Real marriage is a millennia-old institution for procreation and male-female marriage is a proven pillar of successful civilisations since the dawn of time. Same sex couples simply don't have the biology to do real marriage and the only way that they can make marriage seem plausible to them is to steal the word "marriage" and redefine it to suit their purposes. Even their idea of having a family is to use artificial reproduction and then deprive a child of a mother or a father. Such a confected lifestyle turns children into mere luxury accessories for selfish homosexual parents.

We can avoid the costs of same sex marriage disputes in Australia by simply leaving the Marriage Act as it is - no cost there. Australia has a fiat currency, so the government issues the money therefore it will not cost anything. Plus, if there is ever another plebiscite proposed, the money spent on the plebiscite doesn't just disappear - it goes into the pockets and communities of casual AEC workers (who have to pay income tax) who then spend it on goods and services at their local shops (who charge GST and fuel levy).....so the government gets a big slab of it back in taxes/levies. What people do in their bedrooms is their business, but marriage is a bit more than sex acts, and by historical definitions, it is a bit more than just the love between two people. Quite a bit more. If we need laws on marriage then we need to talk about what "legal marriage" is. The plebiscite lets the people decide how marriage is defined instead of noisy homosexual activists who are good at gaming the political system, sabotaging the public institutions and using judicial activism to bully, intimidate and force people to do what they want. What people do in their bedrooms is their business, but the homosexuals aren't keeping their business in their bedrooms, they are parading it all around in public for all to see....and then they get upset when the public respond. Do us all a favour and keep your homosexual acts in your bedrooms. Marriage is a bit more than sex acts, and by historical definitions is a bit more than just the love between two people. Quite a bit more. If we need laws on marriage then we need to talk about what "legal marriage" is, who it affects and how this new marriage concept (that includes same sex couples and inevitably a multitude of other relationship options) should be defined as seeing as anyone using the new marriage definition would be describing a marriage that is different to the way that we currently use the word marriage.......this is why Parliament in 2004 voted on the Marriage Act when John Howard was Prime Minister (to reflect the Common Law) and it passed with the support of Labor politicians, so that is what we have today and the matter should be done and dusted. Labor wants a conscience vote in Parliament but they themselves have a binding "yes" policy on all Labor MPs in the coming election, so there is no conscience vote on their side....and Why cant the electorate be allowed a conscience vote?....but no, Labor, Greens, NXT and Hinch blocked the plebiscite. Plus, there have already been about 18 attempts in Parliament to pass a same sex marriage bill and ALL have failed - so it already has been put to parliament. If there is a concern that any future plebiscite is the "majority voting on the rights of the minority" (as we hear the same sex proponents claim), then a parliamentary vote is also a form of majority deciding on the rights of the minority (ie. a majority of MPs need to pass the bill to make it Law). However, the same sex marriage people want the homosexual marriage Law and are facilitating such an intense push that it requires an expensive solution to resolve. They are continually trying to game the political system (and create the allusion of public support) to get the result they want without the public supporting it....they are trying to railroad it into existence using name-calling, public name/shame/boycotting and emotive propaganda slogans. If they are so confident of public support, then why did they reject a plebiscite? They are doing the same tactics with unSafe Schools "gender fluidity", promiscuous "disRespectful Relationships and the "Anti-male Identification" programs in schools to try and create a intermixed, gender-irrelevant society. They cause the problems and then claim to be part of the solutions. They claim that suicides and depression will occur which, by putting such ideas into people's heads, facilitates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their suffering that they claim to have is all self-inflicted. They are pushing for a pipe dream that smokes up the room and nothing more. Or to put it another way: they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. The multi-coloured rainbow (which is in the sky for everyone to enjoy and has been stolen by the homosexual movement to represent their cause) is really coloured green because of the lefties. The "too fragile" claim is made even more of a mockery when homosexual activists repeat the supposedly suicidal-provoking, homophobic, bigoted statements to name/shame/boycott the accused - that's right.... the so-called "hate speech" that they claim is coming from the anti-SSM side are repeated over and over again by the pro-side to embarrass people (just look at the GLORIA awards who give spoof awards for the worst-of-the-worst "homophobic" comments) thereby broadcasting all the "hate speech" even more. They say it is "no one else's business what they do in the bedroom", and yet they want the government (a public forum), the protests/marches (on public streets) and social media to see all their bedroom activities and then they get upset when the public responds?....if the sow the wind, they reap the whirlwind - they are constantly doing/saying back at themselves the very things that they say shouldn't be done/said. Children are being told "you are being reject by all those anti-gay people" until the child believes what they are being told - it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Bill Shorten. Penny Wong and all the other gay activists are playing this game with people's lives solely to make their political agenda a reality. For them to claim that it is "equality" or a "human/civil right" to be married are also a nonsense because marriage is already equally available to homosexuals – it's just that they must marry the opposite sex, but they choose not to. It is therefore a choice (not a "right") and they choose not to be married. Taking the word marriage to describe their homosexual relationships is purely a stunt to make sodomy acceptable....and do they celebrate and rejoice at a homosexual who decides to become heterosexual – in other words, “coming out” the opposite way?….of course not!

If people are forced to approve or participate in something that they deem "unconscionable", then it means that slavery is in our society. The way that the homosexual activists are using the judiciary as a political tool to bully, intimidate and force people to endorse their same sex "marriage", would only bringt slavery to Australia.

Free speech is fundamental to preserving our liberty and our democracy, so yes all attacks on it are very serious problems indeed. Gay marriage is a second order issue but is a valid litmus test of peoples value system. Because 18d only binds the judge, not the complainant nor the HRC. By the time the judge finally makes a judgement, perhaps years down the track, the accused has been through a very expensive ordeal even when there was no real basis for the complaint. And even then, 18d requires the judge to decide whether the accused had a "genuine" purpose or their comments were fair. These weasel words invalidate section 18d right out of the bat. If you are only free to say what a judge, in a necessarily subjective analysis, thinks is fair or for a purpose the judge approves of then you do not have free speech at all. The only judges of whether comments are fair or genuine should be the court of open debate. The only penalty for getting wrong is to have your comments attacked and demolished in open debate. Those seeking to reform 18c don't want to vilify anyone. They wish to be free to discuss sensitive issues openly even if some people find that discussion insulting and offensive and to do so without fear of being dragged through an expensive inquisitorial process. After the QUT students case, the pretense that 18d protects free speech and the open discussion of ideas cannot be seriously defended.

How does the same sex marriage debate change the way our parliaments operate?....English (Common) Law, from which our Australian Laws are derived, shows that marriage laws (like all other equity law) were controlled entirely by the church at the beginning of the English Empire from mid-1200AD onwards. When the State (King/Monarch) took over these functions from the church, he made promises to the church that the State would not 'hinder' (ie. manifestly interfere with) those Laws - this is primarily what the Magna Carta is all about. The State (King/Monarch) also wanted final authority in making Laws separate from the church and so he insisted that there never be a State-sanctioned church whereby the church would, in effect, become the State - which is where we get the concept of the "separation of church and State". So although there could never be a State-sanctioned church, it was never intended that the church was unable to make religious policies or could not lobby the State (King/Monarch) to pass religious-based Laws, it just meant that the State (King/Monarch) always has the final say in what Laws are passed. In fact, the English parliament ("Westminster System") was constructed to allow the State ("Lower House") to propose Laws that are then reviewed by the Lords representing the people ("Upper House") before being passed into Law by the State (back in the "Lower House"). Legislation needs the government's approval. The State (King/Monarch) grants royal assent on the advice of the Prime Minister, and by extension Cabinet....so this creates a happy balance between the State (King/Monarch) having final authority on Law creation with the people having enough say in the process without feeling that they were getting walked all over by the State....which is why the Magna Carta is so important to us. Australian parliaments use this Westminster System seeing as we were colonised by the British Empire and the British Monarch is our Head-Of-State. The only differences are: 1. that we have a Governor-General representing the Monarchy, and; 2. our Lower House has elected members who make up the Laws and recommend these Laws (after review in the Upper House) to the Governor-General to be passed into Law. It should be noted that the British "Australia Act" of 1986 makes Australia independent to makes it's own Laws without the involvement of the British Parliament or British Courts. The Governor-General therefore (representing the Monarchy) still has the final authority on Law creation by giving it royal assent, but he/she always goes with the recommendation made by the Prime Minister after the elected members of the Lower House have passed a Bill - so the Governor-General has become more of a symbolic role today. Having explained all this, the tenet of the State laws that the church was handing over would not be watered down, nor altered, and the moral aspects of those laws would be maintained by the State (King/Monarch/Governor-General). This is how our Laws have been maintained and our parliaments have been performing this way since the colonisation of Australia. Over all these years, the basic notion of equity, fairness, and the original basic notion of the interests of the church have been maintained or only modified to make more just laws. In other words the original "church law" has maintained its influence over our law-making instruments. When we look at the same sex marriage issue, the church concept of marriage has been integral in the legal definition of marriage because our history demands it - that is why John Howard orchestrated the encoding of marriage into the Marriage Act as "solely between a man and a woman for life". By ignoring the church's definition of marriage as now exists in the Marriage Act, not only departs from the millennia-old understanding of marriage through-out ALL civilisations for ALL time, but it is "secularizing" our parliaments away from the historical church moorings. This SSM debate is changing far more than "just letting two homosexuals love each other" in marriage. Apart from trivialising marriage into a frivolous "label" to make homosexual activity acceptable, it is closing the door on our Christian heritage so that our parliaments can be run by humanist/atheist ideology....this is why the Bible is being mocked so much, our Christian heritage ignored and a new dawn of Christian persecution coming upon us.

Even if homosexual marriage becomes legal in Australia, it will just be a "label" that the government gives them by issuing them a "Marriage Certificate" and nothing more - it will never be considered legitimate because it is different to heterosexual marriage in every way possible (homosexual marriage uses the word "homosexual" to describe it and is sex-oriented whereas heterosexual marriage is just "marriage" and is family-oriented).....and the way that the homosexual lobbyists have forced the whole thing onto the public using tactics like "overwhelm the opposition" on social media, name/shame/boycott opponents in public, emotional manipulation with homosexuals in movies, music, sitcoms, studies, media, schools, universities, sporting activities and even "church" to make it look normal and pretend that it is scientifically/historically/politically/economically advantageous to humankind (when the opposite is true) will never make homosexuality acceptable. They put forward children as "human shields" to avoid criticism (after all, who will argue politics with a child?) by getting children to parrot their propaganda slogans and tug at our heartstrings, but in fact, the children are just naive pawns in their emotive game - the activists themselves are adopting the petulant childlike attitude: "I want...I want...you're mean...give it to me". We are not being fooled by all this.....hence, opponents to homosexual marriage will simply add the word "real" in front of heterosexual marriages and the word "fake" in front of homosexual marriages - that's what I will do. Then we will see the homosexual lobbyists start all over again to stop people from calling their marriages "fake" and use government resources and public offices to force opponents to obey them or get punished. So their propaganda slogan: "It only affects gay people and so no one else needs to worry about it" is a farce (along with all their other emotive propaganda slogans like "equality", "human/civil right", "love is love", "discrimination", etc). Other changes to us all will be words redefined (like he/she/mum/dad/boy/girl) to be gender neutral or gender "fluid", our children being groomed into homosexual behaviour, increased costs on fixing health problems with the homosexual lifestyle and the thought police on patrol all the time to "catch out" supposed homophobes (....watch out, you will be relentlessly chased down). There is no "live and let live" with homosexual marriage advocates....so in the end, homosexual marriage will be a small step (and a worthless one at that) in the never-ending quest of trying to make homosexuality acceptable. The millennia-old institution of heterosexual marriage (based on parent-hood) has been and will always be different to homosexual marriage no matter how much the homosexual advocates try to "will it into existence"........They also want parliament to vote on their supposedly private relationships - so if they don't want it to be anyone else's business and they don't want the majority to vote on the "rights" of a minority, then they shouldn't ask government to make it public business and call their relationships "marriage". They are taking a word that is a heterosexual word since time-immemorial and trying to change it into something completely different that affects every person in the country (because redefining marriage means that everyone who uses the word marriage will be saying something different to what they meant before - that's what happens when you change word definitions) and then they wonder why people are getting into a tiz??....plus, they have now made it an even bigger issue by dragging the debate out for years (maybe indefinitely as "issue fatigue" sets in) and at the same time infuriating unassuming voters to now make a stand against SSM because the election promise of a plebiscite has been denied them. Talk about waking a sleeping giant!

Australia has a fiat currency, so the government issues the money therefore it will not cost anything. Plus, if there is ever another plebiscite proposed, the money spent on the plebiscite doesn't just disappear - it goes into the pockets and communities of casual AEC workers (who have to pay income tax) who then spend it on goods and services at their local shops (who charge GST and fuel levy).....so the government gets a big slab of it back in taxes/levies. What people do in their bedrooms is their business, but marriage is a bit more than sex acts, and by historical definitions, it is a bit more than just the love between two people. Quite a bit more. If we need laws on marriage then we need to talk about what "legal marriage" is. The plebiscite lets the people decide how marriage is defined instead of noisy homosexual activists who are good at gaming the political system, sabotaging the public institutions and using judicial activism to bully, intimidate and force people to do what they want.

It is not the Institution of Marriage that causes "many hundreds of thousands of kids who go without the support of one of their parents", but rather the married parents not keeping their marriage vows. In other words, it is how marriage is misused that causes all the problems, not marriage itself.....and what about all the successful marriages?....you fail to acknowledge how all the successful married parents are raising their children properly - so marriage can (and does) work perfectly when married people honour their marriage vows.

Secular Humanists voice their personal opinion about how same sex marriage MUST be legal, but it is just that - their personal opinion. My personal opinion is opposite to yours....so where does that get us?....no where, just disagreeing. And your claim to "rational and logical thought" is also opposite to my "rational and logical thought"....so where does that get us?....no where, just disagreeing. If you think that your "rational and logical thought" is more authoritative or accurate to my (or anyone else's) "rational and logical thought", then you have exposed yourself to be a religious humanist because you have no authority or ability to legitimately make such a claim. All you are doing is giving us your fallible, limited and conceited opinion, nothing more. In fact, religious humanists (as you are showing us) worship their own intellect as being the highest truth in the universe and so they think that their "rational and logical thought" is superior to anyone who disagrees with them. In reality, it is the "blind leading the blind" because religious humanists have no reference point to even determine what is "good", "ethical", "fair", decent", "moral", "rational", "logical", etc, etc...all these things are whatever you decide to make them out to be and you can change your mind on these things whenever you "feel" like it - it's subjectivity, post-modernism gone mad. So you not only worshipping your intellect, but also your "feelings" to give you subjective truth. History has shown us that atheists/humanists cause as much hurt and destruction as the religions that they decry.....so you are not offering us a path forward at all, you are just giving us your opinion like the rest of us that has no more relevance than some reading interest. If we look at everyone's opinion, they are ALL based (including yours) on a worldview that is defined by a belief system. Iin your case, it is your belief in your "rational and logical thought" that determines your worldview....so the so-called "intellectuals of the world" (ie. religious humanists) are just as religious and mythological by believing in their intellectual superiority as any other "Religion and belief in mythology"

Marriage has always been a choice and it always will be. It is not a right. Even the European Union has recently acknowledged this. It is not listed as a right with the United Nations and same sex marriage was never considered necessary or desirable in the history of marriage in Australia until only the past few years after John Howard orchestrated a definition in the Marriage Act – a definition that stated the obvious and reflected the millennia-old institution of marriage (already defined under Common Law). Human Rights? Scientific facts are inherent to the material nature of the universe, but "human rights" are composed by the words of the laws which bestow those rights. There are no "human rights" out there in the universe to discover, there is only what you can get enforced in your favour in a court (a right) and those things you wish you could get enforced in your favour (an aspiration). And those aspirations are culturally and linguistically conditioned. So since when is it a human right for homosexuals to redefine the meaning of marriage to suit their relationships? Never. Every person in Australia today (including a homosexual) has the same equal right to marriage, but just because their choice of partner doesn't meet the definition doesn't mean their human rights are being oppressed. Those who choose a person who is already married, under 18, or a close relative also cannot marry. The homosexual's options are exactly the same as the heterosexual's - so choose a new partner that meets the definition, or not marry. And for the record, Howard's rewording of the Marriage Act was done purely to reflect the standard meaning of the word marriage under Common Law, to stop activists twisting things around and using courts to destroy marriage. He didn't change anything, it is same sex marriage activists who are trying to change things....if people want the right to marry then earn it, convince a majority of the population to vote in favour of it! Simple.

