A Gay Dad’s Letter to the Australian Couple Who Threatens Divorce if Marriage Equality is Realized

Jensens evol pic

Something one learns as a parent is that children are often not rational in their behavior. When something happens that is not to their liking, they will strike out in a variety of fashions, many of which do not line up to a logical agenda of self-interest. Part of the challenge of parenting, in such situations, is to show them how by reacting differently they can make the situation better, not just for themselves, but for others.

Conservatives worldwide apparently need such a parental voice at times to help them see the same thing. A year and a half ago a young man in Utah proclaimed he would starve to death if Utah allowed same sex marriages to take place. I wrote a letter to him in an effort to show him that his actions were not heroic, they were immature. Same sex marriage became legal in Utah, and he avoided starvation.

Now a couple in Australia is doing their own version of a kid rant over same sex marriage. Nick and Sarah Jensen have declared that should Australia recognize same sex marriages, they will get a divorce. Nick states they married “as a fundamental order of creation, part of God’s intimate story for human history, man and woman, for the sake of children, faithful and for life. And so, if later on in the year the state does go ahead and changes the definition of marriage and changes the terms of that contract then we can no longer partake in that new definition unfortunately.”

He speaks of a “contract” that they had with the state which would guarantee marriage defined as being only between a man and a woman forever.

Of course, no such contract exists.

As a dad, this scenario is all too familiar. My sons were both adopted through foster care and are only four months apart in age. We call them “almost twins” reflecting that in many ways, they have achieved a bond that I have only seen in biologically born twins.

My son Jesse has always been the one to lead in their game playing. When they were about 6 years old, Jesse would create card games to play. After a while, Jason would become very frustrated and I would have to intercede. It was not difficult to see the cause of their conflict — the cards and rules of the game were literally stacked against Jason. As they were explained to me, I could see that the rules would only lead to the point where Jesse would win.

So I made him change the rules. As soon as that happened, Jesse, who is a bright kid, could see that things were not exclusive to him anymore and he immediately….quit. “I don’t want to play anymore,” he would bellow, and mind-bogglingly declare, “It’s not FAIR.”

The Jensens are having a similar meltdown. They see that the rules which favor only them are changing, and therefore, they want to — quit. I have written them a letter.

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jensen,

I was sad to hear of your decision to divorce should same sex marriage become legal in Australia. It is indeed distressing that you would throw something away so cavalierly that others have worked so hard to try to achieve.

I kind of get it. You had something that you felt held you above others, and made you feel special and a bit elite. That really was not the case. Here in the US they allow convicted murderers to marry from prison, even ones who have slaughtered their families like the Menendez brothers. Those who are allowed to marry are not really as holy or special as you seem to regard. In any case, they do seem to be ranked, in your opinion, above the people you don’t want to marry — LGBT people.

In your declaration of your decision to divorce, you make clear that you want control over the “rules” or you won’t play by them anymore. I have had a similar situation with one of my sons who, in his young life, refused to play games that were not set up by rules he made himself. It took a little time, but I finally showed him that the things that are worthwhile are not the things that cause us to “win” no matter what, they are things that exponentially expand joy and love.

Rules are worthless if they are not based on principles. To make things really valuable, these principles should include equality, fairness, inspiration, nurture and positive development.

You are “quitting” not because of anything having to do with your own marriage or family, but because another family might be given the opportunity for security, honor and growth. Your rationale is not sound, it is not compassionate, nor would anyone on any side of it grow better because of it. Your proposed actions are, in a word … childish.

Such actions have no basis in the Bible, which only allows for divorce in the case of adultery. They have no basis in history, since traditional marriage was as polygamously oriented in ways you fear that marriage today might evolve.

Your actions are also inaccurate in terms of the intentions of others to marry. You have declared that it would now make “marriage … detached from children, [that it’s] just about love.” This makes no sense.

LGBT families have, and intend to have, children. Many times these children are rescued from life threatening or other dire situations. The vapid “every child deserves parents of specific biologies” argument falls very flat to kids who would give anything to simply be fed, nurtured and escape either neglect or abuse.

Many, many couples who wed today also do not intend to have children. I officiated for a lovely man and woman couple in their sixties. Both would faint dead-away at your assertion of my union of them was based on the fact they had to child-bear. They showed up “about love” and have been an inspiration in doing so, as the wife today stands firmly by her husband who is vehemently battling lung cancer.

LGBT couples are not coming together in marriage to spite you. They have no intention of affecting your marriage in any way. They have fought hard for this right, because it is something of great value in their own lives.

Last week, I officiated at the wedding of two beautiful men. The marriage’s meaning was clear to all when the first groom emerged from the wings, being walked down the aisle with his mother. His eyes were brimming with tears. It was evident that this moment was a pinnacle in his life, he was transforming into a further definition of himself and his identity as part of a family.

Whether that family is just he and his spouse, or whether kids will be added, I don’t know. It is none of my business.

Nor is it any of yours.

If you choose to divorce because of what this young man has achieved for himself and his life, that is your prerogative. Just as he did not blame you for his marriage, neither should you blame anyone else for your intended divorce.

If you choose to divorce because others might gain what you have valued in your life, you are not making a statement about marriage. You are not making a statement about love. You are not making a statement about family. You are making a statement about your own damaged egos.

And it is time to grow up.

Please like the evoL= Facebook page here.

 Follow us on Twitter @JandJDad


About robw77

A single gay dad who cares. His story can be read here: http://www.imagaysingleparent.com/2013/02/02/rob/ and here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/rob-watson-gay-family_n_4689661.html
This entry was posted in Bible, Equality, Family, Hatred, Marriage equality, Prejudice, Religion and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

155 Responses to A Gay Dad’s Letter to the Australian Couple Who Threatens Divorce if Marriage Equality is Realized

  1. Pingback: Dads Divorce And Delinquency | Simple British Columbia Divorce Online

  2. Peter says:

    LGBT families have, and intend to have, children. Many times these children are rescued from life threatening or other dire situations. The vapid “every child deserves parents of specific biologies” argument falls very flat to kids who would give anything to simply be fed, nurtured and escape either neglect or abuse.

    Many, many couples who wed today also do not intend to have children. I officiated for a lovely man and woman couple in their sixties. Both would faint dead-away at your assertion of my union of them was based on the fact they had to child-bear. They showed up “about love” and have been an inspiration in doing so, as the wife today stands firmly by her husband who is vehemently battling lung cancer.

    • Peter says:

      Sorry about the post without reply, Here’s my reply to this (which I find particularly problematic).

      If it comes to rescue children (meaning adoption), it is a great difference between giving a child an adoption-family for helping an unwanted situation for the child (not being able to get care from its own parents), and constructing PLANNED father- or mother-less children to create a family for persons who can’t get children themselves in a natural manner.

      As long as it’s given a right to have children through marriage, it doesn’t matter if some choose not to use that right. One can’t create laws, and then think that no-one will ever use their rights, and of course you know(?) that it is not true either. Many gays want to use surrogacy or insemination, and so create mother- or father-less children.
      Man and woman is the only necessary natural link which exists to create a family with children. The child will first of all belong to one man particular man, and one particular woman, at least as long as we don’t start fooling around with the genetic material. The child has – for this reason – a naturally given right to know its origin, its family, and receive care from its parents – as far as this is possible.

      One do not wish to replace earlier injustices done to gays, with a new injustice done to children (who won’t even get a say). Only this can be rightly labeled as “on the child’s premises”.

      Peace from Peter from Norway 🙂

      • Ben in oakland says:

        In other words…

        heterosexuals can reproduce as badly and as often as they wish, parent as badly as they are capable of, and it’s all good.

        heterosexuals can create children without the benefit of marriage, as often as they wish, and that’s all good, too.

        heterosexuals can get divorced and remarried as often as they wish, have children, and continue the process, as often and badly as they wish, and on one says “boo!” You can beat your children, abuse them, deprive them, and no one cares.

        In other words, HETEROSEXUALS CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. And you, in all of your magnanimity, will allow us gay people to clean up the mess that heterosexuals make, to adopt and care for the cast off, unwanted products of irresponsible heterosexual procreation, and that’s just fine. But god forbid we should have the right to reproduce, raise our children, and provide them with love and family that YOU don’t approve of.

        Here’s the kicker: ” The child has – for this reason – a naturally given right to know its origin, its family, and receive care from its parents – as far as this is possible.” But you WON’T outlaw divorce, you WON’T force unmarried parents to marry, but you will let heterosexuals create a life without taking any responsibility for it in the way that you insist MUST apply to us.

