Australia, Please Do the Right Thing On the Marriage Issue

[Funk*Sonic*7]

Two women can be good mothers, but no woman can be a great loving father like a man can. Two men can be great fathers, but no man can be a great loving mother than a woman can. If two women or two men are willing to deliberately and intentionally deny any child the chance at being raised by a loving father or a loving mother, one could easily and rightfully argue that, even with good intentions, they are not so great and not so loving as parents after all.

You don’t see a problem with two male same sex couples using a woman’s womb and DNA to have a baby or two women using a man for his sperm and DNA to have a baby. As long as the child is loved by the same sex couple right? Love is love? Same sex couples can be excellent parents, right?
Ok then… well seeing as biology is insignificant, and maternal love is replaceable and paternal love is replaceable, which of YOUR parents don’t YOU need? Shall we deliberately and intentionally remove your mother or father from YOUR life?

WHICH ONE? You must choose. And it shouldn’t matter given you’re endorsing fatherless and motherless parenting arrangements for other people. Which of your parents shall we snuff out? Your mother or your father? Go on. Which one?

And if you say that your father was a jerk, so you’d snuff him out, well you’re proving the point. And if you say you’d snuff your mother out, because she was awful or abandoned you, you’re proving the point. You missed that maternal and paternal love that is inbuilt in us as human beings. It is natural. It is essential. If you hate your parents for hurting you and you’d choose for one or both to not exist, it’s because you’re hurting. You KNOW, deep down that a mother is a nurturer and you know that a father is a protector.

The pain is from rejection. So why are you supporting something that deliberately deprives other kids of something so essential and so precious to the human experience?

Here are the most common objections from same sex “marriage” advocates and homosexual activists whenever you make a case for family structure equality, which is inherent in one man-one woman marriage.
They are variations of the same argument…

“My dad abused or neglected me, so children don’t need a mother or a father.”

“My mom abused or neglected me, so children don’t need a mother or a father.”

“My husband abused or neglected our children, so children don’t need a mother or a father.”

“My wife abused or neglected our children, so children don’t need a mother or a father.”

(These arguments usually include name-calling and ad hominem attacks directed toward natural marriage proponents).

So they are comparing (and trying to justify) same sex parenting to losses and shortcomings that happen (and often don’t happen intentionally) within the natural nuclear family.

Their argument is essentially this: “My father or mother abused or neglected me (or my husband or wife abused or neglected my children) therefore I think it is okay that other children be deliberately and intentionally denied any chance at the experiencing of being raised by both a loving mother and a loving father.”

Essentially they're saying that a man and a woman who marry go into it with the intention of divorcing after they have children so they can deliberately deny their child of being raised and loved by one or the other? So you are also saying that there like with same sex couples, there is never the chance in the context of single parent homes that an opposite sex partner can come into the relationship and help raise and love the child? Are we having a problem recognizing the distinction and difference between the meaning of the word accidental and deliberate or intentional? Last buyt not least, as the point was made earlier, the loss and the heartache of losing one or both parents only illustrates why we shouldn't promote the idea that doing so intentionally is a positive good, so why not thing twice before engaging in a "two wrongs make it a right" argument?

They seem to have a difficult time understanding the difference between situations that are ACCIDENTAL and situations that are INTENTIONAL/DELIBERATE, which shows lack of common sense and complete ignorance. Or, they do not want to acknowledge the difference, which shows them to be disingenuous and full of malice toward other children for the hurt and loss they themselves experienced. In other words, they suffered as children or have seen children suffer these accidental losses (e.g. single parents, infertility, foster homes, adoption via death or divorce or abandonment), so it doesn’t really matter if we promote family structure inequalities where other children by design (e.g. same sex parenting, sperm donorship and commercial surrogacy, abortion) suffer the same kind of losses.

Also consider the following…

(1.) The biological definition of marriage treats everybody equally. Every adult already has the opportunity and the chance to marry another adult of the opposite sex, whether they choose to or want to or not for whatever reason.

(2.) There has never been a law that prevented two adult people of the same sex to have a commitment ceremony and reception. (There has always been plenty of heretical/apostate churches and ministers, pastors, deacons, priests, etc to chose from).

(3.) There has never been a law preventing two adults of the same sex to draw up and agree to a legal contract sharing wills, estates, hospital visitation, retirement pensions, etc. (How many attorneys in the country are there?). As a matter of fact, in Australia, these are all the benefits same sex couples already get in Australia via "civil unions," so we should ask ourselves why do they still want to change the definition of marriage, which will legally remove biological roots and connections from children and their parents?...

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsib...-relationships.

(4.) The federal government does not and has never issued marriage licenses to anybody. Equality of people within the institution of marriage would always include both sexes (male and female), not all kinds of (sexual and romantic) behaviors.

Same sex relationships and so-called same sex “marriage” excludes one sex or the other. That is not equality. There is absolutely nothing equal about that. As a matter of fact, it’s actually promoting a form of segregation. Same sex “marriage” is actually comparable to the promotion of a form of marriage that excludes one race with another (interracial marriage ban that is advocated by racists).

Promoting the exclusion of one race or one biological sex are both promoting segregation, regardless of whether or not men and women can still marry each other.

It is not a good thing to have a law that promotes segregation as just as good or the same as inclusion of both sexes. Just like the ban of interracial marriages that promoted segregation by race within the institution of marriage as a positive good, same sex “marriage” promotes segregation of the sexes within the institution of marriage as a positive good.