Same sex marriage proponents argue that if a man and woman who experience infertility together can marry, then two men or two women can also marry. This argument rests on the hidden premise that two men or two women can also experience infertility together. Science has proven that this is not true because the biology is different (man-woman couples have body parts that allow procreation that are absent in same-sex couples) - hence, infidelity isn't possible with same sex couples due to their lacking of fertility parts in the first place to be infertile. Their argument relies on a false premise and is therefore a false argument. If fact, for same sex advocates to exclude the family, child-rearing nature of marriage, they have confirmed that a same-sex marriage is a completely different sort of marriage to the millennia-old heterosexual marriage. For them to say that there are heterosexual marriages without children, so therefore they can do the same is not the normal use of marriage - marriages inherently involve children (the current Marriage Act also makes reference to children because it is assumed that children will occur in a marriage). In fact, people who don't want children usually don't see any need to get married. Infidelity becomes an irrelevant proposition where there is no prospect of children and therefore, so does same sex marriage become irrelevant. If anyone thinks that heterosexual marriages are already so trashy that it doesn't matter who calls themselves "married", then it is not the marriage institution that is at fault for all the broken marriages but rather, it's the married people who don't honour their marriage vows that are at fault....and if marriage is solely based on "love" (now-a-days it is more accurately "lust"), then why can't everyone marry anyone or anything they want if they are "in love/lust" instead of just "2 consenting adults" being allowed to marry?....ANSWER: homosexuals are only wanting the label of "marriage" to make their relationship look acceptable, but they lack the ability and responsibility of actually doing marriage. Their idea of artificial reproduction also shows all the more that their marriage is artificial....plus the resultant test-tube children are deprived of a mother or a father. Same sex marriage proponents also fail to acknowledge that even the sex act is different between heterosexuals and same sex couples, and yet they keep telling us that homosexual marriage is somehow no different to traditional heterosexual marriage just because they can dress up on their wedding day and say "I do" - marriage is far more than this. They also talk about how people use marriage rather than the institution of marriage itself. Marriages fail because people don't honour their marriage vows, but the institution of marriage is perfect and has been proven such over millennia of civilisations. Just because people use marriage contrary to it's millennia-old intended purpose that has been a proven formula for the success of civilizations since time immemorial, doesn't mean that the institution of marriage is bad or obsolete - to the contrary, it means that people don't honour their marriage vows and in a "make up your own subjective morality" post-modern society, marriage is turned into whatever you want to make it to be no matter how frivolous or irrelevant. This recent approach to marriage (symbolised by the same sex marriage push) is a totally new "non-biological" concept of marriage that has never been proven or attempted in the history of human existence. Such an experiment is fraught with dangers and fragments the family unit. The state-controlled ideology of Socialism loves the destruction of marriage and the gender fluidity myths being pushed on us which is why the elitist Marxist political activists are jumping onboard to use (abuse?) the homosexual community as pawns for their political cause, but as history has always regarded marriage as the formation of families and for the nurture of children with a mother and a father (as the Marriage Act defines), it is no wonder that some of us are willing to defend the institution of marriage before we head off into the abyss. Sure....some people use marriage for other purposes (like having no children) or people outside marriage live like married couples (like defacto couples), but that is irrelevant to the definition of the Marriage Institution. To suggest that marriage is already undermined (trashed?) so much that we might as well turn it completely into just an emotional "label" that the government gives a frivolous bit of paper saying "You're Married" on it is a brand new marriage concept (completely separate to the institution of marriage as defined in the Marriage Act) and this new marriage concept will have a meaningless purpose in society. For the Yes side to ignore this immensely significant change and for them to solely focus on emotional stories of "love" (lust?), or "human/civil rights" or "equality" misses the whole point of the No side and misses the whole point of why marriage exists in the first place. Until the Yes side actually show how the institution of marriage is enhanced (not how homosexuality is enhanced, nor how people's lives who are "in love" are enhanced, nor how "human/civil rights" are enhanced, nor how "equality" is enhanced - all of which are irrelevant to the issue), then marriage should stay as it is.

Before 2004, it was accepted by Australians (including homosexuals) that marriage is exclusively for heterosexuals which is why no homosexuals ever tried to get married since…..well, ever. The plebiscite idea (which has been blocked by the ALP/Greens/NXT against the will of the people at the last federal election) was simply determining if indeed there is a majority of people who support same sex marriage in a legal sense and it also would have brought the public along with the whole new marriage concept - I don’t think there is majority support and to put to bed the whole “polls show 70% support" talk, lets have a poll of everyone to actually know what support there is. I genuinely want to know, electorate by electorate and booth by booth, what support there is (or lack thereof) for same sex marriage. I think that another name to describe the same sex union is a good solution, because the same sex marriage push is only a “label” that is recognised by the government (as if that is going to make homosexuality credible and acceptable - which it won’t in the eyes of the public). But when you see SSM in context of a recent political strategy of Marxist far-left social engineering, then it all makes sense with the sabotage of public institutions, education system, medical organisations and sporting/social entities (including gender-bending concepts like gender fluidity in the “unSafe Schools” program), you see that the family unit is deliberately being destroyed along with marriage so that the State can take over. In other words, it is not about "individuals", but rather about the "collective" and any alternative community (like families, churches, etc) are considered enemies of the State.

The only reason that marriage is now being redefined to include same sex relationships is not to enhance marriage or make it more desirable, but rather to make homosexuality seem "acceptable" by turning marriage into a ”sex-lust-based” act instead of a “family-based” institution. It's role in society would be completely changed into something self-gratifying instead of a social structure for the good of all citizens. All those past civilisations supposedly got it wrong because we are the “enlightened, smart, progressive” ones?....hmmm....not likely! The LGBTIQAP+ folks want the marriage "label" (ie. the celebration, the recognition, the acceptability) BUT not the intrinsic values & responsibilities that are inherent in marriage. The irony is that the very reason that marriage has become so desirable in the first place (based on the commitment between a man and a woman primarily, but not always, to raise children as a family unit), is destroyed if it's definition is changed.....in other words, the people pushing for -same sex marriage destroy what they want by getting what they want. Just because homosexuality exists doesn't mean that it should automatically be called "legal marriage". If they (less than 2% of the population) want to choose a lifestyle that is damaging to themselves, then don't redefine the word "marriage" that the rest of us (98% of the population) use to describe our relationships - and saying it is "equal" or a "right" to be married doesn't stick because they already have the equal right to marry under the current Marriage Act, but they choose not to because they don't like the definition of marriage outlined in the Act - hence, they seek to redefine it.....instead you make out that just because homosexuality exists then somehow we should all be forced to believe that it is normal, natural, acceptable and beneficial to society. In all the history of humankind, this has not been the case (nor is it the case in the animal kingdom otherwise the homosexual species would have become extinct long ago because they cannot reproduce past one generation), and it never will be the case in the future of mankind. Your slight on males is also a part of the "Anti-male Identification" programs being thrust on our children in schools. Join this social engineering stunt with the "unSafe Schools" and "Building Better (Worse) Relationships" also polluting the minds of our young people, exposes the devious, left-wing elitist agenda that is trying to destroy our society.

My marriage will function the same no matter what other people do or say, but It affects me when I use the word "marriage" because redefining the word "marriage" means that I will be saying something different to what I was saying before the word was redefined - this is the case for ALL words that are redefined.....it means that I say something different using a new definition (for example, the word "desktop" can be the top of a desk, but with computer definitions, the word "desktop" can be the opening screen on your computer). Redefining the word "marriage" means that I will be describing my marriage a different way than before it was redefined (NB: my marriage still functions the same, so please don't make a slanderous, irrelevant accusation that my marriage is somehow frail), but it is defined differently. By redefining the word "marriage", it affects EVERYONE who uses the word....plus it is a necessary requirement to push the gay culture onto our impressionable, naive youth by making out that homosexuality is "acceptable" and "normal"....so my children will be targeted with perverted sexualisation from a very young age with "same sex marriage" being used to justify these attacks. I am being forced to use the new definition of marriage against my will - you certainly don't care and neither do all the hostile homosexual activists who keep shoving the "same sex marriage" into the public sphere - if you want it to be private stuff in your bedrooms, then please stop parading it all around for everyone to see and then you get upset when the public talks about your "private bedroom business". My refusal to participate in "same sex "marriage" is irrelevant to the issue, but me using the word "marriage" or saying "I'm married" is....obviously I am going to say these words and so your push to redefine these words affects me EVERY day....so please stop being sneaky with your smart-alec, sweep-aside phrases like "if you dont want a same sex marriage then dont" or my "narrow view of the world" or "it wont affect you at all". I'm not so gullible as you would like me to be.

Marriage has always be equally available for everyone to use within it's legal provisions and restrictions....it's just that homosexuals don't like the provisions and restrictions (ie. in particular, they don't like the restriction that marriage is "solely between a man and a woman") and so they want to remove this restriction and add the provisions to include "same sex" couples. This is not anything to do with "equality" because the Marriage Laws have always applied equally to everyone. Same sex marriage is rather redefining marriage to include same sex couples. If you look at "marriage equality" in the way that pro-SSM people are saying it, then the word "marriage" should be allowed equally to any person/people who are "in love" with anyone/anything - in other words, your "marriage equality" should remove ALL provisions and ALL restrictions to marriage otherwise the pro-SSM people themselves are being unequal in not allowing people who are "in love" to marry their way. Of course, this is not how marriage has existed through-out history - to the contrary, marriage has always been about biological parenthood. The fact that homosexuals need to say "same sex marriage" or "marriage equality" to describe homosexuals getting married instead of just using the word "marriage" by itself proves this point - people don't assume that homosexuals are included in "marriage" and so they have to add words "same sex" or "equality" to include homosexuals.. Adding extra words to "marriage" also adds extra implications like children being raised without a father or a mother (ie. another "stolen generation"?), sexualised grooming of our young people and extra costs on society to tackle health issues specifically related to homosexuality. Same sex couples weren't included in the definition of marriage (applied equally to everyone) because no one (including homosexuals) assumed marriage was meant to be anything other than heterosexual. It wasn't until very recently with the push to make homosexuality acceptable that suddenly homosexuals wanted to be "married". There is no "marriage equality" in doing so (because marriage has ALWAYS been applied equally to everyone), nor is it a "basic right" because homosexuals cannot do heterosexual marriage - their biology won't let them. Hence, allowing homosexuals to "marry" is simply a nice sounding way to make homosexuality look acceptable and the word "marriage" becomes a meaningless word that departs from the millennia-old concept of parenthood into a completely new concept of self-gratifying love/lust/sexual attraction.....never before in the history of mankind has the word "marriage" been used this way.

Why is it that homosexuals strive to be different in so many ways, clothing, hairstyles, sexuality, tone, gait, etc. and yet want to be the same as "married" people ? You would think they would be bursting at the seams to find some new trendy name the media could obnoxiously saturate us with. The same sex marriage advocates swap definitions of words to suit their purposes - wrong becomes right, immorality becomes morality, bad becomes good, unequal becomes equal, fallacies become scientific evidence and rational "no" arguments to same sex marriage become irrational "no" arguments (all in the eye of the beholder)....it's post-modern, subjective philosophical nonsense. If we decide to make all Laws non-discriminatory, then we should all get the same salary, irrespective of whether we work or not, we should all be sent to goal if any one person is, we should all receive the old age pension no matter what our age. Treating people fairly is what is important. Treating them equally is just plain nonsense repeated so often we think it makes sense. Whether you think it unfair or not to refuse to recognize gay relationships as marriages will depend entirely upon your understanding of the nature of marriage and its purpose and role in society. It has nothing to do with equality, and there is certainly no human right to have your relationship recognized by the state as a marriage. To claim that a plebiscite is wrong because the "Tyranny of the Majority" should not be voting on the "rights" of a minority, but if the Majority ruling is wrong then how is the Minority ruling any less wrong. A cabal of self-aggrandizing activists (like the pro-SSM crowd) cannot know how the people would vote, otherwise it would be the same majoritarianism. Therefore, they acknowledge that they do not know, yet assert their moral authority. So either fewer choosers is always better, and therefore a dictator is best, or if that's not true, which number exactly is most likely to be right? Reductio-ad-absurdum. No number is morally vested to make the decision. When it comes down to the dirty argument about changing 'laws' over people in an authoritarian state, overriding the views of a large vocal minority will only lead to resentment and dare I say, discrimination. If the same rabble believe that if allowed to vote, that they have at least been heard, and the result must be accepted by all participants. Using an imperfect voting system to change immoral 'laws' is always imperfect. A loss simply means the society is not yet ready for the change, and campaigners need to engage with the nay-sayers and convince them the proposition is right. If/when the yes case is more widely accepted, it becomes time for another vote. This does not guarantee that the proposition is good, it could be immoral and repressive. That possibility will always exist when the starting point is an authoritarian state with arbitrary laws as the leftish elitists demand. The hope is that a natural 'golden-rule' morality in the people has not been completely expunged, through bad education, unfair laws, ungodliness and a corrupt media.

The current Australian Marriage Act is defining what the British Common Law has always defined since before Australia existed. Whilst the Marriage Act doesn't mention that marriage must specifically involve having "children", it does however mention the results of having children (something same sex couples obviously cannot do) which links it to parenthood contrary to the SSM push. It also fails to mention having "equality", "rights", "love" or "discrimination" either, but it seems all these propaganda slogans, all just emotive virtue signalling, can be used to redefine marriage but somehow mentioning children can't be?....and so the Marriage Act provides the functioning of marriage in society joining law and biology - that is, the legal status of a man and a woman (only heterosexual relationships can have children) and their resultant offspring for the propagation of society. That is all that Marriage Act achieves. Simple!...If some people use marriage without having children, that doesn't change the function of the Marriage Act, but rather it is their choice to be married in a different way to the majority of married people. So too, if homosexuals and lesbians want to be married contrary to the way that the Marriage Act defines, then they are wanting a different marriage concept completely unrelated to law and biology, and this new marriage concept has never been done before in the history of mankind and it ignores the function of marriage as a bedrock of society - the path that we are heading down is uncharted territory because it removes marriage from the millennia-old role of parenthood and turns it into an "acceptance" stunt for homosexuals and lesbians (and anyone else who can lobby politicians to redefine marriage in their own way) - Legal marriage simply becomes a piece of frivolous, worthless paper with a government stamp on it saying "You're Married". Of course, the Marxist elitists love this idea, because if the family unit is destroyed, then the State can step in to take over control of people, so it is no wonder that SSM is primarily a Marxist social engineering ploy with massive gender-fluidity concepts added on to it - a major upheaval for the direction our country to go.Children need a mother and a father with all their distinct variances, nuances and idiosyncrasies ....and no pretend father (a woman trying to be a man) or a pretend mother (a man trying to be a woman), or same sex parents (leaving out the opposite sex) can cut it no matter how much they try to "act" the part. The biological/sociological/emotional/mental design of a man are poles apart from those of a woman. Leaving a mother or a father out of parenting is blatant child abuse. This has been clearly understood by world civilizations for millenniums - it is only in the last few years that we suddenly think that "we have worked out the right way, and everyone else got it wrong". Delusion comes to mind. No propaganda slogans and twisted ideologies (driven by Marxist social engineering activism) can over-ride common sense. A marriage certificate will not be valid for homosexual partners travelling to Europe via a Middle Eastern stopover. They would be subject to arrest for displaying behaviour not permitted by the legally enforceable moral codes of UAE, China, India or Qatar.

Same sex marriage advocates think that changing the Marriage Act to include same sex couples will only affect same sex couples and not affect any opposite sex couples (or religious views on marriage), but this is assuming that the SSM debate is about comparing other people's marriage with my own marriages or vice versa, which it isn't - the debate as is about redefining marriage. When we make taxation laws, we might not be affected by all the taxation laws that exist (ie. you won't be affected by a wholesale tax unless you are in the wholesale business), but that doesn't stop you from contributing to the debate and being concerned how such changes to the law will affect society. Even though the redefining of the Marriage Act doesn't change how my marriage functions (ie. it won't alter how I love my wife or conduct myself as a married man), it DOES however change how my marriage is defined - because a redefinition of any word affects everyone who uses that word (eg, I remember when the word "wallpaper" was paper on the wall until the computer terminology used the word to describe the picture that I use on my computer desktop....and "desktop" use to be the top of the desk until the computer terminology used the word for the main screen for operating the computer - never do the old definition and the new definition merge together, but rather, society has had to change it's way of using these words so as to distinguish the old definition from the new definition in order to remain practical), and so too, ALL society has to change the use of the word "marriage" if it is redefined from traditional parenthood marriage into a brand new marriage concept to be nothing other than an "acceptability label". Just like the definitions of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are a million miles apart (and never the twain shall meet), so too, the definitions between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are a million miles apart - they cannot be legitimately defined in the same wording of the same Marriage Act as the same sex marriage proponents are trying to do.....to prove this point even further: homosexuality uses the term "gay" (for men) and "lesbian" (for women) to describe the sexual gender of their relationships. But with heterosexuality, we do not use a specific term that denotes male sexual heterosexuality nor a specific term for female sexual heterosexuality.....and the reason is?.....you guessed it, heterosexual relationships are infinitely different to homosexual relationships!....The "acceptability" that SSM people want to achieve by redefining marriage actually destroys the very thing that they want.