        That right of the child seems to be very secondary in your opinion, unless it is gay people who are asking the questions.

        Sorry– this idea is just hypocrisy, and you are a concern troll.

        • Peter says:

          “In other words…”

          Well, those were not my words. It’s of course not a good thing that some parents aren’t good parents (that’s why adoption is a good thing – for the benefit of the child).
          We can’t go around sterilizing people in advance either?, (married or not), or monitor who is going to bed with who? Checking if they were a condom or something like that,,. That’s not even a thinkable option. It’s no-ones business who is going to bed with who. That’s a free choice between the adults involved, but we can try to make the best out of situations where children end up living under unwanted conditions. That of course includes if a child gets beaten or abused by it’s parents. That’s why adoption is a good thing – for helping that unwanted situation for the child.
          But under no circumstance can two males, or two females reproduce, and get their own biological children under natural conditions. It’s not I that made the laws of nature this way. You may claim that kind of right all you want, but it won’t make a difference. Place two roosters, or two hens alone together, and they will never produce offspring. That’s just a fact which hasn’t got anything to do with me being a hypocritical concern troll. (you should try not being rude – maybe I am a hypocritical concern troll – but what’s that got to do with anything?)

          One of my strongest concerns is the principle which in Norway is called “the child’s best interests”. The rights of children should be our main interest. Including those who live under unwanted conditions with their biological father and mother. Regardless of whether their married or not. And of course we can’t outlaw divorce. Sometimes divorce can be “the child’s best interest”. That depends on the situation.

          Biology and genetics tells us something fundamental about where we come from, who we are, and what possibilities we have. This caveat is about ensuring the rights for the child. The caveat does NOT act to ensure adults parental rights in situations where the child is deliberately denied one (or both) of its biological parents.
          Thereafter the biological parenthood is about parental happiness, but this is achieved by a responsible exercise and management of one owns biological preconditions, and by putting aside selfish inclinations to meet the child’s needs for closeness, belonging, unconditional love, security.

          It’s shortcutted to believe that the opposite is the case – that the child’s purpose is to fulfill and ensure adult “needs” to be parents, and thus be at the mercy of “draconian grownup-whims”, requiring that the child’s natural rights are overridden, and that its ancestrial affiliations are eradicated.
          Children are first and foremost a gift – totally undeserved – to parents. Children can not, and should not, be objects we can claim and construct across all biological laws. There are natural reasons why the laws of biology are as they are, and we humans would do wise to live more consistent with our intrinsic biological preconditions, also when this means that we can not fully participate because of constraints we do not control ourselves.

          In my view, it is about time to confront attitudes and actions that basically objectifies children. Your comment by the way, is really nothing more than a straw man. Since I have never said anything in the direction your pointing out. Nor do I look down upon gays in any way either, or think that their human worth is any different from others. My concern is strictly for “the child’s best interests”.

          (sorry if the English isn’t very good..)

          • robw77 says:

            Your English is fine. Your premise is flawed. “There are natural reasons why the laws of biology are as they are, and we humans would do wise to live more consistent with our intrinsic biological preconditions, also when this means that we can not fully participate because of constraints we do not control ourselves.” is a premise that there is some remote connection between the physical ability to procreate and the knowledge and power to be a good, effective or even decent parent. There certainly is no such correlation. Some who procreate DO have all those.

            Every single human physically could parent years before they are emotionally or physically capable of actual parenting. Your conjecture that the two are linked is fantasy.

            Gay male coupled households are the only parental pairing that choose fostercare/adoption as the primary choice to start their family. This means that all the children in such families are moving from situations that completely disprove your premise into a family that wants, cares for them, and is prepared to help them with special needs. You have a problem with that? You would deny that family full societal and legal standing? For what possible reason? Because they did not “make” the children, but stepped in for ones already with a dire need? You find some sense in that position?

            As for all other families who choose biological means– you could accuse any one of them straight, lesbian or gay with surrogacy of ” the child’s purpose is to fulfill and ensure adult “needs” to be parents, and thus be at the mercy of “draconian grownup-whims” — but that is a highly cynical and unrealistic view (ask anyone who is actually a parent).

            As far as some “ancestrial affiliations”— adopting kids does not erase their biological heritage or knowledge of it, my kids are as aware of theirs as I am of my own. That knowledge is about as low in our lives in the list of relevant information as it could be… it does not comfort, inspire, nurture, give us direction or aid in our life decisions in any way. General George Custer was my 6th cousin, I also have native American Indian blood… so what?

  3. Pingback: Thoughts on Pride 2015 | Lane Hayes

  4. Laura Bodden says:

    Thank you so much for sharing those beautiful words. I wish people would stop behaving so childish because of their intolerance. You are a wonderful person and your kids are lucky to have you as a parent. Wishing you the best!

  5. Royale says:

    I love this letter. I think the description about the children playing and one creating his own rules and getting upset when he couldn’t win is very wise and very relevant. Free will and choice is also a big gift from God. If we love we respect this. Besides, I have never really cared about someone’s sex-life or preference, why I don’t go around asking hetro couples who they have sex with and how, so why would I ask anyone else? Everyone has different needs, tastes, beliefs. It is no one’s business….and I don’t think anyone should even have to declare themselves as ‘gay’…why should they? Whose business is it unless you are in a relationship with the person yourself? Think about it…why do you need to know about someone else’s sex life…are you bored? It isn’t your decision, it isn’t your right to decide about someone else’s marriage…marriage at times has been a safe guard in the past for people to be kept as property …..it hasn’t always been carried out as an honourable thing….so how about just letting people choose how they view marriage and create it the way they want to? It hasn’t always been religious or sanctamonious….like many things it has been used as a weapon and way to control….so let those that feel ‘love’ and want to create ‘that’ through marriage, create it.

  6. Keith says:

    I was against civil union, because I knew it would not stop there, I was against same sex marriage, I knew it would not stop there & now you want to bring up kids with two dads/mums talk about screwing up the next generations & at the end of the day you still wont be excepted as normal because it’s not & no matter how many laws are changed it never will be, it’s the one thing you will never have,

    • robw77 says:

      Yeah, except that it is normal Keith. The homophobic world around you is slipping away. While it is not “excepted”, it is being ACCEPTED widely.

      • Keith says:

        I knew the response would be homophobic, while I except homosexuals for you they are as people, I don’t except their life stye, & you say it is being accepted widely but that’s only in you’re eye’s & the homosexual community & it’s supporters, there is only a very small % of the population that believe that it’s normal, but I must admit they’re the ones that are making the most noise 🙂

        • ejvf says:

          It is excepted widely Keith, I was looking at stats just the other day. And the evidence confirms that children fair very well, just as well, in same sex marriages. Your belief system, your bias. Up until recent times, say 300 years ago, everyone was pretty much bi-sexual. It was normal. If your going to make noise check the facts.

          • Keith says:

            only in your circle is it excepted…. not mine & my circle is far & wide, & my facts are pretty close & if you want to believe in the rubbish on the link below fine… just stop pushing it as fact when it’s just another Darwin

          • Ben in oakland says:

            First, keith. Last time. THE WORD IS ACCEPTED. Not excepted.

            Second, Keith, declaring your ignorance the entire world is certainly your privilege, but also not advisable. If you don’t wish to believe 30-40 years of evidence, endorsed by virtually every single scientific, medical, and social service association in the entire civilized world, that’s certainly your privilege as well. But all you do is convince anyone sitting on the fence over the issue that it is indeed bigotry that drives anti-gay people, not science, compassion, facts, logic, or experience.

            So please. Keep on keeping on.

          • ejvf says:

            Latest stats can be found here Keith https://theconversation.com/big-tick-for-same-sex-marriage-as-labor-gains-ipsos-poll-43224 “Marriage equality is supported in the poll by a majority of Coalition voters(57%) and overwhelming majorities of ALP (74%) and Green (90%) voters”. Like a said, check he facts.

          • Rhys says:

            Jesus Christ. It’s painful to watch Keith embarrass himself by writing ‘excepted’ instead of ‘accepted’. Keith might need a dictionary along with a new heart. Poor fella, sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

        • Earl Mardle says:

          Oh dear Keith. I wish that you would take a few moments to learn how to express yourself better. It undermines your argument when you make the following errors of communication.
          1. The response was not homophobic, YOU are being homophobic (which means fear of homosexuality), the response was homophilic if you need to get technical
          2. You continue to use the word except which means to exclude, when the word you need here is ACCEPT, (which has an INclusive meaning) as robw77 tried to show you. Learning to read meta and irony is a great skill to have, especially on discussion boards like this.
          3. I’m guessing the expression “life stye” is a typo and that you probably didn’t mean an infected oil gland on an eyelid.
          4 The apostrophe in “in your eye’s” is inappropriate, eyes is the plural of eye and doesn’t need to show the possessive case in this instance.You also use it incorrectly in “it’s supporters”, bizarrely the possessive of “it” DOESN’T use it, however you use it correctly in “it’s normal” but now I wonder if that’s an accident.
          5. It’s not essential but not good style (or as you say stye) to use the ampersand in cursive text, same with using the % sign.

