≡ Menu

Same sex marriage

To change the ‘Marriage Act’ to allow same sex marriage serves no good purpose for the Australian community as a whole. Marriage, between a man and woman, has served mankind well since the beginning of time. There is no reasonable argument or need to use the title marriage to include same sex partners. The same sex marriage campaign is an attempt to legitimise behaviour that is unnatural and give it the legal status of marriage. To do so will undermine long held values of our society.

There is a great deal of confusion, misinformation and deceptive rhetoric with regard to same sex marriage. As with every one of the different social issues and challenges, people with strong and differing opinions are at its centre. The debate can become very emotional with strong feelings for and against. We cannot make decisions based on emotional rhetoric that might sound nice but be completely wrong. The use of language, or should I say the misuse and manipulative use of words, also leads to the confusion.

I have heard media personalities, who are promoting same sex marriage, say things like, “In this day and age….” Their inference is that now we live in a more enlightened time, therefore we should be open to such changes. Sound moral values don’t change with the passing of time. Where they do change, the moral fibre of society deteriorates.

Throughout history mankind has endorsed marriage as the union of a man and a woman from which children are derived, family is established and nurture is provided by a mother and father.

Beware the ‘Hollywood’ influence, along with numerous TV programs with their attempts to portray the normalisation of same sex relationships. It is all very ‘feel the love’ and devoid of any moral absolutes.

It has also been said that the argument is a human rights issue. It is not! Again the issue is clouded with words that sound appropriate, but when considered properly, they are not. Many laws already exist, that restrict people’s choices and behaviour for the good of the general public and the wellbeing of others. E.G. Polygamy is not legal. A few argue that it is a human right to have more than one wife. A practice the majority of us neither, adhere to or choose or would want legalised in Australia.

While we cannot ignore the human face of this issue and genuinely endeavour to be respectful with our words, neither can we neglect declaring what is right, just because someone may take offence. We might also be accused of being unkind and lacking in compassion. When one makes a stand for what is right, speaks against any attempt to legitimise wrong behaviour, often, we are accused of being unkind and lacking compassion. The opposite is true; because we do care, we speak out.

Though this article is not meant to be offensive to any individual, nevertheless there will be some who will be personally offended. Let me make this clear, though not personal, this is about people. It is about the welfare of people now and future generations, because as already stated, every social challenge has people at its centre, and it is people who are hurt when things are done wrong. Nevertheless, we must speak out and stand for what is ‘right’ even though it might appear to be unpopular.

When we remain silent, we give consent by default to the ‘evil’ proposed and allow it to run its course unhindered. Knowing that we are on the side of right, gives us the courage to do good for the sake of the silent majority who would otherwise be adversely affected, if not for our voiced position and action.

Same sex relationships have existed throughout history and will continue to exist. This debate though is about the attempt to change the law that defines the term marriage. However, it is not possible to separate the sexual choices of individuals, who wish to have their relationship titled marriage, from the discussion.

So, let’s talk about sex. This argument about the right to use the term marriage is really about the sexual orientation of two people of the same sex who wish to live and perform sexual acts together and be allowed to call it a marriage. Indeed marriage is much, much more than just sex. However, sexual intercourse for a married couple is a defining act of the marriage.

The origin and definition of marriage means: “a union of a man and a woman”. How then can the unnatural union of same sex partners be titled marriage? From its origins and earliest usage, our word marriage, derived from the French and Latin, is the reference to a husband and wife.

We are created in the image of God; male and female; created to become ‘one’ in the institution that is called marriage. A man and a woman become ‘one’ in the intimate act of sexual intercourse. When this does not happen, the ‘two’ have not become ‘one’ and we say that the marriage is, “not consummated”.

Same sex couples cannot produce this identical, intimate union. It is not physiologically possible. The human body is neither, designed or created to be sexually intimate other than with the opposite sex. Anything else is unnatural and illegitimate.

Love making is not only a very intimate and pleasing physical act, it is also a very spiritual one, when not only bodies are joined, but souls, thus the understanding of ‘one’. This is one of the great and beautiful mysteries of life.

