Saturday, August 12, 2017

The Postal Vote and Marriage

This blog post has been moved.  It can be read HERE.



  2. Thank you, Mark. Our churches need to be alert (and alarmed) re the consequences of same-sex 'marriage' for our children's moral formation (think Safe Schools) and our pastors' freedom to preach. If your readers want a fully referenced warning of the danger ahead, my book is at Koorong and Kindle/iBooks - Stealing From a Child: the Injustice of 'Marriage Equality'.

  3. I believe many people see allowing gay people to marry as fundamental right. However I have serious issues about the effect on children procured for non heterosexual couples including surrogacy and adoption. There is even research being conducted to construct an artificial womb. In these instances the needs of the children become secondary to the needs and wants of gay couples. The detrimental affects of a baby being being taken from its mother are proven and long term. This will apply to all surrogacy arrangements for men who are biologically unable to conceive. Yes there are arguments that this happens in the hetrosexual world as well for those who are infertile or who choose this method of making a family. Both are wrong however most hetrosexual couples are able to have children in a relationship and without scientific intervention this is impossible for same sex couples. Adults who have been raised in same sex families are starting to speak out about their experiences and the majority are not positive. We need to put the needs of children before the needs of adults in both the Gay and Heterosexual communities. What does marriage really mean for gay couples? What are we actually voting to accept? What are the ongoing affects of gay marriage and how that will affect society as a whole? These are not made plain to us in a plebiscite and we need to know more details to make informed decisions. I wish I could prescribe to the common theory or feeling that they are in love and should be allowed to get married but I think that there is so much more to consider and emotions shouldn't cloud judgement.

  4. Hi David. Would you mind if I copied the above to paper, unchanged and in its entirety, with printed links to this page and sales pages for your book, for distribution to my church, neighbours, and etc. I hope this isn't too cheeky.

    Btw, I live near Toowoomba.

    1. That's absolutely fine, with or without the book links. (My name is Mark, not David.)

  5. Hi Mark. Fantastic article. I also am planning to use this to distribute to neighbours and church. Thanks so much for staying our case in such a clear manner. God bless.

  6. "The state regulated marriage, and gave it the features it has, not because it wanted to award marriage as an entitlement to dignify heterosexual pairing, but because it wanted to regulate the bearing and raising of children, to make it safer and to help produce better outcomes."

    That was indeed the purpose of state regulation of marriage - 250 years ago. But it doesn't follow that marriage today should only be viewed through that lens.

    250 years ago, roads were built for foot and cattle traffic. Many of the roads laid down 250 years ago for that purpose are still in use today... but society has changed, and many people are now driving cars down them, and we expect roads to support that use.

    "Study after study has shown that, on average, children have the best outcomes when they are raised by their own married biological parents."

    This is misleading to the point of dishonesty. These studies are primarily contrasting the children of stable heterosexual couples to the children of non-stable heterosexual couples; there may be a few children of same-sex parents in the data, but they're swamped by the straight couples.

    It would be equally valid to say: "Studies have shown that people in hospitals have a higher rate of death than people outside hospitals; doctors spend a lot of time in hospitals so we can conclude that being a doctor is extremely dangerous."

    One could just as easily look at these studies and say: children of married couples have better outcomes, therefore we can improve the outcome for kids of same-sex couples by allowing their parents to marry.

  7. Hi Mark this is refreshing analysis. I have gay friends and colleagues who are parents. Couldn't society argue that they should be afforded the banner of marriage, given that they do indeed have children? Shouldn't those children be given the same status as children with heterosexual parents, I.e. that their parents are 'married'? If we quibble about his those children come about then don't we also cast the same judgement on heterosexual and possibly Christian parents who have 'acquired' children in the same ways, I.e. adoption, surragacy? I think those horses have already bolted..... I don't necessarily agree with what I am saying, but just adding grist to the mill for the discussion.

  8. Marriage is a human right, but the relevant treaties recognise marriage as a definitional construct of union of a man and a woman. Everyone has the right to marry, but it is not discriminatory or unequal to maintain the traditional understanding of what marriage is.

    See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16; European Convention on Human Rights, Article 12; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 23.


Comments are moderated. Avoid profanities or foul language. Stay on topic. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Posts which violate these principles or are deemed offensive in any way will be deleted.