          In general, 5 glaring errors in a five line paragraph is a bit excessive and certainly detracts from the communication of your points, you should really re-read before posting and learn some basic spelling, grammar and editing skills.

        • Brendon says:

          Except you will not win this one Keith. Accept it.

          Learn how to spell.

      • Troy says:

        You can use labels all you like to oppose those who will defend what is good and right, it doesn’t make your position any stronger. I stand for what has always underpinned the building blocks of a strong society, marriage as it has always been since time immemorial, between one man and one woman for life and I do not subscribe to your radical agenda. Your own so-called radicals have already stated that this is not about marriage but actually destroying the family unit. Interesting that we so called “homophobes” dont feel the need to flaunt ourselves in a huge “heterosexual ” carnival every year flaunting ourselves in the public arena, yet we who quietly get on with our lives and families have to be subjected to your public show of blatant sexuality.. It is you that need to grow up and realise that even if the state endorses a different view of marriage, it will change nothing and will not be recognised by the one that really matters, nor will it ever be…

  7. Aims says:

    Hi I’ve never posted in one of these things before but reading Craigs religious justification brings up a question that always makes me wonder. ..
    If athiests can marry, why can’t a same sex couple…that is if your argument about marriage being a religious term is correct. I’m not athiest. I’m not anything. I don’t really think about it. The only thing i don’t believe in is religion. There may be a maker, the world is an amazing place. But why can athiests marry? … I’m talking the type you think will go to “hell”. No one blinks an eye at that. Yet a full believer in a religion and it’s god who loves someone of their own sex is not allowed to get married? … or use that term? That’s just silly.
    Very very silly. And really, doesn’t make sense. Thou shall night judge, right? Also. …did you have sex before marriage? I believe that is a sin, just like being gay is. So therefore there are alot of sinful marriages kickin around. Man oh man, that Hell joint is going to be packed to the brim.

    • robw77 says:


    • Craig says:

      I don’t know the answers. And I don’t know how relevant it is, concerning the question of why it matters.
      On the question of sin, The bible says that all have sinned and no sin is greater than another.
      This is the reason that we need a savior to be reunited with God.
      marriage is thin on the ground, if it is, in fact, it was given by God as a union between man and woman, and if this is the case, then it is long overdue for an overhaul. In this day and age it represents only a legal status and an expression of love. If it is meant to be more than that, then it follows that those who place belief in God in to their marriage, would in fact be the only people truly married, by this definition.
      I can’t say wether that’s the case or not.
      I don’t condemn anyone. I have my opinion of what homosexuality is, and I’m entitled to my opinion. I love and respect all people. I am not homophobic. I believe that no man is any better than any other man before God, and that God loves all men unconditionally, even those who would shout out hatred of God from the roof tops.
      Hell is not filled with anyone who ever sinned.
      To claim this is to completely misunderstand the gift of salvation and the significance of the life and sacrifice of Jesus, who died so that we could be forgiven.
      Some will say, I live a good life, I’m a good person, I don’t need forgiveness.
      To suggest this, is to claim you have never missed the mark, and to misunderstand the unobtainable perfection of God, which He has no expectation on us to achieve.
      The Grace of God transcends ALL understanding.
      I hope this helps.
      Blessings be with you.

      • Ben in oakland says:



        “I don’t know the answers. And I don’t know how relevant it is, concerning the question of why it matters.” but every post you have made claims exactly the opposite. Oh you frame it as a question, but there is no doubt as to your definitive answers. You aren’t interested in the facts.

        “On the question of sin, The bible says that all have sinned and no sin is greater than another.
        This is the reason that we need a savior to be reunited with God.” You need a savior. I feel fine without one. Sin is a religious concept. YOUR religion, not mine.

        “marriage is thin on the ground,” Blame it on heterosexuals. Until recently, we weren’t allow to. Do as Jresus bade you, and stop looking for the speck in my eye. You’re missing the forest in your own.

        “In this day and age it represents only a legal status and an expression of love.” No, lots of people give it a religious dimension. JUST NOT YOURS.

        “If it is meant to be more than that, then it follows that those who place belief in God in to their marriage, would in fact be the only people truly married, by this definition.” Nothing is stopping you. Certainly not my marriage.

        “I can’t say wether that’s the case or not.” You are, constantly.

        “I don’t condemn anyone.” When you claim that my marriage will destroy yours, that is exactly what you are doing. It just sounds better to you to claim otherwise.

        “I have my opinion of what homosexuality is.” But you’re probably wrong.

        “and I’m entitled to my opinion.” Absolutely. but not your own facts.

        “I love and respect all people. I am not homophobic.” I doubt that. I have been listening to so-called religious people explain to be that they don’t hate me, they just believe that my civil rights, my life, my love, my faith, my children, my family, and my assets are just not as important as theirs. And if I’m thrown into prison, have people call me a threat to everything good and holy– WHICH YOU ARE DOING– well, that’s not hate. It’s love. Extra special, super duper, CHRISTIAN love.

        You should stop believing your own rhetoric, and start getting to know some gay people, and learn about what homosexuality actually IS. Not to mention, marriage, family, and constitutional rights.

        Right now, as far you are speaking only from the ignorance and the completely imaginary superiority of a so-called Christian. When you actually KNOW something about gay people, legal marriage, and other people’s faith’s, you won’t be called out for ignorance.

        • Craig says:

          I’ve never denied my preference.
          I believe that there is a natural union and an unnatural one.
          I’ve never concealed that.
          I hope all is well in your soul.
          I hope your eternity is sealed in a good place.
          Please don’t bother to reply if you are going to continue to express judgemental tripe.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            When you use the words “unnatural union”, you are flinging judgmental tripe. Don’t accuse ME of it.

            When you say “I hope all is well in your soul”, and “I hope your eternity is sealed in a good place.”
            we BOTH know that you mean you are sure I’m damned to hell– because either you don’t like something, or you are sure your god doesn’t like it. You are flinging judgmental tripe. Don’t accuse ME of it.

            Personally, I don’t care what you believe. and I mean that most sincerely. What I care about is what you do with that idea. When you try to harm my life, limit my participation in society, and frankly, make up shit about me, expect my very strong disagreement. All I want from you is the same respect you routinely extend to all of the rest of the people you are certain are going to burn in hell forever.

  8. Joy Egan says:

    If my gay son 23(the love of my life) finds a partner, gets married and has children I would be the happiest person in the world. He would be a fantastic Dad. These self righteous bigetts need to understand that children that are lived be it by 2 males, 2 females or 1 male, & 1 female they will be happy and prosper. I am sorry but the ignorant fuck wits really piss me off

  9. Rob Thomas says:

    Show me one shred of scientific evidence that “God” exists and the fact the he defined marriage as man and woman. Just 1 shred.

    Marriage is not about man and woman, as written in an old book that religious nuts wrote to try to ensure their control over such things. Marriage is about bringing 2 people together that love each other and those people (note the repeated word “people), affirming their love in front of their family and friends. What is so fundamentally wrong with that?

    Before you start, religious people are free to practise their religion, without fear of retribution etc etc, I have no issue with that. I accept people for who they are, not what they are or what religion they follow. But who are these Christians that believe they have some ordained “right” to say what others may or may not do?

    I will also say that I grew up in a place where religion was used to justify the murder of innocent people, security forces and so on, but still choose to accept people regardless of their religion.

    Will the world stop spinning if same-sex marriage is legalised in Australia? Will “God” rain down plagues of locusts as has supposedly happen before? Will the world end? I don’t think so. People will get up in the morning, go to work, come home, have dinner as a family, go to sleep and repeat. Now, will the same things happen if that family happens to be a lesbian couple that have adopted a child in dire need of a stable family life? Will those things happen if it is 2 men who have done the same? No it won’t.

    Apologies if I have offended gay religious people with some of my comments, it was not intended and possibly could have been written in a better way. But the point is, nothing is going to change with the legalisation of gay marriage. NOTHING. So those bigots who believe they can say who does and does not get married, go stuff yourselves. It WILL happen, whether you like it or not. And do you know what, the world will be a much better place when it happens around the world as is already happening, because the world will be a more accommodating and tolerant place than it is now!