Same sex marriage started in the Netherlands by some gay men who advocated along the following lines: They admired the traditional and heterosexual institution of marriage and ASKED if they could be included within that institution - it was NEVER a gender debate (as it is here)....it has only become a gender debate by the left-wing activists to make it an emotive "rights" issue. Likewise, there is no legal criteria for "love" (or more accurately "lust" in this case) and so to say "love is love" somehow deserves legal recognition in marriage is another emotive propaganda slogan that is irrelevant to the legal redefinition of marriage (love can exist between all sorts of people of all ages and relationships - not just people either - and so should they ALL be allowed to marry based solely on love/lust/sexual attraction?). Provided there are civil unions, the European Court unanimously found that Article 12 (right to marry), taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) were not discriminatory. The European Court affirmed once again that there is no discrimination if the State denies the right to marry to two adults of the same-sex. Also in June, the German Supreme Court settled the question whether foreign same-sex 'marriages' were to be considered as marriages or as life partnerships under German law. It opted for the latter status, affirming the central importance of marriage’s opposite-sex character. I cannot find anything that suggests the Irish Referendum on same sex marriage led to any spikes in suicide there. These "friends" of gays and lesbians are stoking irrational fears that suicides could have happen from a holding a plebiscite (which has now been blocked against the will of the people at the last election). That cannot be good for the confused young queer kids, either....and couldn't there be the same risk of suicides if same sex marriage is debated in parliament?....if a young gay person heard an MP oppose same sex marriage? Under International human rights law, marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman and therefore "gay marriage" is a meaningless concept under international law. This has been verified many times, most notably when the European Human Rights Commission (hardly a conservative bunch), rejected a case against Germany's refusal to allow "gay marriage". There is no right to gay marriage because it is not and never has been an issue of equality but of the nature of marriage and its role in society. Those wanting 'marriage equality' appear to seek the legal and social recognition that marriage bestows on heterosexual couples. Clearly they are entitled to this, and the best way to achieve it is for a new institution to be formed under the Constitution, specifically for LGBTI couples. They would therefore not have to campaign for equality by marriage, as it would automatically be available to them under its own name. There is no comparison between "parent-hood" based heterosexual marriage and "sex" based alphabet soup homosexual marriage.

Australia already has marriage equality. The laws of marriage apply equally to every single Australian citizen. Every single Australian has the same right to chose from a range of people that he or she can marry - and are constrained by the same laws that prevent he or she from marrying. These are defined in the Marriage Act 1961: Section 5 defines marriage as being the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. This applies equally, to everyone. Section 23 defines those people who you cannot marry. For instance - a brother cannot marry his sister; And a daughter cannot marry her father; And Section 94 makes Bigamy an offence with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years. Now, all these laws pertaining to marriage apply just as equally to me as they do to any homosexual man and apply equally to my wife as they do to any lesbian woman - it's just that homosexual men and lesbian women choose not to marry this way. Marriage is always a choice. So where is the "marriage inequality" to which same sex marriage types continually refer?.....The real issue is not to be “equal” at all (they already are), but rather what they want is to broaden the range of people that anyone can marry by re-defining the word “marriage” - that is all. They want to be able to marry people of their own sex where that is currently not permitted and this is a restriction that equally applies to all (yes....equality already exists). So both the ABILITY to marry is applied equally to everyone and the RESTRICTIONS applies equally to everyone. There is already marriage equality. But same sex marriage proponents dress it up as a grievance using emotional poetry and propaganda so that they can milk the issue to deceive as many people as they can - mostly young people because they are more naive to political manipulations and easier to sway using emotive slogans. Just like the definitions of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are a million miles apart (and never the twain shall meet), so too, the definitions between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are a million miles apart - that is why the word "marriage" by itself automatically denotes male-female couples and homosexuals need to add "same sex" or "equality" to the word "marriage" to describe their relationships because people don't see homosexuality as part of marriage (....homosexuuality is always an add-on). We cannot therefore legitimately define both heterosexual marriage (a parent-hood institution) and a completely different homosexual marriage (a sex/love/lust-based institution) in the same wording of the same Marriage Act as the same sex marriage proponents are trying to do.....to prove this point even further: homosexuality uses the term "gay" (for men) and "lesbian" (for women) to describe the sexual gender of their relationships. But with heterosexuality, we do not use a specific term that denotes male sexual heterosexuality nor a specific term for female sexual heterosexuality.....and the reason is?.....you guessed it, heterosexual relationships are infinitely different to homosexual relationships! Try the simple $2 test: if you have one $2 coin or two $1 coins they are of equal value but they are not the same - try putting a $2 coin in a vending machine that only takes $1 coins, or 2x$1 coins in a vending machine that only takes $2 coins....you can't do it even though both have equal value....equal value, but different. So too it is with homosexual (sodomy) marriage compared to heterosexual marriage. History has already determined that only heterosexual marriage works and homosexual marriage is an oxymoron (the two concepts work against each other), so why would we ignore history to allow some sort of a new trendy, elitist "marriage" happen that's achieving nothing more than an acceptability "label" for homosexuality?....ANSWER: we shouldn't. The social/legal consequences are dire if we trash the proven bedrock institution of marriage in the way that same sex marriage proponents desire to do. Our children are already being brainwashed with this new "genderless" engineering experiment that has no basis in science or biology - just political activism run amuck. The so-called "equality", "human/civil rights", "love" and "discrimination" slogans are feel-good slogans to try and emotionally "blackmail" us all into agreeing with their brand new marriage concept, but these slogans are all irrelevant to redefining marriage. If homosexuals want "dignity and respect" for their lifestyle choice, they won't get it by being legally called "married", but rather they get it by acting dignified and respectful - until they do this, they will never be acceptable no matter how many frivolous bits of government A4 paper they get with a stamp on it saying "Married". If we ignore all the name-calling, intimidation, militant naming/shaming/boycotting and emotional blackmailing from same sex marriage proponents and stick to the issue of whether marriage should be changed into something new and untried since the beginning of human existence, there is no good reason to redefine marriage.

The freedom for black people, women's voting rights, sexism and other non-choice circumstances are not the same as homosexual marriage because marriage is a choice and not a right - no government can legislate who you love and who you should marry.. All the legitimate rights that have been successfully achieved were not done so by redefining words to create an allusion of success. For example, If Blacks tried to achieve their right to freedom by redefining the word "freedom" to mean "white men are free but black men are still slaves to white men", then you could say that everyone has "freedom" but in practice, nothing has changed. Likewise, if women voting rights were achieved by redefining the word "voter" to mean "men can vote but women cannot vote" then everyone becomes "voters", but in practice, nothing has changed. So if homosexuals think that they are achieving a "right" by redefining the word "marriage" to include them, then even though they are called "married", in practice nothing has changed because they are not doing the heterosexual marriage thing - they are still continuing to do their own homosexual thing - nothing has changed and the word "marriage" is trashed in the process. Nothing is achieved for making homosexuality acceptable to society by sabotaging the word "marriage" and changing it into whatever suits your purpose. Just how stupid do you think we all are by pushing such an emotive propaganda stunt on to us all like "homosexual rights"?....It's a choice and it always will be. The homosexual advocates think that redefining the word marriage suddenly makes it a right for homosexuals to love each other and somehow be considered the same as heterosexuals, but all the "love, acceptability, equality and tolerance" that homosexuals want to achieve can be done without marriage involved and, in fact, the sabotage of marriage to redefine it a "sex-based" institution turns it into a completely different institution than what it has been for thousands of years (ie. a family-based institution). This sabotage of marriage is turning people away from homosexual ideologies and shows how manipulative and dishonest the homosexual activists are.

It would be best if businesses got on with running their businesses rather than being political activists. Qantas has been sabotaged the most by homosexual activists and to their shame. Do these companies supporting homosexual "normalisation" reflect all wishes of all the staffers, shareholders and clients?....ANSWER: No....it is the wishes of a few people in executive positions or marketing rooms, nothing more. Putting a business name on a decadent political stunt cuts both ways - some people are drawn to the business and other people are repulsed.

The same sex marriage plebiscite would have been important, not just because it was an election promise to uphold the will of the people, but it would have given the electorate a conscience vote on the issue - after all, the left-wing activists keep saying that they want a conscience vote in parliament, but deny the electorate a conscience vote....clearly, they know that a plebiscite would reject same sex marriage and so they will stop the people having a say in it no matter what. Also, the plebiscite would have addressed the legal definition of marriage which is about law and families – these are much plainer and much more boring than the emotive propaganda slogans of "equality", "love" and "rights" (which are not relevant to changing the Marriage Act). Legal Marriage is solely a unique legal institution that joins law and biology. The rights, both written and assumed or extrapolated, exist to join a man and a woman and any children they may have. A gay man's relationship with another man is already equal in love, in status & in respect but it is not identical: they cannot have a baby without a woman. Building the assumption into law that men have babies is insisting that law reject objective reality simply because that reality offends homosexuals. That is the nub of this and why same sex marriage cannot be “equal” with heterosexual marriage. Giving straight marriage to gay people sounds like generosity, feels like doing good but it fundamentally redefines a legal institution and then leaves that institution perfectly in place with an incompatible definition. That is a grenade going off in family law and while we know where some of the shrapnel goes, some of the effects won’t be seen until courts are asked to rule. Jurisprudence has a terrible habit of making lovely intentions into legal nightmares. Religious marriages are legally recognised as part of a religious service (including references to God). The current religious marriage certificate has the seal/signature of the church leader along with the official seal of the Commonwealth of Australia. No secular registry required. Religious marriages are under the very Act that the same sex marriage advocates seek to amend - so the re-definition of marriage affects all religious marriages that currently exist because it removes the inherent religious component. One of the rights found to accrue to married couples is the right to have children. Since same sex people can only vindicate this right to procreate using a surrogate, a woman, the ability of the government to do anything to regulate surrogacy must be severely curtailed by this legal change. The rights that accrue to same sex couples create a right for opposite sex couples too. Marriage is therefore fundamentally changed more and more as these legal ripples flow through into Law.

Polling says that their is "broad public support (70%) for same sex marriage"....if that were true,then the same sex marriage plebiscite (which was an election promise that the people voted for) would have been allowed on February 11th and presumably approved by a resounding 71%, or 80%, or 90% or 99% (take your pick because the current polls are just made up numbers anyhow and they would never pass the conflict-of-interest test) of the people. We all know that there is no "broad public support for same-sex marriage" and the lefties know it more than the rest of us which is why they are so scared of the people having a say. on same sex marriage. Christian's who are upholding marriage are already being persecuted in Australia.....even newspaper articles that brand opponents of same sex marriage as being "discriminatory" is a form of persecution. Marriage is not the be-all-and-end-all of homosexuality and up until recently, homosexuals never wanted to be "married" (most still don't today). Homosexuals are already doing all the homosexuality they want in every way they can without being "married". The same sex marriage push is solely about making homosexuality look acceptable, and if it ever happens here, it would trash marriage in the process. Some of us are not fooled by the Marxist elites trying to push their agenda on to us.

You mention: "progressive social policy" when in reality it is "regressive Maxist socialism"; also voluntary euthanasia means "playing God and killing people before their time is up"; improved funding for public education which includes the psychopathical myth of "gender fluidity" that will wreck our children (Warning to parents: Don't send your children to a public school); replacing religious instruction in schools with ethics classes which is "the blind leading the blind" because humanists/atheists have no reference point to even know what is ethical or not; cutting the chaplaincy program - why?....it hasn't hurt anyone and are you apposing it just because the chaplins are Christian?....if so, that is highly discriminatory of you; halting prayers in all parliaments - but if you don't believe in a divine power then the prayers are nothing more than meaningless words to you, so how does that hurt anyone?....reducing the annual $12b subsidy to private religious schools - but the children learn how to read and write as good as in public schools, or are you being discriminatory again just because they are Christian (you only mention "church" in your article and not mosque, temple, synagogue, etc); and of course marriage equality.....

Homosexuality is trying to become heterosexual by "willing it into existence", but never the twin shall meet due to biology. Children are fostered or adopted into designer children for the confected lifestyle of their same sex parents....just luxury accessories to a lifestyle choice. Evolutionists and feminists also see through all the "same sex marriage" nonsense - the former see that it doesn't "propagate the human species" and the latter see that any man trying to perform the role of a woman simply cannot cut it. Even the free-living hippy person has complained that the psychedelic rainbow colours they like to use is misconstrued as gay activism. Of course you are free to believe that the purchase of eggs, the rental of women, the removal of children from their birth mother are perfectly good ideas but honesty demands we face the consequences of making a bad trade unstoppable. We inevitably face another age of stolen children along with the damage that children face by not having a male and female input into their upbringing from biological parenting. Since same sex partners can never contribute both male and female inputs with their parenting of the child, they are seeking the State to vindicate their parenthood – that is all that same sex marriage is about. In the absence of “the natural” family, there can only be shallow, superficial, parent-indulging “legal parenthood”, with the State deciding between the various parties to the child’s birth and custody. This discarding of “the natural” for “the legal” will apply to all subsequent marriages, even of men and women, with “the natural” having no real meaning in law. This is a massive change that transfers huge, dangerous power to the government. Constitutions protect us not from the government we have, but the one we will have. The Marxist agendas are being exposed by people pushing for same sex marriage and “gender fluidity” - they see it as a way for governments to control families and parents are told to stay out of raising their children. We already see incestuous and polygamist marriages being pushed in other countries where same sex marriage has become legal. The "slippery slope" argument never goes away because it is undeniably real and relevant. It might be argued that this is an expansion of marriage, that the same sex couples can be given marriage without affecting the legal institution for other two gender couples. This is obviously not true as the changes effected in law by taking gender out of marriage but leaving marriage at the centre of family law are too obvious. Equality simply cannot be applied to same sex and opposite sex relationships in this way because the former lacks the biological capabilities of the latter – it is their biology that makes marriage unequal.....and any attempt to make man-man “sex-based” marriage (with multiple partners and group sex mixed in) exactly the same as a man-woman “family-based” marriage for life hits the iceberg of biology. Even the supposed "scientific research" that claims that there are "homosexual" activities in the animal kingdom (which have only been observed when the opposite sex are not around so there is no choice for them to be heterosexual), there are no examples in nature where homosexuality is "encouraged" or "make equivalent to" heterosexuality like some human political activists are saying....and humans are suppose to be the smart species? Given the overwhelming drive to procreate, same-sex acts in nature are non-existent - the proof of this is that homosexual animals would have been extinct long ago (ie. they cannot exist past one generation).

Seeing as technology has advanced to manipulate procreation using artifical reproduction techniques for baby creation to match the artificial homosexual/gender-bender families....this means that homosexual "marriage" now seems viable extended to having a confected "family" where designer children who miss out on either a father or a mother. Biology is thrown out the window and such artifical, make-believe "families" only seem plausible because the awareness of a strong biological family-based marriage bond is almost lost completely - we are seeing the final nail in the coffin for meaningful marriage when marriage is redefined to be genderless. If we make this final step of decadent marriage redefinition, then marriage becomes a total worthless concept. It will be weeded out of our society. Homosexual marriage is against biology and the biological design of the human body and is unable to perform the purpose of marriage. Homosexuality is based solely on desire and if this qualifies it for "marriage", then so too, "marriage" can be applied to anyone, anything in any way they want - marriage becomes meaningless. Born gay myths are simply myths to incite emotive propaganda slogans. As the gay agenda says it is looking for equality and it is using 'marriage' as its vehicle which will be discarded as they move onto other fights. The word 'equal love' is used to neutralize the negative aspect of the homosexual lifestyle which historically has been excessively permissive. hence, there is no “marriage equality” when they leave out ALL the various marriage “options” (such as polygamy, marry yourself, two brothers or two sisters marrying each other, necrophilia, child brides or, as Chris Sevier in the USA is trying to do, marrying your laptop....there has already been a conference of "academics" meeting in the UK to discuss humans marrying robots!). Seeing as there is no legal, historical or rational basis to call marriage a human right or to redefine it to include same sex people, it leads us to the question of what are the other agendas in play here with the SSM issue?....It is certainly the formal severing of marriage from parenthood (a population control measure?) and the rights of children are ignored to serve the selfish desires of the SSM parents (another stolen generation?).....children are solely luxury accessories to the homosexual's choice of lifestyle. Btw, we keep hearing that heterosexuality is supposedly a “gender construct” and should therefore be dumped along with all other gender distinctions, yet we also keep hearing about LGBTIQAP+ (the “+” is for HIV+ positive people) which, of course, means that LGBTIQAP+ people are guilty of using “gender constructs” themselves. Also, in a bid to try and say that homosexuality is natural, the same sex marriage advocates come up with new scientific research of “homosexual” activity within the animal kingdom....hmmm....obviously, if this were true, then the so-called “homosexual” animals would be extinct – that's right, they would have died off long ago because they cannot have any offspring. The so-called scientific research cannot ever determine if any supposed “homosexual” activity (a subjective observation in itself) is driven by homosexual urges or not – in other words, the research can only determine the “how” but can never determine the “why”.. This is the core difference between science (the "how") and religion (the "why") and both are vital to a happily functioning society. Needless to say, the same sex marriage push claims to have scientific support and yet disposes of the religious views at the same time - this will inevitably create a massive instability in society. Of course, the "gender fluidity" theory (ie. the mythical idea that "we are any gender we feel like being at the time") is the broader ideology that intrinsically accompanies SSM - the two are inseparable. It is not marriage in itself that they crave, it is the ultimate symbol of acceptance for homosexuality, and its refusal can be held liable for all kinds of harms, not even thought of ten years ago. Their tactic is to rubbish marriage so much that it doesn't seem to matter if same sex people or any other form of relationships can be called "marriage" instead of praising marriage up as a wonderful institution that has served all civilisations well and is a bedrock for social stability, decency and prosperity.

