Do Not Redefine Marriage

The Seven Sacraments,
Rogier van der Weyden, ca. 1445.

All societies in the world throughout all history have recognized and accepted the natural institution of marriage which is defined in the Marriage Act as "a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”.

Marriage preceded all religions and government systems and it is clear that its roots lie in nature and is harmonious with the Natural Law. Moreover, it encompasses all beliefs from Theistic to Atheistic. It does not originate in the will of judges, politicians, parliaments or lobbyists and is therefore an intrinsic truth which cannot be changed or redefined.

The majority of citizens of this country [Australia] and most other countries in the world, and the United Nations do not express a desire for the definition of marriage to be perverted, but rather wish to see its dignity recognised, promoted and upheld.

While some people in homosexual unions wish to gain acceptance from mainstream society of their homosexual lifestyle, redefining their unions as marriage is completely inappropriate and inaccurate. Homosexual unions cannot be termed as marriage and neither are they equal to married couples.

Homosexual couples fail to fulfill the mandatory criteria which unambiguously describe marriage, and therefore, are not capable of being recognised as married couples. Married couples possess the following natural characteristics and qualities:

Firstly, married couples possess the natural biological complementarity. Secondly, they have an inherent and natural biological capacity for procreation which is the prime function of marriage; this contributes to the well-being and guaranteed growth of society, notwithstanding the infertility of some couples. Thirdly they are able to fulfill the inalienable rights and needs of children. The child needs to have the knowledge of their natural mother and father and to know that they are born out of love between their parents.

Irrespective of how good or skilled a homosexual person might be, they undeniably lack the intrinsic qualities which are extremely important for the physical and psychological development and nurturing of the child.

Marriage is not a right but a gift between a husband and wife. It must be made clear that people with homosexual inclinations are not barred from marriage to a member of the opposite sex. Simply said, homosexual unions cannot be considered equal to marriage.

To deny or belittle the need of children for a mother and a father will subject the most vulnerable, who are our children and future generations, to untold and irreversible damage, for example in the case of the stolen generation. The truth does not change with time. What is false in the past is still false in the present and in the future. An intrinsic truth cannot be changed by opinion polls.

If homosexual couples lack the necessary prerequisites to be accepted into the institution of marriage it means they are outside of marriage. The primary argument is not about equal rights but appropriate and just distinctions. To blur the distinctions and say they are the same, is to be unfair and unjust. We must differentiate between the two, because there are serious differences which should not be glossed over but acknowledged.

The emotive arguments that homosexual couples put forward are based on the vague and simplistic idea of fairness, like “why can’t I have what you have?” We must not be misled but use clear thinking and stand up for the rights of the future children of this country.