    • Craig says:

      Who can know when?
      God loves us all beyond our understanding, including you, Rob, and he is sustaining us all so we have opportunity to see him for who he is. He even accepts your disbelief or even your hatred of Him, and has only love and understanding for you.
      Judgmental christians will be held to account before him, but will ultimately receive forgiveness as God wipes away all tears.
      You are correct; it’s not a Christian’s right, to assume the position of judge. However, if christians have legitimate reason to stand for an institution which was created by God; to unite a man and a woman and to represent a spiritual balance of equal opposites, then this is important, and it is a rightful
      consideration in the debate.
      The oldest and most revered record seems to claim marriage as Gods own, which was given to mankind.
      With your position of disbelief in God, it is for you to prove that marriage was made by man. If that’s the case, then we can do what we like with it, and the Christian argument will have no legitimacy.
      Thanks for sharing and may peace and blessings befall you and your family for all your days. Craig.

      • Rob Thomas says:

        Hi Craig,

        Firstly let me thank you for your reply. I can’t try to say thank you enough for an actual reasoned response to my post. Few and far between these days don’t you think!

        I do disagree with you on most of what you have said, that is part of what makes me unique and myself, but I certainly appreciate your point of view.

        It is not for me to prove that God does not exist, nor is it for you to prove that God does exist. To be honest no one really knows for sure, that is why what you have is faith. You have faith in someone, some being that will wipe away your sins, that you follow down a strict path, and that is your right. Just as it is my right to believe that that is not the case at all, that I will base my belief in trusted and proven science.

        None of this matters in the topic we are discussing. “God” did not invent nor purport Love onto anyone. That is what happens when 2 people feel the same for each other, 2 people that have immense feelings for each other. What is wrong with those 2 people standing up in front of their friends and families and pledging their love to each other? At what point does religion actually have any bearing on that at all? The answer is that it has no place in deciding who can or cannot get married. Live and let live is correct (as you said in an earlier post). Does it affect you personally if 2 men or 2 women get married? No, it affects your religious beliefs. And that is what you have grown up believing, no harm no foul, you are entitled to your beliefs, just as those who are gay are entitled to be married and celebrate their love and commitment to each other in front of their family and friends.

        I just wanted to add a reference to your comment about the “Christian argument will have no legitimacy”. Under law, that argument does not have any legitimacy, never has, never will. It is a set of beliefs that have permeated the social system for many many years now, and is so far out of date it is untrue. There is a growing need for this to be updated, and it is starting to happen, in many places around the globe, with Ireland being the latest, by overwhelming majority. I also want to add that Ireland (well, Northern Ireland) is where I grew up, the homophobia I saw every day is the most damning form of discrimination I have seen for a while. And that is what it is, discrimination. Something that needs to end.

        Again, thank you for your reasoned reply. I feel we will have to agree to disagree on many many points here, but that is the thing with reasoned and adult interaction, 2 sides of an argument, given without distaste to each other, and for that you have to be commended!

        • Rob Thomas says:

          And Craig, let me apologise, I said you posted “Live and let live”. That was someone else, got that mixed up. So apologies for that.

        • Craig says:

          Everyone has an opinion of ‘religion’ based on an experience, yours is based on your Irish upbringing, which, I understand is probably the pinnacle of religious contradiction in human history.
          I’m compelled to point out that Jesus expressed his disregard for religion and religious leaders, and those who would manipulate and use religion for personal gain.
          He hated the spirit of religion.
          If Jesus was who he says he was, then faith in God is not what you have been led to believe it is from your upbringing, or from the world at large at all. What we see in religion is a representation of everything about false worship and hypocritical lifestyle that God detests, and that he sent is Son to teach against and to encourage us to resist at all costs.
          We didn’t listen.
          Gods love, Gods true love, does not discriminate against anyone.
          The early christian Church, as described in the book of Acts was amazing, living an incredible communal lifestyle of sharing their wealth so that even the extreme poor were cared for.
          Homosexuality is not discussed, but union between a man and a woman, is, it’s strengths and its power when conducted under God’s wing.
          Keeping of rules is not a focus, but lifestyle sin and the consequences are, without drawing specificity to sexuality.
          My faith is in a God of truth, love and life, who also promises eternal life in return for nothing more than faith.
          A God like that, who we have misunderstood, is worthy of investigation.
          My servitude is not as brutal and absorbing as your experience has seen. It is a spiritual fight, not a fight of self denial and torture that you may have experienced from boring, man-made religion.
          If my God is real, and marriage, does, in fact, belong to this God, and has a prescribed application between a man and a woman, then there may be consequences for dismantling it beyond its prescribed use.
          There is wisdom in considering preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman under the protection of God.
          If there is hope for mankind reserved for us by God, extinguishing a pattern which appears to be something very important to God, may have unforeseen consequences.
          Why not move with caution?
          Ignore the religious bigotry and ignore your experience with religion, and contemplate the attitude of Jesus, how lived and died for us all, who loved and accepted everyone, beyond bigotry and beyond the pressure of the Jewish religious types – the same types which we associate with God today.
          If we can see a God who is worthy of respect and honor, we can at least consider the merit of his true will – above and beyond the confines of ugly religion.
          I believe Jesus accepts GLBT people and loves them without distinction from anyone else. The Bible says that all have fallen short of the glory of God, so why would that God put me above any other.
          We are all equal, we are all loved beyond our understanding, regardless of the nature of our sin.
          I believe Jesus wouldn’t want any person to live in a society where anyone had less rights than another.
          Why not sustain marriage as defined; between a man and a woman, and create a mechanism of union which delivers equal legal rights?
          Surely that protects all interests, and offends only the bigots. Let them be offended.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            “If my God is real, and marriage, does, in fact, belong to this God, and has a prescribed application between a man and a woman, then there may be consequences for dismantling it beyond its prescribed use.”

            Two huge assumptions, neither of which has the slightest legal applicability. Prove your particular, peculiar version of god is the only one and true one, and then prove that he in any sense owns marriage, and you might have a point. Otherwise, all you are insisting on is that your beliefs aobut god should have legal dominion over other people’s beliefs about god. That is the opposite of religious freedom, not its fulfillment.

            There MAY be consequences? Back when Berkeley passed the first DP ordinance in the country– 1982– or 1985 when Denmark did, religionists were all claiming it was an attack on marriage. Twenty years earlier, when sodomy was first decriminalized in Illinois, religionists were claiming it was an attack on morality, heterosexuality, children and family. Not a shred of evidence has surfaced since. Why is this different?

            “There is wisdom in considering preserving marriage as a union between a man and a woman under the protection of God. If there is hope for mankind reserved for us by God, extinguishing a pattern which appears to be something very important to God, may have unforeseen consequences.”

            Will heterosexuals stop getting married if I am allowed to? If so, they obviously don’t think much about God’s institution, morality, faith, the building block of society, and so on. Oh wait! with a 50% divorce rate, a 33% adultery rate, and a 40%-70% illegitimacy rate, THEY ALREADY DON’T.

            all you are doing is pulling a kinder, gentler version of the Wrath o’ God out for public consumption. If heterosexuals abandon marriage, as you seem to be claiming, because gay people can get married, then it says nothing positive about faith or heterosexuality.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          “No, it affects your religious beliefs.”

          more accurately, it does not affect his religious beliefs at all, only his beliefs ABOUIT his religious beliefs, including the one that says his religious beliefs, his purely theological concerns, should have dominion over the lives of people who don’t share them.

          I agree with you 100% otherwise.

          • Troy Geri says:

            And why should yours have dominion over our lives ? You come across as standing up for what you feel as unfair judgement on your life yet you quire happily trample on others that disagree with you, grow up

          • Ben in Oakland says:

            That you think it has the slightest thing to do with your life is exactly the problem. Whether i am married or not married has nothing to do with your life, and vice versa. It only concerns you because you have decided it does, because YOU DON”T LIKE IT, and you think your god agrees with you.

            I’m not trampling on you or anybody. Until you took the trouble to post something on a year old column, I didn’t know you existed, and vice versa. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married. don’t come to my wedding, and I won’t expect a gift.

          • Ben in Oakland says:

            You are a very funny guy. “Your own so-called radicals have already stated that this is not about marriage but actually destroying the family unit. ”

            Don’t you know that in your holy book, the very same passage that says we gay people will not inherit the kingdom of god, in the very same passage, reviling and slander will do exactly the same thing. You had better hope that you don’t die before you retract this. Otherwise, it is off to the eternal barbeque for you.

