Displaying items by tag: marriage debate

Just over a year ago, during Australia's debate about changing the millenia-old meaning of marriage, I wrote an article called, "55 Consequences of Redefining Marriage". Unlike most of my articles, which are read by only a few hundred people, this one has been read by over 12,000, with several thousand shares. This is evidence of just how concerned ordinary people are about homosexual unions being called 'marriage' and the massive repercussions that has for everyone. That article was a simple list of 55 examples of discriminatory laws, legal challenges, policies and persecutions taken from 13 countries where same-sex 'marriage' has been legalised. Now, twelve months on from that day when Australians learned that the majority of their conferes had voted to redefine marriage, it seems like a good time to revisit the topic. How many of those consequences have come to pass in this country? Were our fears unfounded?

The current marriage wars are so very odd for so many reasons. Until just recently the ideological left was vigorously insisting that marriage is just a piece of paper; that marriage is an oppressive and outdated institution; and that marriage is artificial – a relatively recent social construct. Today however the left in general and the homosexual activists in particular are demanding the right to marriage, claiming it is the most important thing there is. So which is it? Is it just a waste of time or is it a necessity? Of course we know the answer to this already. Marriage has never really been wanted by most homosexuals, and it is only the symbolic effect – plus the power and control that goes with it – that they seek through the redefinition – and thus destruction – of marriage. But all that I have documented in great detail elsewhere. But let me look more closely at just one of the charges thrown around by the marriage attackers – at least up until recently. The claim that marriage and family are relatively recent inventions – often claimed to have originated in the US in the 1950s! – deserves a response.

In facing up to ‘Group Think’ or ‘The Herd Instinct’, or ‘go with the flow, be modern, with it etc., believing in the majority view point, getting your views from ‘The Age’ and other similar media, to vote Yes to homosexual 'marriage',  some things should be remembered as to why there is a crushing emptiness. Groupthink usually means you have handed over your mind, body, soul, conscience to the head of the herd or the master of Groupthink, to tell you what to think, say and do. This is the case in the good ‘ol’ of USA where the masses have fallen mindlessly, for example the National Riflemen’s Association and their complete opposition to gun control and the dire consequences.

This week, a young homosexual man was abused for opposing the redefinition of marriage in Australia. Angry Yes campaigners yelled insults and tried to drown out his speech at a rally held to promote that fact that 'It's Ok To Vote No.' This young guy took a very brave stance and should have been commended for swimming against the tide and breaking a stereotype that says all gay people want same-sex 'marriage.' Instead. for his trouble, he was met with ridicule and disrespect from those who claim they celebrate diversity. [click here to read more.] But this gay man is not alone in his desire to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. There are many other homosexuals who, for various reasons, are against same-sex 'marriage'. I don't agree with the reasoning of some of these commentators, but that isn't the point of this article. I simply want to illustrate the fact that there is a false narrative surrounding the Yes campaign - that the desire to redefine marriage is some kind of universally-held doctrine of the gay movement. So now follows a list of 10 prominent gays who don't want marriage equality.

It sometimes seems that the current marriage debate is more about words than about expressing heartfelt opinions and ideas. And it's often about who can shout their words louder than the other side. Unfortunately, many of those words are four-letter ones. And they have nothing to do with the one word at the centre of the controversy: love. For it's more about 'love' than about marriage, if you believe the mouthpieces for the Yes camp. Love wins, choose love, drown out the hate with love - all these make for good hashtags. But beyond the slogan is another reality entirely, and it's more about another four-letter word: hate.  

An essay on one nation's experiment with marriage that demonstrates why voting 'Yes' is a choice  to deconstruct family and marriage and is the road to statism - again. Are you voting ‘yes’ at the upcoming marriage postal plebiscite in support of gay rights and equality? Then please reconsider how your vote at its core is really not about either of these issues. But before going any further, it needs reminding that gay and lesbian civil unions already have the same legal recognition, protections and tax treatment that every other family possesses, so what is this plebiscite really all about?  

While Dave Pellowe has written a very useful article intended to equip Protestant pastors, I thought I'd put together some resources specifically for Catholics or for those who want to understand the Church's stance on marriage. There has been a great deal of misinformation in Catholic circles regarding the marriage debate: while the Church's teaching is very clear, there are those who are content to deviate from this teaching and promote their own views - views which may in some circumstances be classified as formal heresy. [See Edward Peter's article linked below.] One example of this is a statement from Jesuit lecturer Fr. Frank Brennan, which suggests that it is appropriate for Catholics to support the  redefinition of marriage and that it may even be 'good for society.' [Click here to read his views.]

Brian Houston set an example to follow for many church leaders recently when he issued a media release outlining his teaching on Biblical marriage and encouragement for Christians to vote against its redefinition. He reiterated the literal interpretation of the Apostle Paul’s position on homosexuality, and called for respect from both sides for the other, clarifying that disagreement based in faith convictions is not bigotry. He encouraged Christians to participate in the voluntary vote, and to refuse to be the silent majority, in effect surrendering to aggressive voices seeking to dominate the future of our society. Christians are already being discomforted by cultural Marxism‘s advance in Australia. Just ask Tasmanian Archbishop Julian Porteous how free he feels to teach on marriage after being punished by the process of an anti-discrimination complaint against him for doing so. Ask Bernard Gaynor how free he feels to privately blog about the injustice and offense of Christian vilification and public indecency at the Homosexual Mardis Gras after the court ruled his employer could unjustly fire him for disagreeing with their workplace anti discrimination policies.

Let me open with a few home truths: -Those demanding the complete redefinition – and thus destruction – of marriage do NOT want a debate on the matter. -They want it rammed through without the agreement of the public. -They do not have facts and evidence on their side, which is why they despise debate. -They therefore do not seek to win the debate – they seek to shut down the debate. -If they must engage in debate, the best they can come up with is ad hominem attacks, mud-slinging, name-calling, hate and hysteria. All this is easily enough documented. As to the other side preventing genuine debate from taking place, and shutting down the ‘No’ voice on homosexual marriage, consider a few recent articles.

The debate over same sex marriage in Australia has been re-ignited by news that some members of the federal governing Liberal/National Party (LNP) coalition are proposing, contrary to their party’s policy, to introduce legislation in Federal Parliament this coming week to redefine marriage to extend it to same sex couples. In particular, press reports today indicate that a new Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 will be introduced, one feature of which is that it contains legislative protections for religious freedom, designed to encourage support of the legislation by believers. In my view the protections to be provided, if press reports about the proposal are accurate, are far too few and far too narrow, and the proposal cannot be seen as providing adequate protection for this fundamental human right.