Opin­ions on same-sex mar­riage vote

Gatton Star - - NEWS OPINION - — Pas­tor Rick Ar­mour, Lai­d­ley; Pas­tor Barry Benz, Gat­ton; Pas­tors David & El­speth Truss, With­cott; Rev Euan Mc­don­ald, Lai­d­ley

ALL Aus­tralians have been asked to vote on the ques­tion, ‘Should the law be changed to al­low same-sex cou­ples to marry?

In an­swer to this ques­tion, we note that same-sex mar­riage is not mar­riage equal­ity as such, but a re­def­i­ni­tion of mar­riage it­self. Tra­di­tional mar­riage is not sim­ply love be­tween in­di­vid­u­als, but a life­long union be­tween a man and a woman who ex­em­plify the bi­o­log­i­cal du­al­ity of the hu­man race and pro­duce chil­dren.

Fur­ther­more, same-sex mar­riage is as­so­ci­ated with a rad­i­cal re­def­i­ni­tion of fam­ily, sex­u­al­ity, and gen­der. For ex­am­ple, gen­der the­ory is now ar­gu­ing that gen­der is a ‘so­cial con­struct’, ‘non-bi­nary’, and ‘fluid’ (con­stantly chang­ing), thus cre­at­ing the idea of trans­sex­ual mar­riage. Same-sex mar­riage also opens the door to le­git­imis­ing polyamorous and polyg­a­mous re­la­tion­ships.

Pro­po­nents of the ‘yes’ cam­paign have ar­gued that same-sex mar­riage is a stand­alone is­sue, but there is abun­dant ev­i­dence that it is as­so­ci­ated with rad­i­cal gen­der ide­ol­ogy, en­forced with of­fi­cial in­tol­er­ance, and hav­ing se­ri­ous and alarm­ing con­se­quences here in Aus­tralia, and in Eng­land, Ire­land, Canada, the USA, and New Zealand. Th­ese con­se­quences in­clude:

The de­mon­is­ing, bul­ly­ing, cen­sur­ing, in­tim­i­da­tion, boy­cotting, pe­nal­is­ing and loss of em­ploy­ment for in­di­vid­u­als, busi­nesses, ser­vices, churches and or­gan­i­sa­tions that do not sup­port the LGBTIQ ide­ol­ogy, with con­se­quences for free­dom of speech, free­dom of con­science, and free­dom of re­li­gion.

The sub­ject­ing of chil­dren to rad­i­cal gen­der ide­ol­ogy in pro­grams such as Safe Schools (Aus­tralia), and threat­en­ing to re­move chil­dren from par­ents who do not ac­qui­esce to their child’s gen­der iden­tity con­fu­sion (Canada).

And many other con­se­quences, in­clud­ing penal­ties for fail­ing to use gen­der­less pro­nouns, cross-dress­ing in schools, the shar­ing of toi­lets and change rooms, re­jec­tion of Fa­ther’s Day, etc, etc.

In view of this, a no vote is a rea­soned re­sponse to this very im­por­tant ques­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.