      • ejvf says:

        Seriously Craig you need to get over yourself. The oldest record is man’s, not God’s. Why does Rob have to prove anything? Oh I see, because your Christian beliefs are superior. And where is this record? Christian’s don’t own marriage, didn’t invent it, they don’t set out the rules for God, they don’t make the rules for anyone but themselves. None of us non-Christians, whether we believe in God or not, need to prove anything to you or your kind. Why is it that you all need to believe Christian’s are special in God’s eyes? Jesus wasn’t a Christian, I suppose he’s going to hell with the rest of us. Do you justify your judgemental attitude by believing that you will be forgiven? You should treat people with more respect, how’s that for a judgement.

        • Craig says:

          God loves us and cares for us beyond our understanding. I respect your opinion and thank God that you, like me, have the do freedom to express it.
          I’m trying my best to consider all angles, and I admit that I have a preference.
          I don’t really need to get over anything about myself.
          God bless you.

          • robw77 says:

            Craig, I am a Christian, and I am aware that the Bible is not the oldest historical document, and its compilation is actually quite sketchy. Marriage did not start with it, nor did religions own it until later in human history. Having faith is admirable, but you have based some of the things you wrote on complete falsehoods.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            I have no doubt that god loves and cares for us beyond our understanding. I’m not questioning god.

            I’m questioning YOU,.

          • ejvf says:

            Craig, if you think you have the right to impose your belief system as “right” and place the burden of evidence on the other then you do. I don’t understand you people at all. It’s a book of stories, written by man, the stories have moved in and out over time with political preferences. Believe what ever you like, but claiming the high ground when you have no evidence and trying to hijack marriage as your own is out of line in my opinion.

      • wordgot says:

        Craig, The oldest recovered text says something like. “Bow to your king, pray to your God, but fear only the tax collector.” Or, if you want a more extended oldest text, there’s the Epic of Gilgamesh. Or, Humans being social animals, you could consider that inclusiveness is written in our dna.

        It’s great that your god is loving and forgiving, but do you really think she wants to be used as a pretext for excluding people?

    • robw77 says:

      In agreement Rob Thomas. One other point– the idea that one man- one woman marriage is the mandate of the Bible is a fallacy. Marriage in the bible is depicted in multiple forms, and the quote that people who claim one man/one woman was made, ironic in this case, about divorce — not marriage. That quote is Jesus saying that adultery is the only legitimate reason for divorce (He fails to mention anything about “or because the State changes the rules”). Also ironic– most anti-same sex marriage Christians DO believe in divorce for many reasons which makes them more “unrepentant sinners” than the gay people they condemn.

      • Craig says:

        That’s good stuff, Rob.
        I’m actually searching for some clarification myself. I’m sorry if I sound like my stance is in concrete, it’s not.
        It may well be the car that the Christian union between a man and a woman with the Holy Spirit as the third cord, the rope which is not easily broken, is in fact something other than a marriage. Maybe the Christians who want clarification in this need a new definition of their unique union.
        I know so many Christians who are so hung up on this word “marriage” that I don’t know what to think.
        But I do think.
        The Genesis account is the reference to marriage that I am referring to, when I refer to the first recorded ‘marriage’.
        If I am incorrect in this, and marriage is a man-made thing, I have always stated that we should do whatever we want with it, to provide equal human rights.
        I really appreciate your input, Rob, thanks.

        • robw77 says:

          Thanks for the thoughtful dialogue. Here are some ideas, not to persuade you, but for your consideration: There are actually two accounts of creation in Genesis, not one. Male and female humans are created in Chapter one, and then the story of Adam and Eve appears in chapter two. After translated into english, this appears to be just a very badly chonologized telling of the story, but if you see the two original documents, you see that they are in fact two separate accounts pushed together– the name for God is different in each. Marriage is not conducted for Adam and Eve. Procreation between them is not something that happens until after the Fall. Child-bearing is given to Eve not as a blessing but as a punishment for her failures in the Garden. If you read further in Genesis, it implies fathership of Adam but seems to indicate that these are not from Eve, so monogamy is not implied, nor was it culturally expected. The marriage structure that you want to find was not constructed until well after 1000 AD.
          Even with that, the symbolic ideals that you ascribe to marriage never were truly realized in heterosexual unions where a dominant member of society took responsibility for a subordinate. It is THAT feature that Christ was referring to when he made his comments on marriage– He was protecting women who would be discarded by their husbands from boredom, or disinterest, and left to starve. But I respect your wanting the family to represent a spiritual union of God and Church — powerful symbolism. So– why are you withholding even that blessing and ideal from a same sex couple? Why can’t the God reflection in one person find the Church-ideals and standards in the other? Aren’t we at a place in living out the equality Christ taught us in his second Great Commandment to not restrict people based on gender, but to give them full equality in their hearts and souls? Is it really a sin in your eyes to see that the soul and heart in a male body is in fact equal to the soul and heart in a female body? Doesn’t that make the fixation to ostracize people into their separate camps based solely on their genitalia feature ridiculously superficial in a Child-of-God way?

  10. Chris says:

    Live and let live.

  11. If anyone is acting like children, its pro-same-sex marriage… If you want something that someone else owns and has owned for a very long time, and if they won’t give it to you that means you cannot have it. Instead of stealing from other people, make something new that you can call your own… SO DON’T HAVE A TEMPER TANTRUM WHEN YOU CANNOT HAVE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. narcissists…

    Instead of stealing from other people MAKE SOMETHING NEW…

    • Be honest. You are 10 years old, right? Otherwise, there is no excuse for the way you twisted the article totally around to make gay people the irrational ones, rather than this couple who are the ones having a temper tantrum. Perhaps when you grow up and mix with many different kind of people you will have a more mature view point on this issue.

      • Craig says:

        I think he’s actually on the right track with the concept of a new form of Union with the same set of rights. I don’t like the expression of attitude, but I agree and have been advocating the same idea.
        If marriage is not From God, we can do whatever we want with it, who cares? marry a tree, marry a website, marry a distant planet in another galaxy – who cares?
        If marriage IS God given, then it should be between a man and a woman, as prescribed. I say this because I know that God is all about patterns and types of things and there is regular emphasis.
        Either way, people who want a same sex union, or any union, for that matter which doesn’t involve God, should have an option to do so, other than Marriage, which provides equality of rights.
        If this is the case, then the marriage laws have been wrong for a long time and should have had an option available ages ago.
        This would solve the problem of defacto relationships, which not only have restricted rights available to the partners but has a name which just sounds awful.
        If we are smart we can fix a lot of problems at once with a legislative change which is done right.

        • ejvf says:

          Prescribed by which God Craig – Christian’s? Seriously, you privilege your own personal belief system through this whole discussion and try and suggest that it’s balanced. Where does it say anywhere that people who don’t believe in God should not marry – seriously, your whole concept of “God” is too small and limited for me. There is no problem unless people choose to make it so.

        • Newt says:

          Hi Craig,

          I can see your point – but I think that while the move toward a new civil institution not called ‘marriage’ could have been a viable option if it had been put forward a long, long time ago, it is difficult to make a case for it now that civil marriages (performed by the state with no mention of God or gods – a legal recognition of partnership outside of spirituality) have been in place for so long. If the ‘marriage’ aspect of civil marriages was now removed, there are countless couples all over Australia who have been married for years who would be declared ‘unmarried’, and there are so many who are planning weddings who would suddenly be unable to…

          As I see it, in a country like Australia where there are so many different faiths and religions, there are many different approaches to marriage; many different styles/modes of ceremonies; many different sets of requirements as to who can get married and what a marriage is. A Muslim marriage ceremony differs from a Jewish ceremony, which differs from a Catholic ceremony, which differs from a Protestant ceremony, which differs from a civil ceremony. The requirements for the couple to be eligible to marry varies between faiths and institutions. The important thing is that each is allowed to define what a marriage is for its own purposes.

          This also means that if marriage is From God (and means that the union of the two people being married is blessed and sanctified by their God), then people married under other traditions (not sanctified by God) would not be seen as properly ‘married’ from the perspective of that faith (whether they are a man-and-a-man married with a civil ceremony or a man-and-a-woman who are Buddhists). That is each religion’s prerogative.

          But it does not mean that only one’s own religious organisation or institution should be the only one with the right to define and perform marriages (Christianity does not define what a Muslim marriage is – I similarly don’t see why it should define a civil marriage). Christianity does not have to recognise or perform a Pagan marriage. Each church/institution/belief-system only has to perform only the ceremonies that fit within their beliefs.

