MARRIAGE IS NOT OFFENSIVE

Marriage is something. That is, it also not something. 

This simple concept is the basis for defining anything. In the case of marriage, Australian legislation isn't the basis of its definition because marriage is a concept that, like shapes and colours, is best described and therefore naturally withstands any attempt to redefine it. 

As a marriage celebrant I am required to ensure that all five criterions for proceeding with a marriage are satisfied. Complimentary Gender is just one of those criteria. All five criterions are essential for it to be a marriage. 

Someone may take 'offence' at this notion but this does not mean that the notion itself is 'offensive'. 

Being offended is not a convincing argument for anyone's case, especially in this instance when the Marriage Act applies to every Australian equally. 

But if two people truly love each other?

At the risk of being misunderstood, love for another person has never been the reason for marriage. After all, how a person feels today about another person is not something the State has (or should have) any interest in. Such affections do not need State sanctioning. Yet this mantra is chanted as if it was the reason and basis for marriage. 

There is nothing in the Australian legislation that requires love between a couple so that they can marry. "Love" is not one of the five necessary criterions for proceeding with a marriage.

Care, nurture, protection and provision are essential obligations for marriage because of a married couples' immense potential and privilege to have and raise children. Throughout history where marriage was ignored, the affect on women and children was disastrous. In some parts of the world today where men are deeply irresponsible, and refuse to marry, women and their fatherless children are the victims and often end up in a poverty-cycle not of their own making. In pre-WW2 Soviet Russia, marriage was relegated to an era of ideology not compatible with Atheistic Communist Socialism. When Russia faced invasion it realised that it did not have its most basic social unit reinforced: the nuclear family consisting of married parents with their children. This led to a nation on the verge of societal collapse. Marriage was promptly reinstated and promoted for the greater good of Mother Russia so that they stood chance of resisting their invaders.

Marriage is something. It is something that simply cannot be redefined in much the same that a shape, a colour or number is something in particular and therefore not something else. It is desperate and triflingly petty to call this an offensive notion.

Andrew.

Same-Sex Marriage A "Civil Right"?

by Dr. Andrew Corbett 6th August 2012

Those supportive of a "Gay" lifestyle like to argue that their case is the same kind of unfair discrimination experienced by African Americans up until the 1960s. By doing this, they make their case sound 'obviously' unfair. It's worth noting that this has outraged many in the Black community who can immediately and clearly see that there is just no comparison between the two issues.

Racial discrimination is insidious! It demeans a human being on the basis of their ethnicity, skin colour, or even nationality by considering them less than human. Demeaning another human as being less than human - on the basis of gender, race, status, professional, ability, is intolerable! Christians were at the forefront of confronting this in England during the campaign of William Wilberforce M.P., and the American Civil Rights Movement of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. But for the LGBT (Lesbian / Gay / Bi-Sexual / Trans-gendered) activists to claim that their campaign is exactly same "human rights" "discrimination" violation as that which the Rev. Dr Martin Luther King was involved in confronting is going too far and has caused many to realise that the LGBT's campaign for "sexual-anarchy" has nothing to do with the Civil Rights movement.

"The hijacking of the civil rights movement by homosexuals, bisexuals and gender-confused people is unacceptable. There is no legitimate comparison between skin color and sexual behavior"
- Rev. William Owens, C.A.A.P. (The Coalition of African-American Pastors) [Source]

1. Being treated unfairly as a human being because of your skin colour has to do with what it means to be human.

Human rights begins with the right to be... [Read full article]