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.
WHY NO SAME SEX MARRIAGE?....WHY HAVE A PLEBISCITE?
Click here to watch a sermon preached by me called No Same-sex Marriage.
Below are comments that I have had posted on many various media websites and blogs:
Of course, we can avoid the costs of same sex marriage debates in Australia by simply leaving the Marriage Act as it is - no cost there (ie. we are 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 doesn't just disappear - it goes into the pockets and communities of casual AEC workers. What people do in their bedrooms is their business, but 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 descibing 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....although the ALP might change this due to the sliding support for same sex marriage as "issue fatigue" sets in. 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 existance 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 "Building Better Relationships and "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. Even 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) 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 to recognise their "bedroom activity" as legitimate marriage - they are constantly doing/saying the very things that they say shouldn't be done/said.. 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 marriage to describe their homosexual relationships is purely a stunt to make sodomy acceptable.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!
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")....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. The Governor-General (representing the Monarchy) still has the final authority on Law creation, but he/she always goes with the recommendation made by the elected members of the Lower House so it 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 is sex-oriented whereas heterosexual marriage 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 (who will argue politcs with a child) by getting them to parrot their propoganda 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 want a majority of MPs to vote in parliament on their supposedly private relationship - but if they don't want it to be anyone else's business, then they shouldn't ask government to make it their business and call it 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 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 - 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! 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. 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 nexer be acceptable no matter how many frivilous bits of government A4 paper they get with a spamp on it saying "You're 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.
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.
Homosexual marriage is the tail of the 60's sexual revolution of free love 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 myrid of ways, especially with children (....the innocent, unborn children who are aborted get the worst treatment of all - they die). The history of the institution of marriage is quite clear: it was designed to unite a male and a female. I'm waiting to see how the definition and function of marriage has supposedly "changed" even though promiscuity and decadancy has become acceptable and poisoned nearly every facet of society. Our children are now living in this environment with an aggressively targetted 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 frivilous commitments, lack of role-model marriages in media, music or the entertainment industry 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). Same sex marriage only now seems plausible because the true purpose of marriage has eroded so much that it can be redefined to include homosexual activities and somehow it is "acceptable". In the history of mankind, homosexual marriage has never been acceptable. 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. Plus, technology has advanced to manipulate procreation....thus, homosexual "marriage" now seems viable only because the awareness of a strong family-based marriage bond as a building block of society is almost lost completely - we are seeing the final nail in the coffin for meaningful marriage. 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. 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 neturalize 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, etc). 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.
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.
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.
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 are considering blocking the plebiscite because if it goes ahead and the Yes vote win, 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 thereby chasing some (many?) Labor voters who don’t support same sex marriage away from them - so rejecting the plebiscite could be more damaging than supporting the plebiscite and potentially letting the Coalition get the bragging rights. This is all that Labor are thinking about - 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 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 it a ”sex-based” 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. Homosexual marriage is the tail of the 60's sexual revolution of free love which dismissed marriage as prohibitive to freedom to have sex with anybody and anyone at anytime - then along came the pill which took away the consequences. What has replaced marriage - between one man and one woman for life are the fake substitutes based on convenience. The great damage is plain to see especially with children. Christianity rejects outright the sin of homosexual as it has for centuries. Followers of this faith are also voters not haters. 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. 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 neturalize 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, etc). 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.
Same sex marriage proponents talk about how people use marriage rather than the institution of marriage itself (as defined in the Marriage Act). 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 this happening and so you can see why the 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.
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, 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.
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-ridecommon 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 enforcable moral codes of UAE, China, India or Qatar.
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.
The plebiscite would have been important, not just because it was an election promise to uphold the will of the people, but also because it 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. 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 see through all this too - 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. 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. Since same sex partners can never both be the biological parents of the child; they always require the State to vindicate their parenthood – that is all same sex marriage is. 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 reseach" 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).
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 filthy sexualisation because they are easy pickings without parental knowledge - programs like the "Safe Schools" (more accurately “unSafe Schools”) and the "Building Better 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 theatre ads on buses, plus the myriad of gay relationships depicted in tv shows, movies, music, comics, etc - how can we avoid all the filth?....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” are being dumped due to half the same sex parents missing out. 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.
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” are being dumped due to half the same sex parents missing out. 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 and 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. Within the gay community, there is a stereotype of the ideal “gay guy” and if you don't fit this stereotype, then you are rejected. 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. 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. 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 an A4 piece of paper with a government stamp on it saying "You're Married". 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 and pathetic.
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”, "Anti-male Instruction" 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.
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 is now more damaging them more than if they had supported it and letting the Coalition get the bragging rights. This is all that Labor are thinking about - 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. 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.
Btw, the same sex marriage advocates repeat "homophobic", "hateful" and "bigoted" phrases everytime they quote 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 “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 want to save money on a “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.
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.
The Rome Empire that had rampant hedonism and debauchery in the 1st-3rd centuries were not Christian (they killed Christians for sport in the “circuses” where lions would eat Christians) and the Emperor Constantine turned to Christianity as a way out of the horrors going on in the Roman society. So there is a perfect example of how we must also avoid the same horrors of rampant hedonism and debauchery by following the Christian teachings. In other words, we can be “saved from ourselves”. 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.
Many marriages break up....yes....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. 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.
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 infinately different to homosexual relationships!....The "acceptability" that SSM people want to achieve by redefining marriage actually destroys the very thing that they want.
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...they even use children in their political game to parrot propaganda slogans because they know that we won't argue with children. It is all lies and manipulation. Don't be fooled. 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 is now more damaging them more than if they had supported it and letting the Coalition get the bragging rights. This is all that Labor are thinking about - 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. 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.
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. 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".
btw, I am loving to homosexuals (the people), but I hate actions that are deceptive, hurtful to people and unnatural (including homosexuality). There is a difference…....I love the person, but hate the sin. Plus I am talking about the “same sex lobby group” and not individual homosexuals. I have met many homosexuals who don’t want same sex marriage laws because they don’t want the association with marriage – it is the same sex lobby group that are stirring the pot and causing so much trouble.
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.
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.