          The move toward marriage equality is that the union of two consenting adults of any sex or gender can be performed if the faith/institution wishes it – including in a civil ceremony (and marriages have long been performed in Australia already as civil ceremonies, with no mention of any God or gods). With marriage already being a civil institution in one of its many versions, it is up to civil society to define what that particular version of marriage can be… and in a society where we are trying to/beginning to move away from prejudice and discrimination, it accurately reflects the views of the broader society that marriage should be able to include consenting adult couples regardless of sex or gender. I don’t think it then means that anything goes (a tree… a website…), it reflects what civil society views as a valid committed relationship between two consenting adults who wish to spend their lives together.

          This would also be a move forward, too, for religions that do recognise same-sex marriage (Quakers, also called the Religious Society of Friends, for example, are one Christian-based religion that recognises and accept same-sex marriages, and it is in violation of their religious beliefs to not be able to legally register one type of partnership that is equal to other partnerships in their eyes. I am aware of this because I have friends – a heterosexual couple – who are Quakers who were married last year but did not register their marriage legally. This was because in their spiritual view partnerships between consenting adults should be valued equally under God, and they did not see it as right to take a legal privilege that other marriages in their faith could not be granted).

          Anyway, that is a very long answer… but I hope it makes some sense.

          • Craig says:

            Yeah, I agree.
            I am sure the concept is not without some need of ‘undoing’.
            However, I think it is possible.
            The change I’m suggesting would create a definition which may have some issues, doubtless.
            But, should a equivalent set of rights be created, under a different banner, then the pre-existing married people could have a choice of interchangeability, without any consequences except to discredit God from any involvement in their Union.
            I see this having several problems, but also solving several.
            The first question to be answered from my point of view is, “does marriage belong to God or not?”
            Everything else is semantics, until this is resolved, however, this may be as difficult to answer as the very question of Gods existence, so… Who knows.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          I should accept what YOU and your CHURCH are willing to grant me. Why shuld I accept something that you wouldn’t accept for yourself?

          If you think anyone can marry a tree, or that marriage doesn’t predate your religion, you have no concept of marriage, either historically or legally. If you want to believe that your holy marriage is special, how about YOU find a special name for it.

          Your religion isn’t the only one, nor does your church represent all of Christianity.

          • Craig says:

            Yep. That’s a good point. Maybe marriage is not a biblical thing created by God.
            I’ve always professed, throughout the discussion. That defining wether or not Marriage is from God, and it holds special meaning, is a key definition.
            Without clarification of this definition we can do what we want with it.
            The reference to a tree is a suggestion of the freedom that marriage can have, for all I care, if it doesn’t belong to God. It’s not to be taken literally.
            God bless.

    • Cat Kendo says:

      and your name actually rhymes with bigot. LOL

    • You do realise, right, that the hatred toward homosexuals comes from a hatred of women. Because, for a man to be treated like a woman is the worst thing you can do to him. For a gay man to relinquish his male privilege, is offensive to male power. Let me give you an example, when a coach wants to berate his team, he calls them “girls”. Why is that a bad thing? Why does that work? because people like you are afraid to lose their patriarchal power.

      So grow up. Stop using “tradition” as an excuse to hate. In short, stop being a dickhead.

      • Craig says:

        WTF? That doesn’t sound right??
        Let’s just stick to the defense of human right instead of trying to become Head Psychologist, hey Sigmund?

        • robw77 says:

          Craig, it would be nice if you could give others the same latitude to their opinion that you have received from them here. Victoria’s point is highly valid in examining the “why” behind homophobia. You have stated your opinion and no one has called you Head of God even though you speak with that kind of authority. Behavior is as important as words….fyi.

          • Craig says:

            That’s fair enough. Sorry about that.
            I don’t agree with the generalization that hatred of homosexuals is rooted in in hatred of women. I believe this is an ambiguous statement. I also don’t believe the discussion about hatred of homosexuals is called for in a conversation about human rights.
            An expression of hatred of any segment of humanity is clearly bigotry, and will be fitting closed down.
            Thanks for pulling me up I my ride response to Victoria’s post. Cheers.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          if you are interested in defending human rights, please try to remember that gay people are human, too.

    • By definition, if someone steals something, then someone else had it AND LOSES IT as a result of the theft. (Caps for emphasis, not shouting.) Heterosexual couples lose exactly nothing if gay couples marry. It’s not a theft. It’s expanding access to something that isn’t finite – the right to marry – to include an additional group of people.

      By saying homosexuals should make something new, you’re saying they are second-class citizens, not entitled to have something that it costs hetero couples nothing to give. And that, sir, makes you a bigot. Or a troll.

      • Craig says:

        No body said anybody should have anything less. The only issue is equal legal rights. If an institution of union which is NOT marriage, and is also NOT inferior to marriage is created, there is no superiority and no human rights violation.
        By this measure, everyone is happy.
        I don’t understand why this approach is so offensive. I find it quite satisfying on many levels.
        If anyone then has an inferiority complex, that will be a personal issue that they will have to grow through, but they will not be at any other tangible disadvantage by such legislation.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          YOU find it satisfying because YOU believe that YOU are a superior person, and that YOUR religion is a superior religion. That’s all.

          What you are advocating is separate but equal. They are not equal. We tried that, remember?

          • Craig says:

            I’m not a superior person.
            I have no sense of supremacy except for that afforded me in Christ, in eternity, which is available to all by the Grace of God.
            This supremacy is not mine to boast of, only to share.
            All people are entitled to equal rights.

        • travis says:

          You can’t understand why gay people find it offensive to be given there own separate “version” of marriage?
          Can you understand why black Americans found it offensive many years ago when they had to travel in their own “version” of public transport? Swim in their own version of a public swimming pool? Go to their own version of school?
          Have you got it yet or do I actually need to explain it to you?
          I’m guessing that I will have to explain it to you.
          Suggesting that we need our own version is also suggesting that we are second class people. You know, like not equal to you.
          I don’t need my own version of marriage.

      • robw77 says:

        Here are historical facts about marriage. One not in this list is the fact that the WORD “marriage” is not all that old itself. Key point– The Church did not usurp marriage as a sacrament until about 1200 AD. before that, it was driven by the governments…


    • Savannah PHOENIX says:

      make something new ? How can you own marriage ? please educate yourself ….

      • Craig says:

        the question at the heart of the issue is wether or not marriage belongs to God, and is reserved for a man and a woman. No-one can rightfully defend unequal rights.
        so, if these to factors hold, then it makes sense that you would create something new.
        If marriage does not belong to God, then we can do what we want with it.

        • ejvf says:

          If marriage belongs to a Christian God then our Laws should not recognise it in any shape or form. Love the way Christians insist on influencing politics and policy at all levels, but when it doesn’t suit them, it belongs to God exclusively – fabulous! Marriage has been around longer than Christianity, that Christians claim it for their own to make the rules for is just ridiculous.

        • ejvf says:

          If Marriage belongs to God then it doesn’t belong to Christianity either because Christianity is man made, so Christians don’t speak for God, or Jesus for that matter, so they should just get on with what ever it is and leave the rest of us alone.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          “If marriage does not belong to God, then we can do what we want with it.”

          We’re talking about CIVIL, LEGAL marriage. That’s the debate, not whether your particular, peculiar version of god and what he wants is the right one.

          We’ve already proved that it does not. God hates divorce, says Malachi. Yet we have divorce.

    • Ben in oakland says:

      Really? You OWN marriage? How sublimely silly.

  12. Em says:

    I really don’t get it. I didn’t get married in a church, I was raised by a humanist and a lapsed Baptist and I married a catholic. I already had a child and we now have a child between us. Our children are being educated in the catholic school system even though we never attend church (feel free to call me a hypocrite, that is fair). Surely (surely) I must have broken every rule in the religious book…I’ve even named one of my children after a Norse goddess (see commandment 1). I live in Australia, I moved here from the UK, but this couple don’t object to me. I would have thought I’d give far more reason for these “Christian” people to be up in arms! The religious argument makes no sense in a modern world. Marriages consist of all sorts of people from different backgrounds who happen to fall in love, many of whom defy the terrifying odds of marriage failure and raise children with a slightly greater tolerance for “differences”. My legal marriage ceremony may not be recognised by God in your view but it celebrated two people who found each other against the odds and created a beautiful family from their marriage. Worth celebrating I think. Great letter by the way.

  13. Craig says:

    why does this guy even care?