If people want you to pray for same sex marriage to be legal, you can respond with: "Why would I pray to God in the way you want me to when God has prophesied a "falling away" (ie. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;) as the world is deceived by a massive lie to temporarily ignore the Bible and follow ungodly ways?...the "falling away" only lasts a short time because humans cause such chaos that all life nearly gets destroyed (including humans) except for divine intervention. I can already see the world heading headlong into massive chaos and destruction already fulfilling Bible prophecies. So you can now see that I don't need to pray as you are suggesting me to because such a prayer is contrary to His Plan. Knowing the Bible give me a huge headstart on understanding current world events (including the rise of homosexuality). We are at the beginning of the "falling away" stage and if you want to know the results of where homosexuality leads to, please read Romans 1:18-32 (it's not a pretty outcome). This is where the world is heading and already Christians are being targeted in ways not thought of even a decade ago. This temporary ungodliness results in a world Government ruled by one man and all life on earth would get destroyed except for the return of Jesus Christ. I see everything happening exactly as God predicted and so I see no need to pray in a way that contradicts God's prophecies - He will not answer such an ignorant and self-serving prayer....God is not in the vanity business to "prove me right" like you expect Him to be. In fact, the rise of homosexuality proves the Bible 100% correct.....so why would I doubt God's power, listening ability, existence, will or intentions?....He has laid it all out in detailed prophecies through-out the Bible in clear detail (over 800 prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled to the letter)."

As a married man, my heterosexual identity is stolen from me when you redefine the word "marriage". No one assumes that "marriage" includes same sex couples which is why you need the qualifying words "same sex" or the fake, emotive word "equality" to describe the sort of "marriage" you seek - you can't simply use the word "marriage" by itself because people currently assume that marriage is only heterosexual (it has been this way since the beginning of the human race).....your new definition of "marriage" steals my heterosexual identity from me. I also have my "brother" identity stolen from me because when I walk down the street with my brother, with all the homosexual manipulation going on in our public institutions, media and arts/sports activities, people assume we are gay....my "brother" identity has been stolen from me. And no, I don't want my brother and I to to be misconstrued as homosexuals because, to start with, it is not true and secondly, there is nothing in my being that agrees with homosexuality. Yiou can name-call that I have a "narrow view of the world", but I can use that same irrelevant, emotive phrase back to you that you are having a "narrow view" by not accepting me into your worldview. Then we have a meaningless slanging match of whose "world view" is better than the others. It's nonsense and you know it. You don't care about the damage you cause to other people as long as you get your way. You simply want homosexual marriage for one reason only, and that is to make homosexuality look acceptable and consequently, you can use the new sex-based "marriage" concept to indoctrinate young people into the gay culture. Admit it.

There is no mention of “love”, “equality” or “human/civil rights” in the changes to the Marriage Act - there is just a re-definition of the Act to include same sex couples. Any other terminology are just emotive propaganda slogans coming from the Yes side. Labor are only interested in getting the bragging rights to say that they brought in “same sex marriage” (as well as protecting their far-Left voter base from running off to the Greens and NXT) and so they have blocked the plebiscite because if the Yes vote had won, then the Coalition gets the bragging rights. However, Labor is balancing this against how they will look as being undemocratic and elitist by not letting the people have their say (as was promised by the winning Coalition government at the federal election), plus they have a binding Yes vote on all MPs at the next election (although this is now under review because the support for same sex marriage is slipping away fast) thereby chasing some (many?) Labor voters who don’t support same sex marriage away from them - so having already rejected the plebiscite, it now looks more damaging to them than if they had supported it and let the Coalition get the bragging rights. I don't think we will see same sex marriage in Australia because people are fast turning off the topic and the SSM activists are getting too militant to support. This is all Labor/Greens/NXT's fault - they actually don’t care at all about LGBTIQAP+ people or about the potential suicide risk to anyone. It is all just political game-playing for them and nothing else.

The same sex agenda isn't trying to "live and let live". In fact, they are targeting every one in every way possible, especially through the public service and more specifically, indoctrinating our naive children and young adults with sexualisation because they are easy pickings without parental knowledge with programs like the "Safe Schools" (more accurately “unSafe Schools”) and the "disRespectful Relationships" (the latter designed to make out that sex-driven, one-night stands, gay or otherwise, is ok with all the STDs, immorality and soul/marriage/decency destroying attributes that go with it). I picked up a magazine in the local fish-and-chip shop to read while I was waiting for my chips to cook and I get Calvin Kline adverts of sex-driving gays/lesbians plastered in my face, there are Medibank gay ads and transgender theater ads on buses, plus the myriad of gay relationships depicted in tv shows, movies, music, comics, etc - how can we avoid all the depravity?....no chance of that. The other day I was walking through my local Mall. There were a several same-sex marriage advocates wrapped up in rainbow flags or something like that. There were about half a dozen people standing around listening to them while the advocates were speaking quietly to them. All good, whilst I am not convinced about same-sex marriage, I am a believer in free speech so I believe they have that right to express their cause. It was a Saturday afternoon and there were lots of children with their parents. All of a sudden they all got their microphones out and started chanting' 2,4,6,8 your kids may not be straight'. When people were ignoring them, they started yelling out 'homophobes' repeatedly. This would not have helped their cause at all, but they seem to think by intimidating people in an aggressive manner, that they will convince people. Their quiet talk may have, but not the bizarre behaviour they carried on with afterwards. Terminology is also being changed to eliminate “gender-specific” words/definitions (like “boy”, “girl”, “him”, “her”, “mummy”, “daddy”, etc) – even “Mothers Day” and “Fathers Day” would be dumped due to half the same sex parents missing out. And what about "maiden speech"?....that's right - it's feminine gender, so out it goes. The list runs into thousands of words and phrases. Shakespeare plays like “Twelfth Night” and “Taming of the Shrew” are also in grave trouble with their sexist prepositions....and what about all the “trans-gender women” (men who think they are women) planning to go into women's toilets and women's change rooms to perv at all the real women/girls undressing? This is why it is so destructive and deceitful to think that the gay agenda is "live and let live"....it is not. All the propaganda slogans and pretty coloured rainbow flags hide the true agenda of the gender fluidity which is population control using hedonistic humanism/atheism. If you want Australia to turn into a social sewer with unrestrained immorality, then this is how you do it. Section 47 of the Marriage Act, b(II) allows government to intervene and force Christian church leaders to perform same sex marriages - it would be interesting to see if they try and it goes to court. A government doing that will be looking for a sympathetic hearing and, given the left leaning of most Judge appointments now, they could have a chance. The Canadian Courts have already ruled against a Christian rejecting SSM teachings in schools and shows how real that chance can be here in Australia as well.

There is no hatred, bigotry or discrimination to uphold the millennia-old understanding that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. At worst, it is just a difference of opinion, and at best, it is upholding history for a reason – opposite sex marriages are the only way that civilizations can thrive and be prosperous (you can have children to start with and then to structure ethics, honesty and decency). The family unit is vital to how society functions and when it is distorted or changed, so does society. If the family unit can be destroyed, then the government can fill the void to “help” and “support” all the dysfunctional young people – talk about child grooming and social engineering! Already, heterosexual children are told not to use the terms “boy, girl, him, her, mummy, daddy, etc” because these terms are gender specific and oppose the same-sex/transgender identification – even “Mothers Day” and “Fathers Day” would be dumped due to half the same sex parents missing out. And what about "maiden speech"?....that's right - it's feminine gender, so out it goes. The list runs into thousands of words and phrases. Shakespeare plays like “Twelfth Night” and “Taming of the Shrew” are also in grave trouble with their sexist prepositions....so heterosexual people (from a very young age onwards) are impacted in thousands of ways by the same sex marriage re-definitions and gay culture. Plus all heterosexual marriages change from being recognised as “married to a member of the opposite sex for life” to “someone I am temporarily having sex with” which, for me, would be insulting if I was in anyway assumed to be married just for sex or to another man. Instead of the man in the “leadership” role and the woman in the “being lead” role of the natural, heterosexual relationship, two men will be fighting for the “leadership” role and two women will be fighting for the “being lead” role in same sex relationships – it is an inevitable clash of roles and there will ALWAYS be one loser....which is why homosexuals have multiple partners every year and rarely, if ever, have a monogamous relationship. There is a huge amount of discrimination within the gay community for this reason as gay people seek the “sex appeal” quality of other gays, with the exclusion of other personal qualities, and any gay person outside this sex-driven stereotype is ignored. Same sex marriage would therefore destroy the very premise of marriage and turn it into a completely trashy, meaningless word. So every time I say the words “I’m married”, my marriage is being damaged by the re-definition of marriage. My feelings about this are as valid as any homosexual’s feeling and should be equally considered seriously in the whole same sex marriage debate. Failure to do so shows that the same sex marriage issue is not about love and equality, but solely a political stunt to legalize rampant hedonism and a blatant attack on Christianity. If you want honesty, then there it is. 

In regards to discrimination, this is a quote from a homosexual website: "These days it’s so unacceptable to judge anybody about their physical appearance, but for some reason it is still perfectly acceptable to tease a man about the size of his appendage ans sex appeal. There’s nothing a man can do about this – it’s not like being uneducated, or overweight. It is completely down to genetics, and we are given what we are born with. It’s heartbreaking to know that gay people I meet are most likely talking about you behind your back. How do I know? Because I’ve heard them do it about other guys, so it goes without saying that they’re doing it about me, too. I wish I didn’t care but I feel like it has an impact on my life every day. It plays on my mind constantly, even when I am at work, at the shopping centre, at the gym – everywhere. I know not every guy is a size queen, but it definitely feels like the majority are. Hopefully one day I’ll meet a guy with a good heart who doesn't worry about it".....so here is an example of discrimination within the homosexual community as plenty of other media articles have also admitted exists. A gay muslim says: "white queer people and had great difficulty with me being a gay Muslim to gay people....It’s better to tell them you’re Hindu or Buddhist, talk about Krishna and Kama Sutra – then suddenly you’re mystical and they want to sleep with you.” Notice that the so-called attraction is just sexual (which is a lust attraction and not a love attraction - homosexuality is solely a lust-based activity)....so within the gay community, there is a sexual stereotype of the ideal “gay guy” and if you don't fit this stereotype, then you are rejected. There is a huge amount of discrimination within the homosexual community. After all, the primary desire for homosexual relationships is sex and so the primary criteria for a gay partner is “sex appeal”. What the advocates of the gay agenda refuse to reveal is that any sex-driven relationship (whether homosexual or heterosexual) is doomed from the start because it is a selfish, lust-based relationship that can never survive for long leaving a trail of hurt and destruction in it's wake. There is even raced-based roles that homosexuals have making homosexuality extremely racist as well. In the broader public, there isn't discrimination against homosexuals, just distinction - all we are doing is distinguishing it from heterosexuality, not discriminating it from heterosexuality....after all, a man-man sex act is sodomy, whereas a man-woman sex act is intercourse and two men cannot do the same as a man and woman because the former don't have the anatomy to do it. This is not discrimination, but distinction. Another same sex marriage dilemma is their difficulty to get a divorce. This has also been written in the media by gay people. Same sex marriages hit a hurdle when one of the partners get tired of the sex and inevitably wants a different partner (gays are rarely monogamous or have long term relationships), Hence, they want easy divorce laws to match their promiscuous, “anything goes” marriage laws. We can now see that gays are desperately wanting to be able to use the word “marriage” to gain some respectability that they self-consciously lack, but there can be no discrimination if we are trying to describe two different issues (that is, SSM proponents want "same-sex-based" relationships respected by using the word "marriage", whereas non-SSM want marriage to be "family-based").. This is why the language has a definition for both "homosexual" and "heterosexual" - the two definitions are different and just adding the word marriage to them, doesn't suddenly make them the same. In other words, "homosexual marriage" will continue to be different to "heterosexual marriage" because the biology and function of the two marriages are completely and infinitely different. If someone sees a case of oranges with a couple of stray apples in them, they will most likely discriminate between the pieces of fruit and separate the apples from the oranges. Discrimination can cause people to act well or badly. It's not the discrimination itself that is bad. Everyone has an innate awareness that same sex relationships aren't right or natural no matter how much propaganda, emotional manipulation, social engineering or intimidation goes on....so it's not about marriage equality at all. We can't heal the pain of one group of people by inflicting wounds on another, larger group of people. Legislation for SSM would change the legal, social, family, parenting, educational and linguistic landscape of our community with so much collateral damage and unintended consequence that we would not recover for generations....if you compare women's voting, slavery or traditional killings with homosexual marriage, then think about this: when slavery stopped, the slaves stopped acting like slaves and started acting like free people....likewise, when women were allowed to vote, they stopped acting like non-voters and started acting like voters - in fact, when anyone receives a genuine right, they put off their old life and act differently under their new right. With the so-called same sex marriage "right", the homosexuals DON'T change from their old life to act like heterosexual marriage which they are seeking "equal rights" with, but to the contrary, they rather continue living under their same homosexual conduct which is different to heterosexual conduct....they don't perform their new "right" in the same way as everyone else does who receive genuine rights. The whole SSM "rights" push gets even more ludicrous when you consider that they want to achieve their "right to marry" by simply redefining marriage to include them. Think about if we did the same to "free slaves" by simply redefining the word "free" to include slavery?....this would mean that the slaves still exist in the same way as they always have but they are "free" because we redefined the word - problem solved?....NO....there is no practical benefit to slaves by simply redefining the word "free" to include them in the new definition. The same goes with "women's voting rights": if we redefine the word "voter" to include women not voting, then we have everyone becoming "voters" but in practice, the women still can't vote - problem solved?....NO....So this whole redefining marriage/gender/sexuality to achieve opposites/same/both all at the same time or not at the same time is complete nonsense. Trying to achieve equality by defining two different things to be the same achieves nothing, whereas trying to achieve equality by acknowledging difference and then aim for equal outcomes/treatment then you achieve worthwhile results. Mixing up definitions results in chaos: "Sex" is a biological reality based on chromosomes and cannot be changed; "Sexual desire" is a biological and psychological reality; "Sexuality" is a Western cultural construct that is being used to justify same sex marriage by bringing the other two definitions in under this third definition. If we keep all the definitions in their right places, then chromosome-determined "Sex" and sexual activity and relationships based on different "Sexual desires" are indeed different (otherwise our cultural constructed categories of sexuality would cease to exist). Different types of Sex and Sexual desires/relationships do not need to have the same definition applied to them to achieve equality, rights, love or non-discrimination. Redefining marriage to include same sex couples (using Sexuality as the sole justification and ignoring "Sex" or "Sexual desires/relationships") turns it into a superficial "human/civil right" but means nothing because it is just a play on words to muddy the waters - homosexuals will continue living the same way as before no matter how much we redefine words and so it achieves nothing other than a frivolous attempt to be accepted by holding up a piece of paper with a government stamp on it saying "Marriage Certificate". Homosexuals won't get accepted by forcing a redefinition of marriage onto everybody to suit their new marriage "label". Calling SSM a "right" is trying to emotionally blackmail (guilt-trip) opponents into accepting their new marriage "label" which is meaningless.