Same sex “marriage” really means, “gender-neutral marriage,” and gender neutral “marriage” means that we must erase the concept of biological connections within the legal code. This was actually the same way they treated black slaves within the legal code during the time of slavery.
Same sex partner custody disputes are handled the same way they treated family members and children of slaves; (1.) The government can give a child to somebody who is not related to the child by blood or adoption, (2.) the natural parent did not consent to an adoption (adoption requires consent or being found unfit), (3.) the natural parent was never found unfit or even accused of being a bad parent– the natural parent wanted the child. We don’t see all of these features in custody disputes involving only a father and a mother. Why are same sex partner custody disputes as a result of the legalization of same sex “marriage” triggering an experience that resembles slavery?

Whether they know it or not, advocates of same sex “marriage,” at least in their reasoning, have more in common with racists who were/are against interracial marriages.

[Funk*Sonic*7]

Laws teach society bad or good behavior. A bad law teaches society over time, if not immediately, that that bad behavior is actually a positive good. For example, Roe v Wade has taught society that killing babies in the womb is a positive good, and as a result, over 60 million babies in the womb have been slaughtered since that decision in 1973 just in the United States alone. So much for that so-called back alley coathanger epidemic the Left lied and continues to lie about. It certainly has that "boogeyman in the closet" effect, even though there never was and will never be a boogeyman. The states wrongly decided to treat that court opinion (all made by men who the Left usually argue are typically not allowed to have a say on the matter, by the way) as "law of the land" when they didn't and still don't have to. There has never been a worse genocide in the history of our world as far as we know.

Unfortunately Australia voted to remove biological truth (connections, roots, and complimentarity) from the legal definition of marriage.
Here is a prime example of the consequences of such unjust laws...Commercial surrogacy...

The problem with surrogacy, is that there is never a right ruling, because the practice itself destroys motherhood. Is the mother the genetic parent who contributed the egg? The one who’s voice and smell the child knows from its first moments of life through birth? Or in this case, the woman who nurtured the baby and loved him (or her) for the first 18 months of his life? Also, how preposterous for a judge to “assign” this child the identity of being a child of same sex "parents." This child’s identity isn’t determined by a judge. It’s determined by the nature of being human: the identity that says that children have a right to their mother and father, should not be manufactured into existence, should not be bought and sold, and should not have their primal need for maternal love parsed into three different women. Surrogacy redefines what it means to be a human child. They are no longer vulnerable humans whose rights need to be respected and protected, but rather commodities to be selected, purchased and awarded to whatever adults the State decides should have them...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...and-child-gay/

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ren...5dcfea18b58bbe

So in Australia, people voted 61% yes to 38% no. (Keep in mind, 60% of 80 % of the population voted to change the law. That is 48% of the population. That means 52% of the population did not vote to change the law). The NO campaign warned people over and over again that forced compliance of everything homosexual and gender confusion will become much more compulsory within just about every cultural institution if the "yes" vote wins. If I were them, I would keep a meticulous record of these occurrences and keep fighting the good fight, just as the pro-Life movement has been doing since Roe v Wade in 1973. Why? Because, among other things the "love is love" soundbite is a euphemism, it's a misnomer, and it's logic has to apply to any and all claimed to be consenting relationship in order for it to be consistent revealing them to either be morally and ethically repugnant if they accept these logical conclusions or a complete hypocrite beyond believe (something they often accuse their opposition of) if they don't accept that logical conclusion.

What is Real love? #TruthisLove

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/m...ts_of_ssm.html

What's changed since marriage was redefined in the U.K...


https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09...-sex-marriage/


How redefining marriage has affected Canada just 10 years later...


http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/6758/


How redefining marriage has impacted the United States and also more concerning Canada...


https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/...to-zimmermann/

But We Do Not Despair...

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/11/...marriage-vote/

Edit: As you can see from the responses below, apathy, ad hominem, and lack of critical thinking is a problem in our society.

[Blood Red]

its only a matter of time before the sun gets tired of our shit and destroys the earth.

[psychoDiablo]

Originally Said by Funk*Sonic*7

You don’t see a problem with two male same sex couples using a woman’s womb and DNA to have a baby or two women using a man for his sperm and DNA to have a baby. As long as the child is loved by the same sex couple right? Love is love? Same sex couples can be excellent parents, right?
Ok then… well seeing as biology is insignificant, and maternal love is replaceable and paternal love is replaceable, which of YOUR parents don’t YOU need? Shall we deliberately and intentionally remove your mother or father from YOUR life?
.

What the fuck are you talking about?

How are you still going on about this shit? Half the world is gay, and the other half seem to be okay with it.

[Funk*Sonic*7]

YES advocate for redefining marriage in Australia says: The NO voters were right. It was about more than marriage...

Admits that it IS in fact about forcing people of faith to go against their conscience, because that is and should be the next step.
Quoted and video statement of this admission can be seen here...

http://caldronpool.com/yes-advocate-...ight-marriage/

The LGBT- Letting Go of Biological Truth activists and their cultish followers have a real motive. That motive is forcing people of faith to acquiesce to their no-so-"gay" lifestyle by forcing people of faith to go against their conscience. These activists are what the Bible calls implacable.
They cannot and never will be satisfied.

#Rainbowjihad #homofascism #gaystapo

[foxyphoenix]

So now that homosexual people are allowed to get married, the LGBT movement is working towards protecting them as a class with regard to employment and housing? Australians may have to treat them like people?? Christians won't be able to keep oppressing them and discriminating against them??? The Christians are the real victims here, of course.




What vapid, narcissistic delusions. I'm glad the world is progressing past you and those like you.