    • Because he’s trying to make a point in the face of religious hysteria which is getting more media time than the real issues.

      • Craig says:

        He certainly holds his own opinion in high esteem, based on his opening remarks of how he apparently saved a Utah man from starvation with his last letter.
        He also doesn’t understand what bothers conservative Australians about the issue of same sex marriage.
        I don’t think he’s making any difference at all and neither are the stupid couple who are threatening to divorce.
        I care about the issue, but this whole story is just more bullshit journalism that isn’t print-worthy.

        • robw77 says:

          You certainly seem to be vested in self-projection Craig. I care as both a Christian who does not like to see the principles of Christ reduced to superstitious nonsense as this couple has done, and as an LGBT family that your POV does not even acknowledge existing. You on the other hand have NO skin in this, it does not involve your own personal life at all.
          If this story is such “bull shit” as you claim, you may want to ask yourself why YOU are spending so much time on it. More than any other of the hundreds of thousands who have read it, and the tens of thousands who have shared it.
          Oh, and the story is Opinion, not journalism (although I think facts are important so they are included) — and opinion is one thing you seem to like to hold in high regard for yourself, but rankle that others might have their own.

          PS: The article I wrote on the young man starving himself was sent to him, and went very big. There is also a follow up article on his giving up his campaign. Whether the first article had any influence is undetermined– I just listed the sequence of events in this piece.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          What “bothers” conservative Australians is 2000 years of homobigotry, where every gay person, no matter how noble, is the legal, social, cultural, religious, sexual, and moral inferior of any heterosexual, no matter how base, no matter how crappy as a human being.

          what bothers conservative Australians is having their religious dominion challenged- dominion over gay people in particular and people who don’t share their religious views in a secular society in general.

          If you have some actual REALITY based arguments– facts, logic, and experience– please bring them out so that they can be examined and debated. Religious views without reality are simply that– religious views. Yours have no more validity as facts than do anyone else’s. Nor should they have more legal influence is a society which values freedom of religion.

    • Haley says:

      Why do you? Obviously because you suffer the same self-importance as the Australian Couple with their superior views. This is why I do not practise religion any longer. I could not stand the people I attended church with thinking they were better than everybody else. From what I can see – nothing has changed.

  14. Shane says:

    I’m ashamed that this family lives in my city. I can’t imagine having that much hate in my heart for one segment of our community.

    And just quietly, I think Mr Jensen likes cock. The man doth protest too much.

  15. Alona says:

    I’m guessing they secretly want a divorce but their moral high ground won’t let them, so they’re blaming this….either that or they are mentally unbalanced!

  16. but, but .. surely the Jensens could have same sex affairs without going to the trouble of divorcing, as long as they were discreet and didn’t frighten the horses?

  17. Alex R Cross says:

    I don’t have the perfect words to describe how impressed I am with your letter.

  18. Ryan says:

    Marriage is an ancient institution deeply rooted in religion. What don’t you f****** understand? You can have all the legal protection you want for your relationships nobody will begrudge you that. But you’re messing with a special tradition between a man and a woman. You want to cheapen it for everyone by putting a rainbow over it. You’ve got your obscene parade, be satisfied.

    • Gm says:

      Marriage has only entered religion very recently in human history. Marriage predates Christianity.

      • Craig says:

        Correct. Marriage predates Christianity. However, the archetypical model of man completing woman and woman completing man, does not. The image of the savior coming, Bridegroom, coming to receive the believers, the church, the Bride, and the spiritual power of this relationship, is the heart and soul of marriage.
        A tiny portion of people understand this and thereby, a tiny portion of people are actually “married.”
        This is about rights. The rights of de facto couples, GLBDSM or whatever.
        A new act is required under which people can be united, independent of marriage, then a lot less people could be married and a lot more people could be United with the same rights.
        Everyone will be happy.

        • Jack says:

          My question for you: Do you believe that the Australian couple is right in divorcing should marriage equality become realized?

          Surely they should be able to bask in the idea that they are one of the few that are “actually ‘married'” and remain married by your standards. It would also be a “redefinition” of marriage by a secular entity, not by the church which they are so devout to.

          31.5% of the world identifies as Christian or some variation of Christian, leaving 68.5% of the world out of this idea of marriage that you have provided us. It’s not a wonder that not that many people are defined as “married” by your standards because you’ve already eliminated over 2/3 of the entire population who may have different views on the idea of marriage and what it’s about than you do. That’s not to say that there aren’t other religions out there that don’t agree with the idea of a man and a woman, but not necessarily in your idea of one man, one woman, or by the “laws” of which your religion (which I can only assume is Christian or some variation of Christian, and if I’m wrong please feel free to correct me) approach marriage.

          Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, which I absolutely respect and I feel we will be best off to agree to disagree on this issue. However, as a heterosexual, non-religious supporter of marriage equality, I feel that people of all race, creed, and sexual orientation should be allowed to marry and be given equal rights. I know you wish for equal rights as well, but as previously stated, we shall agree to disagree on the approach.

          May your God be with you and have a pleasant day.

          • Craig says:

            I think someone really needs to figure out if marriage is a God given thing or not.
            If it is, it has long been misused, and a new area of constitutional rights need to be identified.
            Existing married couple could chose if they they are “married”, or, say, “United” but there rights would become interchangeable.
            If marriage does not belong to God, and it is a man-made institution, then we can do what we want with it and there is no objection from me on the issue.
            God forbid that we would have different rights for different people.
            Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have restricted rights as Australian citizens.
            While we’re talking about human rights, let’s damn well get that sorted out, too!

        • Ben in oakland says:

          No, everyone will not be happy. Only the people who think they own the word, the concept, and the institution of marriage.

          The image of the savior coming and the church as the bridegroom of Christ is purely a Christian image, and 2/3 of the world simply does not ascribe to Christianity.

          “A new act is required under which people can be united, independent of marriage.” WHY?

          how about this: we keep LEGAL, CIVIL marriage exactly as it is, but inclusive of gay people. If the hyper-religious need to have something special that perfectly encompasses their belief system, they can create something that is religion based only, and call it HOLY MATRIMONY. However, they’ll probably be unhappy when gay affirming churches also conduct same sex marriages and call it HOLY MATRIMONY.

          So, maybe you can call it Mxyzptlk.

        • Suziesyzie says:

          CRAIG: which of the following couples are really married to you: attended a Muslim Indian wedding a few weeks ago. Believe me, marriage is extremely important to the couple and has deep religious meaning. I attended the wedding of two dear men friends two months ago (because same sex marriage is a thing here in the UK). They are devout Christians who attend Church regularly, pray and do charity work. In November I am attending my best friend’s wedding. Both Bride and Groom are atheists. They have 2 children already and have been living together for 5 years. The groom is a divorcee. For each couple, I know that marriage is very important. Now… Please enlighten me… which of those couples should be considered “married”?? And just exactly how does any of your insane narrow “Christian” notions of the term “marriage” fit into the vast array of differing people who live on earth?

    • Sugarstars - Kitty Martin says:

      Ahaha…..oh, Honey, you poor thing! You have some catching up to do! Read some books, study a bit of history. You’re embarrassing yourself!

      This may be wasted on such ignorant types as you, but have a read, be cool and schooled child! 😉

      The basis for your argument is flawed! Marriage was considered an obscenity to the Church. It was an ancient Pagan ritual/rite, until the church adopted it in the 1600’s for the purposes of power, control, economics and assimilation of any people who dared to practice Pagan rituals/rites.

      Here are some facts about the origins marriage, which make this whole issue one of embarrassment to the Christian institute. (That is what a ‘religion’ is based upon- Indoctrinations and institutionalised “Spiritual’ concepts).

      “…The word marriage came from Latin ‘maritare’, union under the auspices of the Goddess Aphrodite-Mari. Because the Goddess’s patronage was constantly invoked in every aspect of marriage, Christian Fathers were opposed to the institution. Origen declared “Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of sexual passion.” St. Ambrose said marriage was a crime against God, because it changed the state of virginity that God gave every man and woman at birth…”

      “…There was no Christian sacrament of marriage until the 16th century. Catholic scholars say the wedding ceremony was ”imposed on” a reluctant church… It is perhaps not remarkable to find that these liturgical forms were not evolved by the church at all, but borrowed from Pagans’ common law…”

      “…The Anglican marriage came from the Anglo-Saxon deeds used to transfer a woman’s land to the ownership of her “house-man” (husband)…”

      “…The Christian priesthood was fighting ancient traditions in which it was remembered that male spiritual authority was dependant on marriage: either a ‘heros gamos’ between the ruler of the land and his Goddess, or the mandatory husbandship of priest who were not allowed to contact the deities unless they had wives.”