Marriage has always be equally available for everyone to use within it's legal provisions and restrictions....it's just that homosexuals don't like the provisions and restrictions (ie. in particular, they don't like the restriction that marriage is "solely between a man and a woman") and so they want to remove this restriction and add the provisions to include "same sex" couples. This is not anything to do with "equality" because the Marriage Laws have always applied equally to everyone. Same sex marriage is rather redefining marriage to include same sex couples. If you look at "marriage equality" in the way that pro-SSM people are saying it, then the word "marriage" should be allowed equally to any person/people who are "in love" with anyone/anything - in other words, your "marriage equality" should remove ALL provisions and ALL restrictions to marriage otherwise the pro-SSM people themselves are being unequal in not allowing people who are "in love" to marry their way. Of course, this is not how marriage has existed through-out history - to the contrary, marriage has always been about biological parenthood. The fact that homosexuals need to say "same sex marriage" or "marriage equality" to describe homosexuals getting married instead of just using the word "marriage" by itself proves this point - people don't assume that homosexuals are included in "marriage" and so they have to add words "same sex" or "equality" to include homosexuals.. Adding extra words to "marriage" also adds extra implications like children being raised without a father or a mother (ie. another "stolen generation"?), sexualised grooming of our young people and extra costs on society to tackle health issues specifically related to homosexuality. Same sex couples weren't included in the definition of marriage (applied equally to everyone) because no one (including homosexuals) assumed marriage was meant to be anything other than heterosexual. It wasn't until very recently with the push to make homosexuality acceptable that suddenly homosexuals wanted to be "married". There is no "marriage equality" in doing so (because marriage has ALWAYS been applied equally to everyone), nor is it a "basic right" because homosexuals cannot do heterosexual marriage - their biology won't let them. Hence, allowing homosexuals to "marry" is simply a nice sounding way to make homosexuality look acceptable and the word "marriage" becomes a meaningless word that departs from the millennia-old concept of parenthood into a completely new concept of self-gratifying love/lust/sexual attraction.....never before in the history of mankind has the word "marriage" been used this way.

In Australia, before a definition clause was added to the Marriage Act in 2004, the Marriage Act (since it's inception in 1961) simply stated "two people" can get married - there was no gender distinction. So guess how many homosexuals availed themselves to legal marriage under the wording of the Marriage Act between 1961-2004?....ANSWER: none....and before the Marriage Act became law, there were marriages conducted at a social level without government recognition, and guess how many homosexual marriages occurred from 1788 (colonization) to 1961?....ANSWER: none.....and before that, how many aboriginal homosexual marriages occurred?....ANSWER: none. Homosexual marriage is a gross departure from anything that resembles marriage. It is just a gimmick to make homosexuality look acceptable.

Real marriage is not a right, but a choice. Governments cannot make laws forcing how/who you love. Any fake marriage defined by Governments as a "right" is still fake no matter how fancy their A4 "marriage certificates" look - the SSM brigade is chasing people away from their cause when they mock, slander, intimidate, name/shame/boycott, skew and guilt trip people with their emotive propaganda slogans. Going back to discrimination again: if it's not in the Marriage Act, then there is no discrimination against SSM, because it doesn't exist. You can't attach a right to something that doesn't exist, no matter how much you want to. Just saying that you want "same rights" requires first to bring something into a legal existence (ie. firstly, by redefining "marriage" to be genderless by saying "2 consenting adults") and then claiming to have a right under this new definition of "marriage". Without same sex marriage existing, there is no right to claim it. All rights have been established by a vote of some sort of or another. That maybe a popular vote like the national vote that first endorsed our constitution, or referendum that changed it, or plebiscites like the one that enshrined the right of Australians not to be conscripted for overseas service, or parliamentary vote or, rarely in this country, by vote of high court judges. Rights do not pop out of nowhere but come about because, over the centuries wisdom and experience have led to a consensus that certain values are very important and people have, by voting, encoded them in our laws. There is not yet a consensus that gay marriage is even a good thing to allow let alone a "right". Nor is SSM a human right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (the recent Senate enquiry into legalising same sex marriage has made this abundantly clear). The terms of reference are that SSM is not enshrined in law, that is the only terms of reference they can be given, because that is the main issue of the whole SSM debate. In that regards, SSM is not a Human Right because it doesn't exist in Australia.

If heterosexual marriage is not considered that important that it can so easily be changed, then why don't same sex unions be happily called another name? No, homosexuals insist it has to be described as marriage too because they DO believe that marriage is important....but by getting what they want, they destroy what they want.. What do you think will happen if Samsung decides to call their phones "iPhones"? ....Now imagine I tell you one of my friends had a baby, the next most likely instinctive question from you will be, boy or girl? Why is that important you may ask? Because from the gender all other conversation is tailored. When I tell someone I am married, they have no doubt that as a man I am married to a woman and instinctively, they ask, how is your wife? That is a sense of identity. Now if homosexual union is described as marriage as well, people will be hesitant to ask about my wife because they are not sure if its a male or female. I would have lost a sense of identity and my marriage "value" is diminished. Marriage is a sense of identity for EVERY married person and changing the definition of a word affects EVERYONE who uses that word - marriage is no different. If SSM proponents laugh this concern away as trivial or invalid, it just shows that the blatant one-sided concern for people's sensitivities is disgusting. I can't even walk down the street with my brother now-a-day without people firstly assuming that we are homosexuals and then secondly, that we are brothers. Our sense of identity has been stolen from us and destroyed by the same sex propaganda offensive.

Some people think that saying things like “bad parents” or “unnatural” or “against God” to homosexuals is hate-speech, but they are just opinions (albeit from a Biblical view-point) in the same way that same sex proponents say homosexuals are “good parents” or “natural” or “for God” is just their opinion - there is nothing hateful in expresses these differing views unless you want to create an emotive propaganda stunt to scare people over to your side. When I read the Bible, it is clear what the Bible says and if people disagree with my understanding of the Bible, then so be it - no hate is involved. There are many people (even within my church) who disagree with some of my Biblical understandings and vice versa - we don’t go around calling each other hateful….if anyone did, we would know that they are not trying to genuinely discuss the issue, but rather trying to incite emotive aggression just to “blackmail” people to agree with them. From a human point of view, it is all just opinions. If the majority of opinion is against same sex marriage, then it won’t become legal, and if the majority of opinion is for same sex marriage, then it will become legal. The institution of marriage is being re-defined to include a totally different function of marriage in society as what it has been for millennia and no trivialising it by propaganda slogans - like “if you don’t like gay marriage then don’t marry a gay person”, “it is making marriage equal”, “it is letting two people who love each other live happily together”, “it’s a new human/civil right”, “it’s a nice wedding ceremony where we all enjoy dressing up” or “it’s a private thing in the bedroom so mind your own business” - can change this. Marriage is none of these things, but the regressive (now militant) Left are trying to side-step the issue and once the campaigning for any future plebiscite (if it is proposed again) or future federal election begins, they will not get the free run they have had by media to push their views without proper scrutiny. The sole issue is redefining marriage to include same sex couples - nothing more and nothing less. If people feel upset or hurt by this, then that is no different to most other laws that go on. Ever wonder why hospitals have aggressive patients come in and police are needed to placate them?….or Centerlink having angry clients who want more money from welfare?….these are examples of people not being happy with how our laws work. Same sex marriage (for or against) are going to upset people and what the consequences will be if same sex marriage becomes legal is totally unknown - it takes generations to find out. Heterosexual marriage has been proven for millennia to work in civilisation after civilisation (you and I are the result of this proven marriage formula which is why traditional marriage is also known as "sane sex marriage"), but the recent same sex marriage push TOTALLY ignores all this history as irrelevant because “times change” and “morality is what we make it”….hmmm….did all those past civilisations get it wrong and we are the only people in the history of human existence to "get it right"?....not likely. Even in Australia, no same sex marriages occurred before John Howard orchestrated the change in the Marriage Act in 2004 to reflect Common Law because no same sex couple wanted it - they liked being different from heterosexuals and many still do today. They didn't want the marriage "label" because they didn't want the marriage commitments and responsibilities. Homosexuals who want same sex marriage today are wanting the marriage "label" (to give their lifestyle choice acceptance and credibility) without the marriage commitments and responsibilities that heterosexuals partake in. If heterosexual marriages fall apart, that is not the fault of the institution of marriage, but rather married couples not honouring their marriage vows. Instead of enhancing and strengthening marriage, same sex marriage will trivialize it to just a "label" that ALL marriages will be defined as and ALL marriages will be brought down to this lowest common denominator. That's the "equality" that they are seeking....it is not same sex couples reaching up to opposite sex standards, but opposite sex couples brought down to same sex standards - this is very regressive and fragments our society in a huge way (not to mention the explosion in health problems that accompanies the homosexual lifestyle - this point is conveniently ignored by the same sex marriage proponents). It is obvious to all that EVERY marriage is affected by the redefinition of the word marriage no matter if heterosexuals continue to live out their marriages the same way or not. If you change the definition of marriage, you change the institution of marriage (words mean something). This has never been done before in the history of human existence. Such disregard for historical marriage is dangerous and we would never apply such logic to planning our careers, purchasing things like houses and cars, but with a bedrock institution of our society like marriage, it is suddenly deemed so trivial that supposedly “a few word changes mean nothing”. To the contrary, it is restructuring our society to be a gender-swapping, non-family based society relying solely on the government to “verify” a frivolous marriage concept which is just a “label” printed on paper with a government stamp on it. It will try to cater for over 100 gender distinctions to date (and counting) without any regard for biological family bonding or nurture - the government will take over this role which is why it is all a Marxist social engineering agenda being played out and unfortunately, the homosexual community are just pawns in the elitist's deceitful political game targeting young people (without parental approval or knowledge) because young people are naive and easy pickings. Traditional marriage, however, is biology based verifying a committed relationship for the nurture of children with father and mother inputs (including extended family, so even single parents or childless marriages still have all the male/female inputs). Just like the definitions of “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are a million miles apart (and never the twain shall meet), so too, the definitions between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are a million miles apart - they cannot be legitimately defined in the same wording of the same Marriage Act as the same sex marriage proponents are trying to do.....to prove this point even further: homosexuality uses the term "gay" (for men) and "lesbian" (for women) to describe the sexual gender of their relationships. But with heterosexuality, we do not use a specific term that denotes male sexual heterosexuality nor a specific term for female sexual heterosexuality.....and the reason is?.....you guessed it, heterosexual relationships are infinately different to homosexual relationships!........the affects of same sex marriage (which has never been attempted in the history of human existence and therefore has no precedent) takes generations to fully play out and show the true nature of how it affects our society. Having a snapshot of two gay parents with their children all smiling whilst having a picnic in the park is not "proof" that it works. There are plenty of children raised with gay parents that DON'T like missing out on either a father or a mother - biology does matter to them (but they are conveniently ignored in all the rainbow flag waving and glitterati) and we all are proof of how well heterosexual marriage has worked from generation to generation - even if your immediate parents aren't married or live in a defacto relationship, their ancestors certainly had marriage going back to the beginning of time. The successful proof of heterosexual marriage is there to see over thousands and thousands of years and is indisputable.

Sometimes the truth hurts. Exposing “anything-goes” sex programs like the “Safe Schools” program (more accurately, it is the “unSafe Schools” program) in Australia and exposing the same sex agenda is a good thing – we are exposing the broad sinister agendas that have nothing to do with “equality”. “love”, “tolerance”, “non-discrimination”, etc. There is also the “Building Better Relationships” program promoting sex-depraved immorality as being normal. So for some people to try to undermine the family unit and create the illusion of “moral relativism” (that is, anything-goes-and-ignore-the-consequences) such as the same sex marriage people are doing is creating discussion and critical thinking. The same sex agenda is being exposed for what it is: humanist/atheist social engineering. The result is that the decent people of society are mobilising against it and the more the SSM people push their cause, the more opposition that are creating. They were scared of a plebiscite because they knew that they would lose it. The more analysis, the better. For example, is our biological sex determined by nature or nurture?….it’s obviously the former because of our chromosomes. Is our gender different to our sex?….nope!….it’s only the subjective, post-modernist person of the “progressive” gay mindset who thinks that redefining words can somehow change reality. Since when is “progress” always a good thing anyhow? It’s all just tricky word-smithing and targeting the naive young children of our society (without parental approval) because they are easy pickings. Make-believe “medical” reports just facilitate the illusion. That's right!.....”The Emperor has no clothes”. Sexual orientation other than our biological, chromosome-determined sex is all about choice: we all can choose to be the way we are created (the natural biological reality) or choose to be something different (fluid “whatever-you-feel-like” gender sexuality ) that is contrary to nature – the latter leads to an unhealthy, destructive, mixed up lifestyle. So blaming opponents of the “progressive” fluid sexuality won’t stop the confusion, anxiety, depression (suicide?) of GLBTIQ people…..it’s their chosen lifestyle that causes it. All the health warnings associated with their lifestyle are ignored thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of hurt, destruction…..and possibly death. The current same sex push affects the way we ALL act and talk – ALL society suffers as a result. Trying to redefine words to get the “abnormal” to suddenly become “normal” (and “immorality” to suddenly become “morality”) doesn’t work and it is a form of delusion to even try it. Morality by any other name is still morality and immorality by any other name is still immorality. And by the way, do the same sex marriage advocates allow gay rape?....of course they don't and so this proves that gay people CAN withhold their sexual urges IF THEY CHOOSE TO. The whole social experiment of hedonising our society and trying to engineer morality using political stunts, herd mentality and shove-it-in-our-face programs (like “unSafe Schools”, “Build Better Relationships” programs and the Flinders University study in teaching young children all about gender fluidity), doesn’t change morality. Our children can now be warned of these manipulative maneuverings by hedonistic humanists/atheists so that the next generation won’t be so easily fooled as the last.

It is inevitable now that schools will be polarised into “gay schools” and “non-gay schools” as the “gay schools” shout homophobia at anyone who does not want to be a homosexual (it will be a witch-hunt on all the time to “catch-out” the heterosexual and spew abuse at them just like Bill Shorten did to Cory Bernardi – no one wants to be on the run from the homo hit squad all day long) and the “non-gay schools” who are sick in the gut of having rampant hedonistic humanism/atheism shoved down our throats and so they want to live in peace by teaching their children the 3Rs and decency. The creators of the “Safe School” program obviously didn’t think through how their initiative will cause polarised “gay schools” and “non-gay schools” that will now eventuate – that is the path that we are now heading down. For schools/universities to support such a destructive program like “unSafe Schools”, it drags down their reputations and has me, for one, warning people not to send their children to such institutions – parents will vote with their feet (and their wallets) by not sending children to skewed schools/universities that are only into political activism and not into educating people. Bible-believing Christians are allowed to be persecuted, so there is hardly any “allowed to be yourselves” or “religious freedom” for them. What we are seeing with all this is tricky, hyped, chest-beating, emotive poetry that is the last thing that Australia needs. It's all just social engineering toward a hedonistic, immoral society based on humanistic religion.

What a disgraceful joke!

What we are seeing is the "cult" of LGBTIQ2A+ form where once you are in, you can never leave - Telstra has been caught out and many other businesses/individuals/politicians are going to get caught out too - it's the "Hotel California" scenario: "You can check-out any time you like, But you can never leave!". The decision by businesses to support SSM are being made by a few people in their leadership/marketing divisions and NOT by the shareholders or customers – the general populous has NOT been consulted. The intense, frenzied (bordering on hysterical) emotion that the pro-gay advocates are displaying when they don't get their way coupled with their do-only-what-we-tell-you-or-else dogma is causing this cultish phenomena to develop in the extreme. Once you are in their clutches, their web, their strangle-hold and then you realise that their intentions are quite sinister, any back-tracking of support (or even becoming a “passive” supporter)....wow!....you are in for it. There's no love or tolerance then from them, just plain hateful, malicious blackmail and bullying. The fun-coloured rainbow flags and ever-raining glitterati suddenly turns to bristling name-calling, abuse, threats, intimidation and flexing muscles, We can now start to see the ugly underbelly of the same sex lobby movement! Persecution is starting here (as it is already happening overseas) and will inevitably follow in all forms as the years pass and they thrust their agenda on everyone in every way possible. We never hear about the militant homosexuals….like “Bash Back” in America?…..who take the law in their own hands without due process.