True intimacy and sexual fulfilment cannot be achieved in a same sex relationship. That is truly sad because everybody should have the chance to experience the joy of true intimacy with another human being. Same sex marriage is a delusion, a deception, a poor imitation of the real thing. Loving, caring and deep personal feelings etc. may be experienced, but true intimacy to the depth that one man and one woman will experience will never be achieved. The oneness they (same sex partners) seek will always be an unattainable goal.

No matter how sincere, loving and genuine a same sex couple may be, they can never achieve that identical, true, intimacy and nor will they produce life from their intimate acts.

From this wonderful union of a man and a woman comes life. Children are conceived, born and a family is created.

A same sex relationship cannot produce this ultimate fruit of love making. It is not biologically possible for children to be conceived as a result of their sexual acts. Only by the involvement of a third party (of the opposite sex) can children be produced. The fruit therefore is not the product of a loving intimate act. Yes, they can have a genuine desire to have children and to love those children, but the fruit of their relationship cannot produce life. Children cannot be conceived by same sex partners through their sexual practices. Therefore, it can not be titled marriage, impossible.

The majority of Australians accept that a marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Our efforts must concentrate on the protection and strengthening of marriage as defined by our Federal Laws. “The union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. We need to strongly resist any attempt to change the Marriage Act and reject the campaigning of a vocal, misguided and very small minority group trying to normalise a not so normal relationship.

Throughout most of nature offspring is produced by the union of male and female. To put it bluntly, sexual intercourse between, a man and woman is the human means for procreation of our species. The family, is the basis of a stable society, and is created by the marriage of a man and woman who engage in the intimate act of love making (sexual intercourse) by which children are conceived and born.

Therefore, the normal and reasonable expectation is that children are nurtured and cared for by a mother and a father. A child needs, for his/her best development, the love and influence of both a mother and father in a loving family relationship.

We know that marriages can encounter problems and are not always perfect, but this cannot be used as an argument to justify same sex marriage. As important as it is to discuss those problems and find solutions, in this same sex marriage debate, it is simply a distraction and not relevant.

In all the social issues and challenges there is what I call, “the thin edge of the wedge” scenario. Or put another way, little by little, changes are made, introducing and conditioning us to accept something which once was ‘not acceptable’ until it becomes ‘acceptable’. The ‘Hollywood’ scenario mentioned before, where gay relationships are ‘normalised’, shows same sex lovers passionately kissing and often a whole lot more.  The introduction of certain ‘Anti-discrimination laws’ which attempt to stifle debate on homosexuality and now, an attempt to change the current law and definition of marriage to allow same sex marriage, are all driving the ‘wedge’ in a little further.

We need to understand that the push to allow same sex marriage is also an attempt, by gay activists, to legitimise their lifestyle. They want us to believe that gay and lesbian relationships are as normal as any heterosexual union. If gay marriage was permitted it would open a flood gate to more pro-gay attempts to normalise their lifestyle and possibly pressure others into choices they otherwise would not make.

From speaking with a person, having first hand knowledge, there is evidence of a disturbing trend. In a particular women’s sporting code, in one State at least, a team has a number of lesbians in it, they actively attempt to recruit other young women into their gay lifestyle. In another State the woman coach has her same sex partner appointed as the Team Manager so they can travel interstate together to a national tournament.

If same sex marriage is allowed then the gay community could claim normalisation of their lifestyle and therefore will be able to claim a certain right to promote their sexual choices; to recruit others and pressure impressionable young people into an unnatural and harmful lifestyle.

While we cannot stop the sexual practices done in private by consenting adults, we can in our democracy stand against changes to the law that are attempting to redefine marriage. Laws exist to protect individuals and to define moral behaviour. Our Federal law and cultural practices both concur that this is the right position. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman; “the two shall become one”.

{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment

This blog is kept spam free by WP-SpamFree.

Connecting people to the presence, love & power of God