In spite of the major victory on marriage in August 2004, there are still radical social engineers pushing for same-sex marriage rights. Chief Minister Jon Stanhope of the ACT has introduced a Civil Union Bill to do just that. Stanhope is bad news, and has pushed many anti-family and anti-faith agendas over the years. There are two easy things you can do on this issue.
One. Email or call him and tell him you are appalled that he is pushing this Bill and this agenda, when the overwhelming majority of Australians oppose it: (02) 6205 0104 or stanhope@act.gov.au
Marriage can be strengthened by allowing more loving couples to marry.
I want marriage to be strengthened.
John Kloprogge, Croyden, VIC
John, do you think that marriage will be strengthened by allowing polygamy; bigamy; marriage between brother and sister; parent and offspring; uncle/aunty and niece/nephew; human and animal … ?
Frank Gashumba, Melbourne
Thank you Bill for your post and your pro-active advice it is helpful and much appreciated.
Marriage is a good thing and is still defined in my oxford dictionary as the “legal union of a man and a woman for cohabitation and often procreation, and the act or ceremony marking this.”
I don’t want to ever see the day where our government leaders take heed to the voices of those in our society who settle for less than honorable, rather than who cry aloud for higher moral standards of conduct.
Keep up the good work Bill!
Michael Dawson, Melbourne
Indeed, Michael, we do need “higher moral standards of conduct”.
This means not stigmatising gay relationships by prohibiting the right for them to marry.
To extend marriage to loving, committed gay couples would be a very honorable thing for a government to do.
John Kloprogge, North Croydon
John – A large part of getting married is standing up in front of your friends and family and announcing that this is the person you love and intend to spend the rest of your life with. No-one can stop you from doing that. What more do you want? Why do you need the government to change their definition of marriage? Do you think about or care about the sociological implications of what you are suggesting?
Sharny Annison, Leongatha
Dear John,
The literal meaning of the ‘higher moral standards’ that I was referring to was to be concerned with goodness or badness of human character or behavior, or with the distinction between right and wrong (oxford dictionary).
How do you determine between right and wrong John?
John to stigmatize or stain on one’s good name; is assuming that homosexuality has a ‘good’ name to begin with.
And I would say that no man is ‘good,’ or morally perfect. We have all in either word, thought, or deed fallen short of being morally perfect, whether homosexual or not, wouldn’t you agree?
Michael Dawson, Melbourne
Hi John,
Just letting you know that you are apart of the minority of homosexuals that want to get married to their partner. It seems most homosexuals do not prefer marriage. I do not think that gay marrage should be pushed on the rest of society. It really is just an attempt to re-define the definition of marriage for all of Australia. I am tired of individuals thinking that the whole populace of Australia owes them something! If you really want marriage to be strengthened, you should stop interfering with it!
Daniela Rizzo, Melbourne
John Kloprogge,
You say that you believe marriage can be “strengthened by allowing more loving couples to marry.” Would that mean also allowing for bigamy, incest and bestiality in marriage? If not, then on what basis would marriage be legitimately conferred to one group and not another?
Frank Gashumba, Melbourne
It’s true – marriage is a good thing. Which is exactly why the original, traditional meaning should be preserved and guarded.
Allowing the redefinition of marriage will open up a pandora’s box of consequences that, I think, no society or government in the world has any idea of dealing with. And who’s to say that the redifinition of marriage will stop at the inclusion and recognition of homosexual marriage?
By the way, marriage is not a human right because if it were, we would have more marriages today. No, marriage is not a human right but, first and foremost, an institution – a social structure and mechanism of social order and cooperation which governs human behavior and society. Institutions are marked by a specific social purpose and permanence – in this case, fidelity, exclusivity, natural procreation, and social order. To redefine marriage is to murder an enduring institution and deprive the next generation of its basic human rights.
As a gay man, I think marriage is a good thing.
Marriage can be strengthened by allowing more loving couples to marry.
I want marriage to be strengthened.
John Kloprogge, Croyden, VIC
John, do you think that marriage will be strengthened by allowing polygamy; bigamy; marriage between brother and sister; parent and offspring; uncle/aunty and niece/nephew; human and animal … ?
Frank Gashumba, Melbourne
Thank you Bill for your post and your pro-active advice it is helpful and much appreciated.
Marriage is a good thing and is still defined in my oxford dictionary as the “legal union of a man and a woman for cohabitation and often procreation, and the act or ceremony marking this.”
I don’t want to ever see the day where our government leaders take heed to the voices of those in our society who settle for less than honorable, rather than who cry aloud for higher moral standards of conduct.
Keep up the good work Bill!
Michael Dawson, Melbourne
Indeed, Michael, we do need “higher moral standards of conduct”.
This means not stigmatising gay relationships by prohibiting the right for them to marry.
To extend marriage to loving, committed gay couples would be a very honorable thing for a government to do.
John Kloprogge, North Croydon
John – A large part of getting married is standing up in front of your friends and family and announcing that this is the person you love and intend to spend the rest of your life with. No-one can stop you from doing that. What more do you want? Why do you need the government to change their definition of marriage? Do you think about or care about the sociological implications of what you are suggesting?
Sharny Annison, Leongatha
Dear John,
The literal meaning of the ‘higher moral standards’ that I was referring to was to be concerned with goodness or badness of human character or behavior, or with the distinction between right and wrong (oxford dictionary).
How do you determine between right and wrong John?
John to stigmatize or stain on one’s good name; is assuming that homosexuality has a ‘good’ name to begin with.
And I would say that no man is ‘good,’ or morally perfect. We have all in either word, thought, or deed fallen short of being morally perfect, whether homosexual or not, wouldn’t you agree?
Michael Dawson, Melbourne
Hi John,
Just letting you know that you are apart of the minority of homosexuals that want to get married to their partner. It seems most homosexuals do not prefer marriage. I do not think that gay marrage should be pushed on the rest of society. It really is just an attempt to re-define the definition of marriage for all of Australia. I am tired of individuals thinking that the whole populace of Australia owes them something! If you really want marriage to be strengthened, you should stop interfering with it!
Daniela Rizzo, Melbourne
John Kloprogge,
You say that you believe marriage can be “strengthened by allowing more loving couples to marry.” Would that mean also allowing for bigamy, incest and bestiality in marriage? If not, then on what basis would marriage be legitimately conferred to one group and not another?
Frank Gashumba, Melbourne
It’s true – marriage is a good thing. Which is exactly why the original, traditional meaning should be preserved and guarded.
Allowing the redefinition of marriage will open up a pandora’s box of consequences that, I think, no society or government in the world has any idea of dealing with. And who’s to say that the redifinition of marriage will stop at the inclusion and recognition of homosexual marriage?
By the way, marriage is not a human right because if it were, we would have more marriages today. No, marriage is not a human right but, first and foremost, an institution – a social structure and mechanism of social order and cooperation which governs human behavior and society. Institutions are marked by a specific social purpose and permanence – in this case, fidelity, exclusivity, natural procreation, and social order. To redefine marriage is to murder an enduring institution and deprive the next generation of its basic human rights.
Paul Magno, Melbourne