Gender fluidity is a psychotic myth that goes against clear-cut biology and screws up the minds and emotions of children. It is an ideology.....and ideology, like faith, is not evidence. To teach such stuff to naive and impressionable young people is child abuse. If any child is deceived into having a physical sex change or drugs administered to their bodies causing life long scars, then they are the worse off because, unfortunately they cannot reverse the damage done to them when they realise that they were duped. The damaged caused to the children being taught this delusional stuff flows on to their adult years and will require a huge expense to the public purse in health services dealing with their mixed up minds and emotions (and physical damage). Children like attention and follow peer pressure....and so when irresponsible adults who have created an allusion of authority in schools (such as "school teachers") feed children ideas into their minds like gender fluidity, the children trust the teachers and don't want to look like the odd-one-out, so they just do as they are told - it all becomes a self fulfilling prophecy without any logic or scientific basis....it's a political stunt that the adults are playing on our children. Just "feeling" a certain gender doesn't change reality. The redefining of words to make the bad look good (ie. lust is now called "love", gender is now your "feeling" that you can somehow be a different gender from your biological sex, etc)....the mixing up and redefinition of words is the casualty of this screwed up gender fluidity garbage. In regard to respect: there is no respect for people who see through all this made up gender fluidity nonsense and subsequently, we want to protect our children from Marxist elites who have sabotaged our education system to push their social engineering techniques onto our children. Respect is ignored then. The judicial activists will try to steal our children away from us if we disagree with them. No respect when that happens. WARNING: keep our children away from the government.....especially the public education system and medical centres.

heterosexuals do marriage because they have the body parts to do intercourse and procreate - same sex partners don't have the body parts to do intercourse or procreate and so it is biology that makes homosexuals unequal with heterosexuals. The new "marriage" definition that homosexuals want departs from millennia-old marriage of biological parent-hood to a concept of self-gratifying sex/lust/feelgood-based marriage that is meaningless and irrelevant. Same sex marriage serves no purpose than to make homosexuality look acceptable - which is purely a political, social-engineering stunt. Homosexuals can do all their homosexuality without marriage involved.

I am commenting on here in response to an article on the website about Australian politicians voting on SSM, something that I am interested in....nothing else on the website interests me. Plus, if I only talk to like-minded people, then I never learn other people's points of view and I would think within an artificial "thought bubble" living ignorantly of all the other things that is going on in the world. In the case of same sex marriage, I look at what pro-SSM people are saying so I can more accurately refute their points and successfully convince people (especially the young people that have been aggressively targeted by Marxist socialists) that homosexual marriage and all the other homosexual propaganda slogans (like "love is love", "civil rights", "marriage equality") are a farce - they are irrelevant to redefining marriage. Same sex marriage is purely a political stunt to make homosexuality look acceptable, nothing more.

Btw, the same sex marriage advocates repeat "homophobic", "hateful" and "bigoted" phrases every time they hear opposition to their homosexual agenda - in other words, they broadcast the very words that they say shouldn't be broadcast. Also, the more you create a “special” activity to help a “different group” of people, you inevitably make them more “different” because they have to have “special” help – it is circular reasoning and works against itself. It creates “perpetual victim-hood”. For example, when I was a child, I remember a group of children leaving out another child from their group (as children do from time-to-time) and so an adult stepped in to help out by telling/suggesting that the group include the other child. This just made the other child look more different from the rest because an adult had to step in to help him (when no adults had to step in for any of the other children), and so the child felt more left out and the the child himself got upset with the adult for exacerbating his situation. The adult thought they were doing something helpful, but just made the problem worse for the child. If the adult had just made a generalisation to ALL the children that they need to be inclusive without identifying any one child or drawing attention to any specific issue, then the group of children would apply the teaching to their circumstances by including the other child.....and the other child wouldn't feel different from the rest (thereby maintaining his self-respect and normality). So in the case of the “Safe Schools” program, the more that the LGBTIQ2A+ people get “special” attention, the more different they look. Instead of being a genuine anti-bullying program that teaches anti-bullying across ALL issues, it focuses on one group thereby exacerbating their plight. Talk about a massive back-fire....another example is the “GLORIAs” whereby the gay lobby group offer tongue-in-cheek awards for what they think are the most “homophobic” comments being made in an attempt to humiliate people who make the comments, yet at the same time, they repeat the comments over-and-over thereby inflicting ongoing “damage” to the gay community – they are doing the very thing that they say shouldn't be happening. The comments are also trivialised in the GLORIAs due to it's comedy show format so instead of being treated as serious insults, people laugh off the comments - the gay lobby group inadvertantly hurt the very people that they claim to be helping. However, when Christian students are persecuted for holding Biblical view of marriage in the school yard, the so-called anti-bullying “Safe Schools” program does NOT stop the bullying directed at them nor do the pro-gay teachers and principles step in to stop the bullying. Already we have heard of Christian children having to be changed from a public school to a Catholic school to flee the hateful persecution that they received in the public school. This doesn't just happen with “Safe Schools”, but homosexuals look more different and unnatural the more that the same sex lobby group tries to “help” them. There are also gay-only groups that teach people how to have gay relationships, gay sex, etc….so much for homosexuality being “normal/natural” if you have to be taught it.

The Labor Leader, Mr Shorten, prompted and provoked a response from Senator Bernardi – Mr Shorten said “That would be the chap” first thereby prompting and provoking a response from Senator Bernardi. Many media articles fail to mention this but rather pretend that Mr Shorten was bullied for no reason. Likewise, we have seen the Sydney Airport Hotel come under attack by same sex activists and so the divisive and hurtful campaigning isn’t coming from the No side. And when the same sex marriage proponents constantly talked about the plebiscite “hurting gay people pushing them to suicide”, they planted the idea into people’s heads thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy - any hurt that occurrs has nothing to do with what the No side say but rather is facilitated, propogated and sensationalized by the Yes side. There has been no hate-speech from the No side, just a difference of opinion and nothing more.. No one should prompt or provoke hostility whether in the parliament or the play ground. If people think that what Mr Shorten did is acceptable and that the “Safe Schools” program encourages LGBTIQ (did I miss a letter?) children to similarly go around prompting and provoking hostility in schools and then crying “victim” when they get criticized, then the “Safe Schools” project is indeed as dangerous as Senator Bernardi says. The more that we are finding out about this “Safe Schools” program, the more dangerous it becomes. Mis-reporting by people is causing a growing resentment and disgust against same sex marriage and if the media thinks that the Australian public are too stupid to see through skewed reporting, they are wrong. The same sex marriage lobby group keeps doing this sort of thing over-and-over again and it shows how devious and dishonest they are. The media should not be adopting the same devious and dishonest tactics in their reporting.

The institution of marriage was given its “equality” by the institution of Australian law which operates to protect “equality” before the law. Marriage was thus given its rightful consideration and security in the wider life of all Australian citizens. The Family Court has had to work out many and various issues in all sorts of relationships. It makes little sense now for the gender activists to insist that all the gay community wants is for their sexuality and love to be treated equally under the law. It already is, but in ways which recognise their registered same-sex unions as legal contracts. They are equal in their sexual unions, but different by definitions which recognise the understandings gained from the centuries of human experience of connubial marriage and all its social, communal, economic and legal aspects. The SSM-Safe schools proponents ARE talking about themselves: what they wish for themselves as individuals, denying human physical realities, and insisting on changing social and communal values to reflect their particular ideas about themselves. The anti-SSM defenders ARE NOT talking about themselves. They are concerned about others - men, women, children - living social relationships that reflect individual and social reality. This is a central distinction which must be understood in this debate. Our individual impulses are not sound reasons for formulating any sorts of laws. To insist that connubial marriage must be equated with same-sex equality is a strange notion at best. The claim is rather like demanding that bicycles must be equal to a Rolls Royce car. They are both forms of transport; they can take you anywhere, but they remain completely different vehicles. "Transport equality" anyone? An even more depressing idea entailed in all this is that all the values that individuals hold should be constricted by the state. We must all park our personal values at the door when we go to work, and be forced to operate according to the "rules", however defined and justified.

The “unSafe Schools” program tells kids that gender is fluid and sexuality is not definable. It tells kids that Gender is how you feel. The program encourages kids to classify themselves while simultaneously denigrating such classification. It is a view of human sexuality and gender which is entirely constructed and removed from reality. It teaches kids that their personal feelings are paramount and that they should expect EVERYONE to affirm them. It makes kids who choose to be LGBTIQ hypersensitive and on the lookout for anything that might remotely be classified as bullying. The entire foundation of the programme is constructed on conjecture and dodgy use of statistics.

Also, there is no homophobia…..just a different opinion. People who disagree with same sex relationships simply disagree, nothing more. Calling it homophobia is a cop out for not having a legitimate reason to have a same sex relationship and so to silence your critics, you use emotive name calling. The whole name calling stunt has worn out and people are not put off by being called homophobia, hate speecher or bigot because name calling is an acknowledgement that you have lost the argument. If equality is what the same sex marriage advocates want, then equality for all types of marriage would be allowed. To limit their marriage re-definition to only include “two consenting adults” is being unequal to the people wanting other forms of marriage – so it is quite a big lie to claim that SSM is “marriage equality”. If you wanted to save money on any “wasteful” plebiscite, then simply leave the Marriage Act as it is – no cost involved then!…..but the same sex lobby pushing for a change are creating the cost.

Gay marriage de-moralises marriage, against the interests of children, by breaking the link in the institution of children to their biological parents, thereby greatly furthering the phenomenon of broken families, by promoting a weaker marriage institution as normal. It breaks the timeless natural law, in so many ways. According to reason, it's quite obviously false, and as one gay advocate conceded, only possible in a decadent cultue such as ours today. Despite its seeming prevalence, it wont last, because it can't, it's not sustainable as we say nowadays. Notice poorer countries, often wont stand for it, because they can't. And when we hit harder times, quite likely, chances are whether in 10 or 50 years, it will be seen for what it is, a sentimental fashion, that said more about the times - extremely prosperous, over-liberal, decadent - than about any insight into what is 'right'. Gay marriage is deeply un-equal, as it denies the most important members of society, all of us at one stage - children - the equal right to a mother and a father, so profoundly needed for the individual (see the huge range of stats on that), and therefore the only normative structure that can be normative, i.e. justified as a public institution, is one that provides that. Gay marriage is a social injustice. The truth is sometimes hard, but must be stated, and freely and openly, for the sake of everyone concerned. Marriage should stay as it is for the simple reason that marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. Should we need to accommodate other arrangements we need to use a different term. To fail this test opens up the community to use of the term "proper marriage"when they are united by a clergyman which will make a mockery of the alternative....then the militant same sex proponents will kick into high gear persecuting the Christians because their SSM is not acheiving the acceptability that they seek - that's when religious freedoms disappear. Already same sex couples enjoy all of the rights and protection of the law as heterosexual couples. They want to take the "M" word away from a man and woman's uniquely formalised relationship (the majority). All that will result if the legal definition of marriage is changed is the use of an adjective in front of the word marriage i.e "proper marriage', 'gay marriage" or some other more pejorative word. No matter how much people pretend otherwise, everyone will still know marriage is between a man and a woman, anything else will be a "....[fill-in-the-blank]...." marriage. Acceptability of the homosexual's chosen lifestyle (which is the sole purpose for having same sex marriage) will still not be achieved. The same sex lobby tried to use the Anti-discrimination Act as leverage to both silence and force the Roman Catholic Church in Tasmania to change it's view on same sex marriage…..so already this bully tactic has been used. Of course, the complaint was purely a political stunt to harass, shame and intimidate the Roman Catholic Church which is why it was inevitably withdrawn before a ruling by the Commissioner (there was no discrimination going on at all) and this is what The Australian Christian Lobby are addressing – that is: the misuse of the Anti-discrimination Act to silence and bully critics should not be used by anyone (either the “yes” side or the “no” side of same sex marriage) because it is dishonest, it stops free speech and it is an abuse of our Anti-Discrimination Laws to make a claim that is purely a political stunt and not relating to any discrimination. The way that the media has made out the ACL are wanting favouritism or somehow circumventing the Anti-discrimination Act is further evidence of how devious and deceitful the SSM advocates are. The obvious outcome is that it will backfire and more and more people will be chased over to the “no’ side – that’s what happens when you lie too much for too long. The withdrawal of the claim exposes the dirty tactic being used and exposes the empty threats that the SSM people spew forth.

When Emperor Nero justified feeding Christians to the lions as sport after blaming them for causing the fire that destroyed Rome (....a fire that he started himself to rebuild a new Rome), he needed a scapegoat for his own selfish, hedonistic objectives. The same is happening today, but instead of burning Rome to build a new city, it is destroy decency in society for a new hedonistic, "no rules" society and Christians are easy pickings because they won't shoot first at opponents and ask questions after. The idea that the church should dump decency as taught in the Bible to be "relevant" in a hedonistic, decadent society that is going to destroy itself, is a farce - if people want to sink in a society that will inevitably destroy itself, Christians shouldn't have to applaud in the race to the bottom. When the Rome Empire eventually had rampant hedonism and debauchery toward the end of the 3rd century, it was Emperor Constantine who turned to a form of Christianity (many Biblical teachings were ignored) as a way out of the horrors going on in the Roman society. So there is an example of how we must also avoid the same horrors of rampant hedonism and debauchery by following the Christian teachings - the more Biblical we get, the better off we will be. In other words, we can be “saved from ourselves”. The Church doesn't want the state government to get involved with their churches, but the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators are demanding our government to give them the status of "marriage" which has relevance to the religious practice of marriages between man and woman which requires them to consummate their marriage, and adultery can be grounds of divorce. A religious marriage doesn't require a state marriage certificate. Same-sex couples have had nothing to do with the word "marriage" during 1788-1856 in Australia during a time when the government was not involved in the practice of religious marriage in Australia. Therefore, it is the state getting involved in churches and not the other way round. Same-sex couples claim that the Humanist's "Marriage Equality" will have no impact on churches, despite the Church of England today has declared it will separate over "gay marriage" and priests having same-sex sexual relationships. The dividing of the churches into the sheep and goats (wheat and tares) is happening all around the world on the issue of marriage, and Christians being able to understand the original meaning of marriage was a "one flesh" union between man and woman in order to fill the earth with people....and the symbolism of Christ (the "Bridegroom") marrying the Church (the "Bride") - these two Christian concepts cannot accommodate same sex marriage in any way, shape or form (along with many Bible verses stating as such) or else it destroys the bedrock of the Christian faith. Christ cannot marry another Christ and the Church cannot marry another Church because there is no eternal life for us sinners if they did. Can Christians identify the difference between a "one flesh" union as God outlines and a "sham marriage" of the world?....If churches accept sinning as the new "christianity" (or more accurately "Churchianity"), then Jesus dying on the cross was futile because there is no need for a Saviour if there is no need for us to be saved from sin. Time will tell, but many Christian and churches have already discarded the Biblical teaching on this issue and adopted a worldly (Anti-christ?) view - after all, the Anti-christ himself will be "a denier of women". The ACL and Senator Cory Bernardi are highlighting the unfair and dishonest name-calling and dirty political tactics used by the same sex lobby group to silence their critics and shove their agenda down our throats. This will be highlighted a thousand times as the same sex lobby group continue with their dishonest bully tactics and prove the ACL to be true over-and-over-and-over again.

Western demmocracies have adopted a "secular humanist" religion to function....as if human "rational" is the highest authority of truth. You don't need to look very far to see how human "rational" can get it wrong and yet you rely on it for truth - even the theory of evolution cannot explain how human "rational" can evolve or even exist and yet you rely on it for all truth?...anyhow, if human "rational" is so perfect, then my human rational for believing in God is perfectly legitimate unless you think that "your rational is right and mine is wrong"?....and then we get in a never-ending slanging match of whose "human rational is right and whose is wrong" when no human can show why they have any more authority over someone else - that is the path of your "secular humanism"....it's just the "blind leading the blind". So no thanks, I will stick with the infinitely more credible belief in the Biblical God.

Since governments got involved in marriage, it has become a pony ride for anyone, people hop in and out at will, hence the weakening of it. It is so weak that the homosexual who previously scorned at the institution even wants to have a go because it is now so watered down in its sacredness and meaning. Defacto-relationships, multiple partners, living together, single parents, no fault divorce, return of women to work /feminism - were all private moral decisions - yet each one has influenced marriage. Each one of these private personal arrangements still have an ongoing negative ripple effect across generations, families and workplaces. To deny this is to be foolish. Homosexuality was understood to be unspeakably immoral for centuries and is now celebrated as a moral good. Bible teaching on the sinfulness of homosexuality is now seen as a relic of the past and a repressive force that must be eradicated. Just like teaching religious education to young children is now described as child abuse. Those who hold to biblical teaching concerning human sexuality are now "ousted." This is clearly seen by the wilful mocking of the Christian faith. There is an hatred here, willingly expressed, belittling, ignorant but not yet violent. Even if SSM happens in Australia the manipulation and mocking will not disappear. Many marriages break up, but it is not the institution of marriage that causes this - to the contrary, half the married people in Australia end up in divorce (or have extra marital affairs, or neglect their children, or abuse each other, or have any other marital problems) and this happens because the people doing these things are not living up to their marriage vows. The institution of marriages prevents these things from happening if people stuck to their marriage vows. So just because half the people who currently get married end up neglecting their marriage commitments and subsequently trash their marriages, it doesn't mean that we should go all the way and trash marriage completely. This is the premise for why same sex marriage is being pushed - the argument is that adding same sex marriage supposedly won't make a difference to the already "hotch-potch", mixed-up, dysfunctional and half failed marriages in existence. So rather than help repair marriage, which needs attention, the same sex marriage people seek its further destruction. This is where the same sex marriage "logic" leads to. Why on earth do the LGBTI lobby, which in general ridicule the Christian religion at every opportunity, want to be allowed to engage in the same rituals as those in the churches?...Of course, there are all the other marriage "options" that will inevitably follow as the years pass (such as polygamy, etc). The "slippery slope" argument is very real in countries that have already legalised same sex marriage. The SSM people conveniently fail to mention that same sex relationships have, as a result of their own decisions, a far higher rate of multiple sex partners, group sex, relationship anxieties, health issues, child neglect and self-inflicted problems than that of heterosexual marriages (even the failed ones). Of course, the other halve of existing marriages that are successful, have every right to keep marriage as it is because, after all, their view of marriage as a binding, procreation, family building activity is based on the male AND female gender inputs into thier marriages - these are inputs that same sex partners can NEVER have (ie. two men can NEVER have a female input and two women can NEVER have a male input). This is what makes marriage so appealing to everyone in the first place. If marriage is changed away from this, then it goes without saying that it's appeal will also change. In other words, the appeal of having same sex marriage is destroyed in achieving it.

