Currently, in Australia, the definition of marriage is very specifically between a man and a woman.
There is a hugely vocal homosexual and alternative lifestyle grouping that has for a long time sought to squash any sort of debate on the acceptability of their lifestyle choice in mainstream Australian culture.
I have been subjected to this myself on fora that has nothing to do with lifestyle choices.
In the general discussion section of one forum I was a member of, everyone could have an opinion but me.
And even when I did not express an opinion, I was attacked for my "bigoted views".
I will also say that often times those people misrepresented my views so that they could attack me, but in many cases I did not actually express a view at all, and still was attacked - because I am openly a Christian, and all views are acceptable in this matter EXCEPT those that come from the Bible.
I personally will be voting "No" to the postal plebiscite regarding the change in the definition of marriage. That will not surprise anyone who has read my position and statements of my faith elsewhere on this blog.
But I want to explain why, and here I can do so without being shouted down.
I have several reasons for my position.
First, those who choose these alternative lifestyles have full legal and political recognition under our civil unions legislation.
In every legal respect they already have the same rights as a married couple.
The only thing they lack is the right to call it a "Marriage".
And in fact, they can already use the name, just not in an official capacity. (Who is going to stop them calling it a marriage in everyday life?)
Some will then say "Well if there is no difference, then why bother to argue about semantics?"
But it is not semantics. And I will tell you why in a moment.
Before we get there though, I do want to point out that taking the marriage name IS semantics for those of alternative lifestyles. They think that by changing the name alone - for that is the only thing that will change - that their lifestyle choices will suddenly become legitimate in the eyes of the community.
They are wrong.
It is not the lack of the name marriage that is offputting for many mainstream Australians.
It is the lifestyle itself that the majority of Australians find unusual, even those who are accepting of it, but not part of it.
When a man talks of his husband, people's attitudes will not change regardless of them being allowed to say that they are legally married. And it won't change whether those people find it abhorrent, or just mildly unusual, or totally acceptable, or anywhere between. The change of name will not change anybody's attitude.
Do they really think that that who are vehemently opposed will all of a sudden become accepting because now the government has said they can call it marriage?
And will it change the attitudes of those who are wholly for alternative lifestyles? Will they wake up the next day and feel that their relatioships are stronger JUST because now they can call it a marriage?
The alternative lifestyle people will find that not one thing in reality has changed if they win this vote.
Not anything legally, and not any attitudes.
Neither their own attitudes, nor their opponents attitudes, nor the indifferent attitudes will have changed.
Now then, to the arguments that people put forth to oppose this vote:
There are those who have tried to argue about children being the product of marriage, but they are rightly pointed to heterosexual couples who either by choice or medical issues do not have children. Are these not legitimate marriages then?
This is a legitimate counter.
Children do not make a marriage.
When I got married to my wife, we were immediately married - we did not have to wait the five years that it took for us to finally have children - our marriage was a complete marriage immediately we said "I do".
And when our children leave home, as the oldest will shortly do, we will not cease to be married.
Another argument that is often put is that it is unnatural.
That was thought to be true in the past, but the alternative lifestyle mobs have produced "evidence" that it is entirely natural.
Whether their evidence is legitimate is still up for debate - for instance dogs "mating" with dogs is not legitimate evidence, because a dog with a mind to, will mate with anything that moves, and some things that don't. A dog "mating" with a person's leg does not denote a natural behaviour of dogs wanting to mate with men - it denotes a natural behaviour of dogs to satisfy themselves wherever they see the opportunity.
But regardless of the veracity of this evidence, just because something occurs in nature, doesn't make it acceptable for people to do.
Many creatures eat their young, but I do not know of ANY MAN of any persuasion who would suggest that such a thing is acceptable simply because we see it in nature.
(And no, I am not saying that alternative lifestylers are to be compared to such animals. It is the argument from nature that I am discussing.)
And some female creatures, after mating eat the male, but I do not see anyone suggesting that because we see it in nature it should be acceptable for men.
The argument that it is natural is not the same as arguing that something is right or wrong.
In nature we see what we would consider "right" actions, and we see what we consider "wrong" actions. The "right" actions are not more right because we see them in nature, and the "wrong" actions are not more wrong because we see them in nature.
The point is, nature is not our standard for right or wrong, for if it was our society would be very different to what it is today, and in fact our society would be full of argument about what is the right model from nature to follow.
Do we follow the lion's model, where the men do nothing but get first dibs on the meals, and lunge around, while the women do all the work of providing?
Or do we follow the be model, where there is one ruling woman, a number of male bees whose sole role is to mate with the queen and the whole place is run by the females who do all the work?
Neither of these models would be considered fair and equitable for human society.
So nature is not, and never has been our standard.
Therefore, whether or not we see these alternative lifestyles in nature is irrelevant - Nature is not the model upon which our society is built.
In fact, there is only one argument that holds any true weight in this matter:
Mark 10:6-9
(6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
(7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
(8) And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
(9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
God designed marriage.
I have looked, and found no real theories on how marriage "developed" from a secular point of view.
It is simply accepted that marriage started in the lost history of time, and it is common among all cultures.
The details of it vary of course, but the basics that a man and a woman leave their families and join together to start a new family is the universal basic.
And the Bible tells us that this was God's design from the time of creation.
The fact that marriage is universal indicates a common link somewhere in the so called "lost history" of the past. It is not lost: the Bible explains it clearly.
But the important part of this, is that God designed and instituted marriage.
As the designer and maker of marriage, God therefore has the authority and right to define what he has designed.
And God said that it was between a man and a woman, a male and female, a man and his wife.
Why am I voting against the redefinition of marriage in Australia?
Because, whilst it will not gain the supporters of the change anything legally, politically, or attitudinally, it denies God's right to define His institution of Marriage.
Unfortunately, I think this is the real agenda - the removal of God from our society.
Men have removed God from our schools.
Men are trying to remove God from our courts.
Men are trying to remove God from our parliament.
Men are trying to remove God from our holidays and celebrations.
Men are trying to remove every trace of God from our society.
This is yet another step on this path.
In Australia they have the "Safe schools" program, which ironically masquerades under the banner of "Anti-bullying", but which as is becoming more obvious all the time, is really just a platform to promote alternative lifestyles.
The irony of this, is that if anyone speaks out against the alternative lifestyles agenda that is Safe Schools promotes, they are BULLIED into submission and silence.
The biggest bullies, the most intolerant group, the most violently opposing group in Australia today, are the alternative lifestyles groups.
For proof, just see the kind of reaction this post gets, if it actually gets noticed and not deleted by some sort of big brother.
I would urge anyone who reads this, to read it carefully and point out clearly where I have said anything hateful.
Fact is, that I do not hate anyone of alternative lifestyles. I do not approve of their lifestyle, but it is not my right to dictate to them how they should live. That is their choice.
I DO know what the Bible says about it, but it is still their choice, as it is every man's choice to either accept the Bible or reject it, and on that basis to accept or reject the gift of salvation that Jesus made available to all men, if they would believe on His name and confess (to God) their sins.
Romans 10:9-10
(9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
The Bible says that ....all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
All - not just murderers and thieves, but all men. And that even includes me, although I have trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Saviour, and so my sins have been paid for.
But back to the point - I am voting against this change because it will not do anything positive for anyone, and because God has already defined marriage in His Word.
God made it - God defined it.
I will vote "No" and I would urge every God fearing, Bible believing Christian to also vote for God's definition of marriage, which the current Australian definition agrees with.
