“Love is love!” “All love is equal!” “Equal marriage now!” are all slogans that we’ve been hearing in the media, in the workplace and on the street, but is there more to it than just the nice platitudes?

We believe that keeping marriage limited to a man and woman is the best way forward for our country and here are eight reasons why.

1. THE BIOLOGICAL FAMILY BENEFITS SOCIETY

Governments exist first and foremost to promote the true welfare of the entire community, and the evidence shows that the natural and complimentary unity of male and female is the optimum context for forming and raising new life.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines marriage as a compound right: men and women “have the right to marry and to found a family.” The “right to found a family” makes marriage the societal institution that recognizes and establishes children’s rights with respect to their parents and the family structure in which they are reared.

While it is true that this right to a mother and father is not always honoured, society does not intentionally plan that outcome, which it would do in making same-sex marriage part of the norm.

Until three decades ago, the overwhelming majority of cultures, peoples and faiths recognised man-woman marriage alone. In 2017, only 24 out of 196 countries have legalized same sex marriage (Pew Research).

The creational reality of male-female unity and its procreative potential cannot be invented by legislation – which would unjustly equate same-sex relationships with time-honoured marriage.

2. WE NEED EQUALITY FOR CHILDREN

Parliament should deny marriage rights to couples whose contribution to the next generation would require third party involvement such as surrogacy or adoption which deliberately sets out to deny children the opportunity to be raised by their natural mother and father. SSM promotes unethical commercial surrogacy and the commodification of babies.

Children benefit greatly from the different but complementary and covenanted roles of mother and father. Furthermore, evidence abounds that children do best when they are raised by mother and father who are in a covenanted union – but children often suffer when raised outside that ideal.

The American College of Paediatricians urges healthcare professionals, educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

Do we want to create a generation of children who are legally deprived of their biological identity and one of their parents at birth if same-sex “marriage” was to be legalized?

3. LAW INFORMS SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS

A change in law would provide government endorsement of same-sex behaviour and its subsequent promotion. This is likely to lead to a contraction of freedom of speech and freedom of contract. It will eventually lead to the erosion of freedom of faith, as in Denmark in which homosexual ‘marriage’ became legal in 1989. In 2012 the state Lutheran church was required to preside over so-called same-sex marriages.

When a proposal for easy no-fault divorce law moved though the federal parliament, it was heralded as something valuable for society.

Instead it has largely brought massive damages to the community. The voters at the time were not consulted. How would we have voted, if we had the opportunity and if we could see how damaging disposable marriage would be?

4. LEGALISING ‘SSM’ WILL BAN DISSENT

As is often the case, ‘LGBTIQ’ groups demand tolerance but give none. Just one out many examples of this intolerance for dissenting opinions was how a same sex “marriage” activist took Bishop Julian Porteous to the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission over a booklet on Biblical marriage. SSM activists have opposed freedom of speech with threats and protests at many traditional marriage events.

Supporters of traditional marriage will inevitably face fines and penalties for non-compliance with politically correct rulings in human rights commissions and courts. Employment, job security and promotion are under threat for any non-supporter of SSM. The bottom line is that loss of freedom of religion  (a superior right under international UN human rights) will affect what pastors and ministers will be able to preach, what schools will be able to teach, and how Australians will be able to conduct their businesses in accordance with their beliefs.

5. KIDS NATURALLY WANT A MUM AND A DAD

Guided by cultural wisdom, the state should favour the life-long man-woman union to protect every children’s desire to not be motherless or fatherless, or subject to adult desires alone.

Even two gay fashion designers, Dolce and Gabbana, recognised this. They said in March 2015, “Life has a natural flow; there are things that cannot be changed. [We are] opposed to the idea of a child growing up with two gay parents.”

6. LEGALISING ‘SSM’ OPENS THE FLOODGATES

Lesbian activist Masha Gessen admitted at the 2012 Sydney Writer’s Festival, “Fighting for gay marriage generally involved lying about what we are going to do with marriage, because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change. And that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist.”

Australian polyamorist Rachelle White said on 6PR Radio Perth in 2012, “I do think we need to address same-sex marriage… get some closure on that before we do move forward and look at polyamorous marriage and marriage for those in other relationship configurations.” The same arguments for ‘SSM’ also mean overseas polygamy ought to be recognised here.

In 2008, 85 federal statutes and provisions were changed to remove discrimination against gay and lesbian people. It is illogical for government to legislate to forcibly make different relationships equal, for example a trade union and a business. Society is meant to benefit from the differences.

In Australia, we have three kinds of relationships for different situations. All have near-identical legal status (states differ slightly): Defacto relationships for unmarried men and women who live together; Registered/Civil Unions in five states for gay and lesbian couples who live together; Marriage for a man and a woman who voluntarily and exclusively live together.

7. LOVING LGBT INDIVIDUALS MEANS WARNING THEM THAT THEIR BEHAVIOUR IS SELF-HARMING

Despite what the mainstream media and vocal pro-gay activist groups would like us to believe, people are not born gay. Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at this very same conclusion.

Participating in homosexual activities gives rise to some very serious health risks. Whether homosexual or heterosexual, sodomy (anal intercourse) and promiscuity seriously raises the risk of HIV/AIDS, some cancers (e.g. of the bowel or cervix), sexually transmitted diseases and damage to the rectum. The global regional incidence of HIV among gay men is 3-25 times higher, and their HIV risk is 18 times higher per act versus the heterosexual act (Source: cira.yale.edu/sites/default/files/events/121129yacs_beyrer.pdf).

SSM will promote homosexual and gender fluidity ideology in schools (like the highly toxic ‘Safe Schools’ and ‘Respectful Relationships’ programs) without parental approval or opt-out options. This results in rapid increase in unnecessary gender confusion in children. Further, such sexualisation multiplies serious health risks with reductions to life expectancy.

8. IT IS GOD’S DESIGN FOR HUMANITY

Jesus the Creator said He made man and woman to be “one flesh” (Matt. 19:4-6). The Bible teaches us that “the earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it” (Psalm 24:1). God’s design for us will never change.

SAY NO TO THIS ‘TRENDY’ EXPERIMENT

Many of the things that both sides are fighting for are the same, such as decreased suicide rates among young people, but they differ on how to achieve this. We also should remember to maintain respect for people with views that are different. Open debate is needed on this difficult topic, where both sides are able to speak.

Sadly, public policy discussion has often been reduced to focusing on the individual, though our governments have rightly endorsed male-female marriage because of its value to society.

We need to give long and careful thought to the implications of any changes to the time-tested meaning of marriage law, not just in regard to the individuals concerned, but for the future well-being of nations. We have the opportunity to say “No” to a trendy experiment to redefine marriage.

Here’s some key facts you can share:

  • Marriage has been man-woman in all cultures since the beginning of recorded history
  • Less than 15% of countries worldwide have legalised same-sex ‘marriage’
  • All children are the biological offspring of a man and a woman.
  • Men and women parent differently: kids need both
  • Single parents may do a heroic job raising children, but single fathers and single mothers often wish they had a faithful, caring, opposite-sex marriage
  • Monogamous marriage is good for infertile couples, as usually one partner is fertile, and unfaithfulness produces a child without a committed father or a committed mother. Most men are fertile until very late in life.

Start typing and press Enter to search