There won't be a conscience vote in parliament because the people voted for a plebiscite at the last federal election that has now been blocked by the Senate....and so the people don't want any other way of legalizing same sex marriage this term of parliament. For the left-wing activists to try a push through a conscience vote (which, by the way, the plebiscite is a conscience vote of the electorate so they would have got their conscience vote by having a plebiscite) is totally irrelevant and contrary to what the people want - the people don't like elitist activists forcing their arrogance and skewed version of reality on the rest of us. There is a high likelihood that the Coalition government will get re-elected (or a right-wing Senate to block any Labor government) as the conservative voters stand up against the Marxist activists, thereby stopping homosexual marriage from ever happening in Australia. If homosexuals are too fragile to cope with a debate on marriage, then why do homosexual activists keep restarting the debate?....ANSWER: they were dead scared of a NO vote if the people ever have a say about legalizing SSM which is why they doggedly opposed a plebiscite.

In Australia, the left-wing homosexuals thought they would be smart and orchestrate a Senate enquiry into same sex marriage laws and they have just concluded that: "Australia is not being discriminatory by defining marriage to be between a man and a woman. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has made it clear that so long as a nation state has legislation to recognise and protect same-sex relationships-as Australia has-then the right to freedom from discrimination and equality before the law is fulfilled. The committee also found that there is no specific right to same-sex marriage because under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, marriage (ICCPR Article 23) is defined as being between a man and a woman. The European Court of Human Rights has made a number of judgements in recent years supporting this view. The committee also found however that under law, there is nothing prevent a parliament to legislate to change the definition of marriage and that should that occur, the rights of individuals to their freedom of thought, conscience and religion (ICCPR Article 18) would be enlivened." ....so NO discrimination occurs to oppose same sex marriage and there are NO rights attached to same sex marriage - this came from a federal Senate committee made up of homosexual activists....so sorry if I don't buy into your propaganda slogans of "homosexual rights" and "discrimination". Please give any reason at all that makes same sex marriage legitimate?

I am HAPPY to have any plebiscite (if another one is proposed) for two reasons - 1. it will show the true support (or lack thereof) of SSM and 2. it will placate the losing side to accept the outcome because indeed, the people have spoken - that's democracy. This is why the cost of any plebiscite is worth it. The half-billion dollar price tag for the previously proposed plebiscite was a make-believe number to try and scare people away from the plebiscite, so it is another example of the sly and devious actions of the SSM people. I don't think there is any where near a majority of Australians supporting SSM and the SSM advocates are trying to "talk" their way into a law change by trying to say that there is a “SSM majority support” by quoting make-believe, dodgy/skewed polls.....and any dishonest, tricky, sly wordsmithing with any plebiscite question will defeat it's purpose because the losers will continue to cry foul thereby increasing the animosity. If there is ever an issue that needs to be conducted fair and square, this is it. Already, the SSM side have used name-calling, bully tactics by threats of Anti-Discrimination claims, "shove-it-down-our-throats" programs, swamp the media and social networks, herd mentality, misreporting, pretending it won't affect heterosexuals, ignore millennia-old principles, target naive young children without parental approval or knowledge (like preying on kindergarten and pre-school toddlers and the "unSafe Schools" for pre-teens), sabotage the public service to make incremental law changes to get their way and adopt the "victim mentality"....and yet they still haven't convinced the majority of Australians that what they are doing is "good, innocent, safe, loving, tolerant, inclusive and healthy" for our society. Reality points to the opposite.

There is a shameless, unrelenting agenda by politicians that are openly part of the LGBTIQ community and the same sex lobby group, the latter having sabotaged our public institutions, to “educate” the up-and-coming generation about their “anything-goes” sexual agenda at an early age and quash all objection. They are not content to do their own thing amongst themselves, so they are forcing their agenda on everyone, everywhere – they are getting into everything and no one is safe from their onslaught. They are using innocent sounding statements of "acceptance", "safety", "protection", "equality", "tolerance", "respect", "love", etc as sly propaganda words for the perverse sexualising of society (the more recent is the attack on our innocent toddlers in kindergarten and pre-schools, in addition to the pre-teen “unSafe Schools” programs) trying to legitimise their sick agenda by quoting make-believe medical studies and authoritatively sounding “experts” - it is all social engineering and deception on a grand scale. Make no mistake, they are trying to steal our children for their own selfish political agenda leaving parents on the outer. Emotive stories from families and experiences are used to 'put a face' on their issues and quash any dissent to what is an unnatural lifestyle choice. It is all lies and manipulation. Don't be fooled. It's more than time to be vocal and stop the sexually perverted filth from poisoning the minds of our children and society as a whole. Say to your local kindergarten and schools that you don't want children perverted with the "anything goes" sex agenda and if they won't listen to you, then vote with your feet (and wallets) and take your children elsewhere. Also tell your local MP how disgusting it all is and that he/she should stop dancing to the tune of the sexually perverted "Pied Piper" - say that you will not give them your vote in the election....and you might even campaign against them.

It is scientifically proven that there is no "gay gene" that anyone is born with - it is a choice. It is normal for young people to have hormones wash through their bodies, and we decide whether we will handle our sexual drive with appropriate restraint to avoid the incredible damage it will do to us and others or insist we can live as we feel regardless of the consequences and then force others to accept our choice without calling them out. The most recent census states that only 2% of Australian adults have LGBTIQ leanings showing that children adopt their born sexuality once they pass into adult hood. Suicide in the LGBTIQ is because of their relationship issues (not because of people opposing them)....in other words, their lifestyle choice creates impractical relationship issues that lead to a large percentage committing suicide. The take over of our public service by these people allows all sorts of government sanctioned and endorsed materials, support groups and recruitment environments to cement these people into the LGBTIQ community contrary to facts and wisdom (at tax payers expense) - it is deplorable. The world wide LGBTIQ agenda has become coordinated and has honed their labels they use to define themselves, their push for acceptance and their total bigotry in not allowing anyone to have an opposing point of view. When confronted with scientific fact and the logical outcomes of the agenda, name calling with predefined emotive labels like bigots, haters, homophobes and transphobes are reverted to. Their name calling is an admission of defeat because they cannot dispute the arguments against homosexuality. It is emotional "brow-beating", that's all. 

The activity that is left behind in the school yard has been allowed to flourish on social media as a tool of social engineering/indoctrination and not innocent social interaction (as all the social websites claim). Dissenting voices are howled down. Dressing up the homosexual agenda with “pretty” colours, like the rainbow and glitter, makes it all look pleasant and fun, but behind the mask is an ugly, deceitful world view destroying lives, families and society. The clear evidence of the impact of their lifestyle choices is shouted down with online shaming, financial recriminations, indoctrination in our schools as the definition of what is acceptable is broadening. Just a couple of years ago it was only the issue of homosexuality that was pushed at every possible moment in the media and in our schools now it is transgender and sexual fluidity (gender therapy) that you can be and do whatever you want or feel and no one can call you to account on the impact it has on you and others in society around you. Talk about screwing up people's minds and lives - this is the ultimate “if it feels good, do it” philosophy causing the worst possible outcome. The physical, emotional and psychological damage that is done to LGBTIQ people and the broader community is as extreme as any war-torn or disease-ridden country....and it is all self-inflicted by slick marketing and "overwhelm the opposition" strategies.  

The options of 'unnatural' diverse/fluid sexuality that we are all 'educated' to accept, tolerate, turn a blind eye to and endorse will only increase and broaden to include untold acts of debauchery.....along with the perverted sexualisation of naive children leading to horrific “child-on-child” sex abuse, child grooming for sexual predators, STIs (sexually transmitted infections) and a new generation of stolen children. The scars will run deep and where will be the same sex lobby group to help all the victims and solve the horror that they cause?.....hiding behind their “love” and “equality” banners living in their dream world of "do-anything-you-want-without-accepting-the-consequences". Are our political leaders so easily fooled by all this - it seems so.....in fact they are trying to out do each other in the race to the bottom of the abyss.

As a Christian, my awareness of a Creator God in my life is as real as the people I meet and the computer I am sitting in front of now - just because non-Christians have not experienced the same thing doesn't make it less real, it just means that they are missing out on part of life that is available to them, but they don't want it. That is why the Bible is so important. The truthfulness of the Bible never changes because truth is immutably objective and unlike the subjective, post-modern humanists/atheists "truth" , the Bible also provides us with the knowledge of reality as the Creator God made it and it gives us supernatural insight into human nature by explaining the good and the bad. It acts as the reference point (or measure) to determine "right from wrong", "good from bad", "moral from immoral", "lust from love", etc....without a reference point, you cannot possibly determine these things other than "what you make them up to be". Human marriage reflects the spiritual marriage between Jesus Christ (the Bridegroom) and the Church (the Bride) who will be married in a future "Marriage of The Lamb" - hence, if human marriage is changed from solely between a man and a woman, to man-man or woman-woman, then this would break the symbolism of the marriage between Jesus Christ and the Church.....in fact, it would be a complete abomination to think that Jesus would dump the Church and marry another Jesus (there is no other Jesus to marry), or if the Church would dump the Jesus to marry another Church (there is no other Church to marry). So this is why there can be no alteration than a man-woman marriage (only one man marrying only one woman) for Biblical Christians to accept. Even trans-gender marriages are ruled out because Jesus doesn't pretend that He is the Church or the church never pretends that she is Jesus. See how either same sex marriages or trans-gender marriages completely contradict and make a mockery of the spiritual Jesus-Church marriage? Also, the logical implication of making truth whatever we want it too be (ie. "progressive moral relativism"), is that we all contradict ourselves as we all believe that "my truth is better than your truth". This is the best proof yet that a Creator God exists and that His Word is truth (ie. The Ontological Argument). As the ultimate Creator of the universe, God then has the authority to do what He wants with creation including laying out the rules for living. I will therefore never be ashamed of my faith in God and my trust in God's Word, the Bible no matter how much mockery, put-downs or intimidation I get from mere humans who, when you look at the track record of human reasoning, is a disaster. Homosexuality is just another feeble attempt by humanist/atheists to impose an unnatural/unhealthy on humanity in a blatant act of defiance to the Creator God because homosexuality, along with other “non-god” movements live evolution theory, big bang theory, One World Order, no religions, world peace, climate change, etc all fail to align with the natural order of the biological/spiritual world as God created things and no "wishing" this away will change anything. God warns us of ignoring Him and He displays great pity on those who rebel against Him - that is why Jesus prayed (and I follow Jesus' example): "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do". When a person says "I don't believe thw Bible....", they are stating that they are believing in something else. Everyone believes in something. Everyone has a view of the future even if, for example it is secularism as the basis of a future utopia. Secularists have no evidence that secularism will lead to an objective absolute utopia, only their faith that it will. In other words, for a secularist to get fully behind secularism today with claims to higher reasoning, they must have faith in where it will lead. For there is no evidence it will go anywhere. So for all their reasoning in the end they must themselves rely on faith that cannot be supported by their reasoning. Based on human wisdom to date, if they think that I believe in fairytales then they believe in a larger fairytale.

God has prophesied a "falling away" (ie. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;) as the world is deceived by a massive lie to temporarily ignore the Bible and follow ungodly ways?...the "falling away" only lasts a short time because humans cause such chaos that all life nearly gets destroyed (including humans) except for divine intervention. I can already see the world heading headlong into massive chaos and destruction already fulfilling Bible prophecies. So you can now see that I don't need to pray as you are suggesting me to because such a prayer is contrary to His Plan. Knowing the Bible give me a huge headstart on understanding current world events (including the rise of homosexuality). We are at the beginning of the "falling away" stage and if you want to know the results of where homosexuality leads to, please read Romans 1:18-32 (it's not a pretty outcome). This is where the world is heading and already Christians are being targeted in ways not thought of even a decade ago. This temporary ungodliness results in a world Government ruled by one man and all life on earth would get destroyed except for the return of Jesus Christ. I see everything happening exactly as God predicted and so I see no need to pray in a way that contradicts God's prophecies - He will not answer such an ignorant and self-serving prayer....God is not in the vanity business to "prove me right" like you expect Him to be. In fact, the rise of homosexuality proves the Bible 100% correct.....so why would I doubt God's power, listening ability, existence, will or intentions?....He has laid it all out in detailed prophecies through-out the Bible in clear detail (over 800 prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled to the letter). I would love to tell you more Bible teachings and so ask more questions about God

If homosexual animals ever existed, then they would have become extinct at the end of their generation (because they cannot reproduce to the next generation)...it requires heterosexual animals to survive so which is the natural way?...ANSWER: the natural thing for animals to exist is heterosexuality. Plus, even though animals might display homosexual acts (which is disputable), there is no way of knowing if the animals desire to have sex with the same sex partners (ie. you can't ask them)....but rather, they only exhibit same sex acts when NO opposite sex animals are around and they don't penetrate like human homosexuals do). In other words, the so-called homosexual animals aren't homosexual at all, but rather they are just heterosexual animals using same sex partners because they have no other options. There is nothing natural about homosexuality, and there is certainly no need to be "married" to do your homosexuality things. Same sex marriage is purely a stunt to make homosexuality look acceptable....and you have just admitted to your own "secular humanist" religion....as if human "rational" is the highest authority of truth. You don't need to look very far to see how human "rational" can get it wrong and yet you rely on it for truth - even the theory of evolution cannot explain how human "rational" can evolve or even exist and yet you rely on it for all truth?...anyhow, if human "rational" is so perfect, then my human rational for believing in God is perfectly legitimate unless you think that "your rational is right and mine is wrong"?....and then we get in a never-ending slanging match of whose "human rational is right and whose is wrong" when no human can show why they have any more authority over someone else - that is the path of your "secular humanism"....it's just the "blind leading the blind". So no thanks, I will stick with the infinitely more credible belief in the Biblical God.

Why do I oppose same sex marriage?...Firstly, it denies me my rights - even though you want SSM, you should equally accept that heterosexuals have a right to keep marriage as it's current definition and the heterosexual's anguish as a result of the marriage definition being changed is just as valid and serious as the homosexual's anguish who wants it changed. In other words, all the reasons that homosexuals use to change the definition of marriage can be equally used for the heterosexual to NOT have the definition of marriage changed. You only look at the SSM side and ignore all the valid points that non-SSM people have for rejecting SSM.

Secondly, having same sex marriage affects me in my home life in many ways:

1. it affects what my child will be taught at schools,

2. it affects the terminology that we use (such as "him, her, boy, girl, mummy, daddy, etc" because these distinctions are not compatible with same sex families),

3. it changes what I mean when I say to people that "I'm married",

4. my child will be parroting SSM slogans/propaganda at home such as "marriage equality" when there is no such equality (it is actually redefinition of marriage) and "love is love" when there is no such love (it is actually "lust is lust"). I will constantly be needing to correct my child from all the propaganda phrases that the pro-gay schools teach and will need to explain how my child is being used as a pawn/puppet in a political campaign to socially engineer society. The "progressives" always want change, but since when is "progress" always for the better?

5. extra cost will be needed to be spent if my child decides to be a different "gender" from the biological "sex" meaning that all the clothes that were originally bought for my child will be wasted and a whole pile of new clothes will need to be bought for the unnatural "gender" change, plus there are all the sex-change hormone/anatomy treatments needed to be paid for (and then the reverse treatments when my child realises what is going on and wants to revert back to the natural, biological, chromosome-determined self - that's what approx 80% of same sex people do when they get older),

6. I will have to battle with government authorities over keeping my child because the public service has been sabotaged by the "progressives" and they will do all that they can to steal my child from me.

7. I could go through all the agony of losing a child from AIDS at a young age as well as all the other health problems that are associated with same sex relationships or infected from other same sex people even if my child isn't practising homosexuality.....and my taxes will be used to help pay for the massive increase in health problems that other same sex people incur as a result of their choice to be homosexuals – I have to help pay for their self-inflicted injuries/illnesses.

8. my child will be told to reject the clear teachings of God's Word, the Bible, that I hold dear to be the true words of the Creator God that we teach in our home. The SSM people will make every effort to turn my child off the Bible and try to remove any Bible input into my child's life - thereby removing the possibility for my child to hear the Gospel and upon believing, receive eternal life. This is the hidden agenda of the humanistic/atheistic "progressives" which is to debunk the Bible and cut off everyone from believing the Gospel to receive eternal life. The SSM is a front to push sinful hedonism in every way possible and in every part of society as possible.

9. Another massive problem for me with SSM is how my child will be sexualised at an extremely young age (along with all the other children in kindergarten, pre-school and then primary school) and I will be constantly battling with the risk and/or actuality of horrific “child-on-child” sex abuse, child grooming for sexual predators, STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) and a new generation of stolen children. These are already the inevitable result of sexualising our children. When children learn about adult-only sex issues, they are too young and immature to handle the information responsibly thereby leading the children to have "play sex" (that's what the children call it) or doing "pretend sex" (their words) to make out that what they are doing isn't real sex when it actually is. The result is children getting sexually active at pre-teen ages with devastating results. Connecting the dots between irresponsible child "sex talk" and irresponsible child "sex action" is very easy. And where is abstaining from sex until you get married mentioned in all of this??....it's never mentioned!....God's sacred use of sex within marriage is COMPLETELY ignored. The result is widespread hurt by pre-marital, unprotected, (sometimes forced) child sex just to be cool or because they have sexual concepts introduced into their unprepared minds that spark a curiosity to experiment with it. The bully kids can rape other kids and get away with it because they say it is only "play/pretend" sex. Needless to say, the sex acts are in ALL shapes and forms.....PARENTS: please beware of what can happen to your children. This is the inevitable result of sexualising our young people.

This will be a generation of abused children, poor things.

Btw, is "abstinence from sex until you are married" ever taught as an option?....no, never.

.....it is selfish for homosexuals to think that they can get what they want from the redefinition of marriage and yet totally ignore the loss that heterosexuals get from their redefinition of marriage. 

One of the greatest Biblical truths is in Romans 1:16-32. No honest person can disagree with the passage because it is being fulfilled before our very eyes (for example: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools", "vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened", "uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts", "God gave them up unto vile affections"....and verses 28-31 describes most of our politicians perfectly). There is plenty in the passage that talks about "dishonour(ing) their own bodies between themselves" and "for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly".....hmmm....it's not hard to work out what it says. 

It's a no-go to get an opposing comment on The Guardian, The Conversation, the ABC, SBS, Huffington Post and the Fairfax outlets. The failure of marriages is not the fault of the Institution of Marriage, but rather it's the married people who don't honour their marriage vows that are at fault. There is plenty that can be said about the Marxist social strategies to destroy marriage so that people rely on the "State" for nurture, security and sustenance.....but without going into all that, the same sex marriage being proposed by left-wing secular humanists is not the millennia-old biological parenthood marriage, but rather just a feel-good "label" to make homosexuality look acceptable. There is nothing marriage about "same sex marriage", nor is there any "equality" involved, nor any "rights" and "love" involved. Same sex marriage is a sexuallised, decadent and sex-driven concept that even most homosexuals will never partake in because they cannot enjoy all their multiple partners and group sex if they have to get "divorced" every time. Homosexuals can do all their homosexual stuff without it being called "marriage", so do us all a favour and leave us alone - leave marriage as it is.

High divorce rates are a product of feminist policies. Domestic violence is 7% in Australia and decreasing hardly an epidemic. It is concentrated in Aboriginal, low socioeconomic groups and is much lower in the general population except for lesbian couples whose rate is 5 times higher than heterosexual couples. A majority of child abuse is committed by single mothers (another feminist policy) and their serial boy friends. Declining marriage rates are because many young men (sensibly) won't commit to long term relationships because they see it as a losing bet as they look at men they know being pole axed by the family court (another feminist policy).

And when we talk about "rights" - what rights? No one, gay or straight currently has the right to marry someone of the same sex. Now clearly that is more of an issue for gays than straights, but the rights are the same. Not that laws have to provide the same rights to everyone. That would be ridiculous and unjust. Only old people have the right under law to get the old age pension. The whole rights angle is a furphy, a way of avoiding the task of actually explaining why the traditional understanding of marriage and its role in society should be abandoned and what social benefit would accrue if society recognized gay relationships as qualifying as marriage. I have nowhere seen such a justification, just clamoring on about a "right" that has just recently been invented out of thin air. The banking act doesn't mention that the purpose of money is to spend it. Some things are just understood. Likewise the Marriage Act does not specify the purpose of marriage, just the mechanics of its formation and breakup.

In heterosexual cases, I believe surrogacy is an exploitative situation that creates significant problems and often lasting damage to the surrogate. In homosexual cases I find the willful disregard of the fact that one of the child's parents is not part of the "marriage" dishonest. I use blunt language to cut through woolly thinking and emotional cant that surrounds most PC notions. ame sex parents have to revert to a member of the opposite sex, whose parentage of the child they then ignore. ..to have children, they still need a father, a mother and an add-on incubator (surragate).

There were always people with a strong ethical perspective who opposed slavery and the second class status of women. They didn't hold sway until the economics favored it. In particular the industrial revolution reduced the value of muscle in both the economy and war and increased the value of education and brainpower. This made slaves, who it was too dangerous to educate, less important. It reduced the very real gap between value of male and female labor. It is no coincidence that the fight against slavery and for female emancipation was lead from the heartland of the industrial revolution. It is no coincidence that the Civil war in the US was between the industrialized North and the agrarian South. No matter what the ethical arguments for and against, women would not be liberated today if it were not for the knowledge based economy, the pill, all those wonderful household appliances that have made domestic labor so much more productive (dishwashers, clothes washers, electric ovens, vacuum cleaners) and a sophisticated economy that enables outsourcing of what were once common household tasks (plucking chickens, shelling peas, making pasta, making clothes). Social arrangements are first and foremost based on what is viable and works well. Ethics is simply used to justify what economics and technology dictate.

And what would be the point of the state keeping records if that was the limit of state recognition of marriage. A list for the sake of having a list? If what you are saying is that the State should butt out of marriage, then gay marriage is moot.

...a short list of countries compared to the great bulk of nations very few of which are likely to change their position. Even progressive nations like Germany are steadfast in their resistance. The US is only on the list because that coven of unelected political activists, the supreme court, took it on themselves to impose their views on the rest of the nation. There is nothing inevitable about the spread of gay "marriage". Faustian pacts are the norm for politicians. I suspect Penny Wong, like some others, was honoring a Faustian pact when she opposed "gay marriage" and many in the Labor party today are doing the same, now that they are effectively being forced to support it. To say that "Equality is right. Discrimination is wrong." is say empty slogans posing as an argument. Everyone is different so no one is equal and never can be. And if you treated every one exactly the same, ie no discrimination, then no one would be treated fairly or according to their merits. We would all receive the age pension (no discrimination on age), we would all get land rights (no discrimination on race), we would all get the same salary (no discrimination on ability or whether you actually worked) , we would all be allowed to practice medicine and we would all be in jail. If you want to justify overturning societies understanding of the nature of marriage and the role it plays in society, then you need to justify that in terms of the benefits vs the costs. Simply blathering on about "equality" means nothing, justifies nothing.

Even though reproduction will go on with or without 'traditional' marriage, the results without family bonding such as what marriage creats will not be pretty, with women and children and (nowadays) the taxpayer the main victims. Poverty, welfare dependence and children at risk from passing boyfriends and such are not uncommon outcomes. It is precisely because reproduction is the likely outcome when you put a man and a woman together that marriage was created and valued. Save this, there is simply no reason for society at large or the State to care two hoots about who is hooked up with who.

Even though polygamy was once considered "traditional" marriage and it still is, in many parts of the world, it has never been part of the Graeco-Roman tradition. But that is neither here nor there. The point isn't that traditions should never change, but that tradition should only be changed with much thought and careful deliberation, making sure that more isn't lost than gained. Inventing a "right to gay marriage" that no one had ever heard of a decade ago and trying to shut down debate with invective and indignation that people dare dispute this invented right doesn't cut the mustard.....and by "traditional" I mean that it has been time-tested, that it has survived countless generations and found to be valuable. Marriage has survived the upheaval of the industrial revolution, the near universal education that the wealth generated by the industrial revolution allowed and two world wars. Slavery didn't survive. Inequality of women didn't survive. Whatever moral arguments you can muster against these two, they are economically obsolete, belonging to the era of agrarian society and that is why they have gone. Marriage as a means of organizing the reproduction of the next generation is not obsolete. its alternatives normally require welfare support and produce worse outcomes for children. Traditional marriage is very much worth defending. The linkage between marriage and reproduction is so fundamental that it takes a very willful blindness to deny it.

Saying that people are not equal is not saying that a particular group of people are better than another group and have the right to dominate them. A seven foot basketball player is not equal to a five foot billing clerk, but one is not "better" than the other. They are just different and therefore not equal. It is idiotic, even harmful, to strive for the patently impossible. Peoples opportunities are limited by, among other things, there innate talents and aptitudes. Some people will inherently have more and better opportunities than others and that cannot and should not be changed. What we can and should do is try and remove obstacles and provide assistance so that everyone gets a shot at reaching their full potential. But please note, everyone reaching their full potential guarantees inequality. We are all different, and things that are different are not equal. This whole "Equality" thing is the unquestioned myth of our age.

Free speech is fundamental to preserving our liberty and our democracy, so yes all attacks on it are very serious problems indeed. Gay marriage is a second order issue but is a valid litmus test of peoples value system. Because 18d only binds the judge, not the complainant nor the HRC. By the time the judge finally makes a judgement, perhaps years down the track, the accused has been through a very expensive ordeal even when there was no real basis for the complaint. And even then, 18d requires the judge to decide whether the accused had a "genuine" purpose or their comments were fair. These weasel words invalidate section 18d right out of the bat. If you are only free to say what a judge, in a necessarily subjective analysis, thinks is fair or for a purpose the judge approves of then you do not have free speech at all. The only judges of whether comments are fair or genuine should be the court of open debate. The only penalty for getting wrong is to have your comments attacked and demolished in open debate. Those seeking to reform 18c don't want to vilify anyone. They wish to be free to discuss sensitive issues openly even if some people find that discussion insulting and offensive and to do so without fear of being dragged through an expensive inquisitorial process. After the QUT students case, the pretense that 18d protects free speech and the open discussion of ideas cannot be seriously defended.

In Australia, the left-wing homosexuals thought they would be smart and orchestrate a Senate enquiry into same sex marriage laws and they have just concluded that: "Australia is not being discriminatory by defining marriage to be between a man and a woman. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has made it clear that so long as a nation state has legislation to recognise and protect same-sex relationships-as Australia has-then the right to freedom from discrimination and equality before the law is fulfilled. The committee also found that there is no specific right to same-sex marriage because under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, marriage (ICCPR Article 23) is defined as being between a man and a woman. The European Court of Human Rights has made a number of judgements in recent years supporting this view. The committee also found however that under law, there is nothing prevent a parliament to legislate to change the definition of marriage and that should that occur, the rights of individuals to their freedom of thought, conscience and religion (ICCPR Article 18) would be enlivened." ....so NO discrimination occurs to oppose same sex marriage and there are NO rights attached to same sex marriage - this came from a federal Senate committee made up of homosexual activists....so sorry if I don't buy into your propaganda slogans of "homosexual rights" and "discrimination". Please give any reason at all that makes same sex marriage legitimate?

Same sex marriage is against historical and biological marriage. It is only trying to make homosexuality look acceptable, nothing else. ....the gay activists have made it everyone's business because they have raised it in parliament (a public office) and pushed it in schools (a public institution) and paraded about it in Mardi Gras (on public streets) with X-rated exposure for all to see. If they want to keep it "private business in their bedrooms", then they should keep it in their bedrooms and out of the public sphere....they make their sexuality all public and then whinge when the public sees it. What I am saying is if they sow the wind, then they reap the whirlwind. They are making it public and then run for cover from the public responds. If it is too hot in the kitchen, then they should get out of the kitchen and back into their bedrooms. I for one don't want to know anything of their homosexual antics, so do me a favour and get it out of the public sphere. Anyhow, historical marriage has always been between a man and a woman, it has always been about biological parenthood (ie. having children....which homosexuals cannot do) and all the homosexuuals are doing is taking an homourable word like "marriage" and redefining it to make homosexuality look acceptable. There is nothing about homosexuality that is comparable to marriage. What they are saying is a new non-biological, love/lust/sex-driven "marriage" that is meaningless and worthless to all involved.

Thanks for reading.

Click here to watch a sermon preached by me called No Same-sex Marriage.


Some Bible verses about homosexuality and bestiality....

Romans 1:26-28, 32
- For this cause God gave them up to vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.....Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
1 Corinthians 7:2 - Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
1 Timothy 1:10-11 - For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
Mark 10:6-9 - But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Jude 1:7 - Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Human marriage reflects the Divine marriage between Christ (the Bridegroom) and the Church (the Bride)....read Ephesians 5:22-32 (Christ is head of Church, Husband is head of Wife), Romans 5:14-16 (out of Adam came Eve, out of Christ came the Church), Rev 21:2-6 (The Marriage of the Lamb), John 3:28-30.....hence, if same-sex marriage ever existed (ie. man-man or woman-woman marriages), then that would mean that Christ will marry another Christ or the Church will marry another Church - what a joke!!!!....same-sex marriage contradicts the Bible and destroys the Divine concept of marriage.


My personal view about the Throw Away Babies? T-shirt is that an unwanted baby that is to be aborted is proven by medical science to be identical in his/her chemical composition, unique human attributes and his/her potential to live a fulfilling adult life as much as a wanted baby where the mother wants to keep the baby and raise it as a human being.....so whether an unborn baby is considered a valuable human being or not does not depend on what you call it (eg. foetus, tissue, etc) or whether it is a "woman's right" to control her body or if you call abortion "fertility control" (these are just cop-outs for getting rid of an unwanted baby)....no, the way that an unborn baby is considered to be either a valuable human being or just a piece of trash to be killed, cut up, sucked out and incinerated depends solely on whether the mother wants to keep the baby or not. We all started out by being made in our mother's womb, so if we are human beings now, we were human beings then. There have been lawsuits to try and recogise deceased unborn babies in car accidents as "human beings" when the mother wanted to keep the baby and she believes that she deserves financial compensation for the loss of her precious human baby. This completely contradicts the view of abortionists who maintain that an unborn baby is just "tissue" until it is born and can breathe on it's own - even then, unwanted babies that have not died during the abortion process and are still alive (ie. they are breathing on their own) when they are removed from the womb, are left to die on the benchtop in the abortion clinic.....how tragic!....there is a complete lack of professional ethics, honesty and compassion in abortion clinics. I suggest that people try looking at pictures of aborted babies (see http://vimeo.com/40279702) and ask themselves if they are human beings or not - I think the answer will be obvious. More info about this is at abortSA.com.

If people answer the question on the Throw Away Babies? T-shirt as:

- "YES" (ie. they believe that a baby should be thrown away), then an unborn baby is perceived by abortionists as just "tissue" that somehow deserves to be killed, cut up, vacummed out of the womb and incinerated - even bottles and cans (with a 10c refund) are worth more.....except when abortion clinics make money from selling off the aborted baby parts?? (YES, it happens)....and the mother doesn't get any of the money, but the greedy, murderous abortion clinics get all the money.

- "NO" (ie. they believe that a baby should not be thrown away), then it means that the mother treats her unborn baby as a valuable human being.....which, of course, it is.



Web Site
Popularity

.....people have
visited this web
site. Click here
to see the site
statistics.

SBC


Book Search


.....allows you to search our database of books, videos, DVDs and audio tapes so that you can find what you are looking for accurately and easily. Search by author, title or topic.
[yet to be activated]

Christian
Resources

There are many
organisations in
Australia that can
assist you in your
ministry - here is
a list of some.

Condensed
History

The history of
Independent
Baptist Churches
in Australia is
here for you to
read.

Outreach
Material

Intergenerational
book and film
material that
help with outreach
and witnessing.

SBC


Feedback


We enjoy reading comments from people, so please feel free to email us your thoughts.
 

 

Make a difference!

Your donation can help support the many ministries conducted by Sanctuary Baptist Church. We have a number of friends who are already church pastors and missionaries that need financial support, so your donation can be directed for their use. Learn more

"I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel......for I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth""

Romans 1:14-16


Stay Informed!

Subscribe to the Fair Dinkum Newsletter:
[yet to be activated]

Email:
Name (optional):