      “…So much depended on a man’s ability to remain married, in the most ancient times, that the first rules of marriage invented by men seem to have been rules for ensuring permanent monogamy. Thus a husband could hold on to a woman’s property and children by binding the woman herself. Matriarchal societies seldom permitted sexual jealousy. Women were free to change lovers or husband, to make polyandrous or group marriages. Myths record the transition from loose, flexible marital arrangements favoured by Goddesses to the rigid monogamy favoured by Gods.”

      ~ Referenced from: “The Woman’s Encyclopaedia of Myths and Secrets” by Barbara G. Walker

      And, as the writer had already so eloquently expressed in the article/letter you have commented on, LOVE is not a phenomenon to be monopolised or manipulated.
      Sorry, but you don’t ‘own’ the singular or ‘elite’ right to choose who can love who, nor do you seem to understand what the content of this letter.

      Go read it the letter again… Or, perhaps, go back to school. Humanity is moving forward, so quit making a fool of yourself and catch up, lest you and all other bigots are to become part of the relics we all look back upon as some strange ‘specimen’ or fossil from the dark ages. …EVOLVE!!!! 😉

      • robw77 says:

        Brilliantly stated Kitty Martin. Your answer made me glad Ryan shared his heterosexist feelings. Bravo.

      • Craig says:

        Of all the books you have quoted, you have failed to reference the oldest and most prolific book of all.

        • Prolific and old doesn’t make it right.

          • Craig says:

            The only question is if it’s from God (marriage). If it is, then it shouldn’t be messed with, and we, therefore need a new institution with interchangeable legal rights with marriage.
            If it’s man-made, we can do what we like with it.
            No-one wants to see a world where people have diminished legal rights.

          • Ben in oakland says:

            “No-one wants to see a world where people have diminished legal rights.”

            Except you and your fellow religionists. Because every single advance that gay people have made in the past 70 years towards ending this vicious prejudice has been fought tooth and nail by religionists. EVERY SINGLE ONE. It is because of religion that sodomy laws continued until 2003 in the US. It is RELIGION that has fought non-discrimination laws. It has been religion that has vilified us, slandered us, reviled us, subjected us to prisons, executions, and political campaigns to determine whether we should be allowed to live our lives free of RELIGION.

            Or more accurately, free of an ancient, vicious prejudice that gives itself the thinnest veneer of respectability by labeling itself “sincere religious belief.”
            And you’re no different, however nice a person you think you are.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          What, the Egyptian Book of the Dead? The Iliad? The Rg Veda?

    • don’t worry .. Jesus loves you .. uh ..

    • Ben in oakland says:

      Little boy:

      for at least 200 years, marriage has been a civil institution in the entire civilized world, not a religious one. you want a legal marriage, you get a license from the state. You want religion? It’s optional.

    • Chris says:

      How is anyone ‘messing’ with it? How does it affect anybody else??

    • So you have worked to end the divorce laws? You are advocating for the end of TV shows that turn marriage into a game show? There are many more things that make a mockery of marriage vows. Same sex marriages do none of this.

  19. terry says:

    Five min of fame?you really think that’s why they marry? Whose big fat faces are plastered on fb?

  20. marc says:

    Grow up! Exactly.

  21. Tina says:

    Very well written!!! The guy looks like he’s in the closet himself.
    Attention seekers!!!

  22. Armand Pal says:

    If they divorce over any situation… especially this… they were never married…

  23. Robin says:

    Dear admin: the link to your twitter feed is borked. See the link underlying “Follow us on Twitter @JandJDad”. You will see you missed the .com from the URL

  24. hi2lea says:

    Reblogged this on hi2lea and commented:
    What a great letter.

  25. Se non credono nel principio del matrimonio, fanno bene a divorziare, tantissimi auguri! I matrimoni gay sarebbero un valore aggiunto non una sfida.

  26. dawnsister says:

    “It is none of my business. Nor is it any of yours.” I think this quote sums the entire argument for same sex marriage. It does not undermine anyone’s bond, it simply makes it possible for everyone to share the same legal right to marry.
    Not sure if anyone has used the “and the bible says” argument in this thread yet, but let us remind ourselves, that the bible also say we should beat our wives and sell our daughters into slavery. Sometimes the bible says things we agree with, sometimes it says things we disagree with. That is what the bible is for: studying and interpreting. Some Christians chose to interpret what the bible says as permission to hate those not like themselves. I am Christian. I interpret it as permission to love and accept everyone for what they are.
    I support this letter whole heartedly. Everyone needs to grow up, get their noses out of other people’s business and get on with their own lives in a hope they are, themselves, following whatever set of rules they stand by.

  27. And that is why many LGBT couples are coming to New Zealand to get married. They just want their 5 minutes of fame. Not that their actions really make a difference in the wider scheme of things.

    • Lena says:

      Five minutes of fame? Are straight couples looking for notoriety when they marry? What an asinine statement.

    • terry says:

      Five min of fame? Really,you actually think they get married for fame?stupid.

      • No, I don’t think they married for fame. I mean that they are doing this stunt for 5 minutes of fame. Personally I think that they are stupid. They are totally insensitive people who don’t know what their actions are doing to others. I am leaving my church for these reasons. They are all sanctimonious bigots.

  28. John Sandeman says:

    I wonder if you have gone and read what Nick Jensen actually wrote. He and his wife are not separating, but want to live their marriage outside of the Federal legislation (as it might become in Australia). He agrees that “the validity and strength of (his) marriage” is not “dependent upon (your) marriage not existing”. Or whether your marriage exists. He’s staying married.

    • wordwitter says:

      They are staying married – not for the reasons that you list, but because in order to divorce in Australia, you have to prove that you have been living separately for one year. And they intend to still live together and call each other husband and wife; hence, they don’t fit the criteria for divorce.

      • John Sandeman says:

        Having spoken to Nick Jensen about this, I think his reasoning is closer to what I describe. He’s staying married because he wants to. He’s aware of the legal issues: Australian divorce law gives only one ground for divorce, and his media interviews makes it clear he understands that.

        • Interestingly gay couples can already be religiously married in the sense that Nick Jensen speaks of, but in Australia not in the legal secular sense.

          So he is actually reacting to gays getting the secular marriage that he doesn’t think is important.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          Then what on earth was the point of ANY of this? Oh, yes, to showcase how far anti-gay people would go to harm gay people….

          If it doesn’t actually inconvenience them too much.

          • John Sandeman says:

            I think Mike’s summary is quite good wrt Nick Jensen’s motives. The logic would be to have religious marriage separate from a secular form of marriage. Mike makes the interesting point that gay couples can already be married that way.

    • Ben in oakland says:

      Well, apparently, he is staying ‘religiously” married but not “legally” married. Except that he isn’t doing that, either, as word writer points out below.

  29. Caylee says:

    Reblogged as a waste of time. Isn’t divorce a no-no with mainstream Christianity as well? I think there’s more to this than this idiot is letting on.

  30. Caylee says:

    Reblogged this on micaylahca and commented:
    Such a waste of time. Most Christianity does not believe in divorce either. Will he feel damned to hell for doing what mainstream Christianity declares wrong?

  31. Unfortunately, there are too many people in this world who are quite immature. It’s too bad that their parents did not give them the nurturing they needed in order to be “mature” adults. Their tantrums could, and very often, spill over to hurt others, but in the end, as you state, they hurt themselves. Good post. Thanks.

  32. the actions of this idiot couple do underline that religion is nothing more than a fantasy that makes humans think that they are better than everyone else.

  33. John Guerra says:

    Methinks the son really just wants an excuse for an divorce….

  34. eddie says:

    If you’re going to argue, you need to take your opponent’s worldview into consideration, even if you do not agree with that worldview (That’s the whole point of tolerance, right? Permitting others to have beliefs with which you do not agree?).

    “In your declaration of your decision to divorce, you make clear that you want control over the ‘rules’ or you won’t play by them anymore.”
    Christians believe that God created the institution of marriage (as well as everything else). This couple does not want control over the rules, they simply don’t want the rules changed from what their worldview says God has ordained.

    “Rules are worthless if they are not based on principles. To make things really valuable, these principles should include equality, fairness, inspiration, nurture and positive development.”
    What makes controversial religious principles less valid than your own principles? Hint: the answer is that your principles are more socially acceptable than traditional Christian principles in today’s society, though history will tell you that popular opinion is not a particularly good reason to claim moral superiority.

    I want it to be clear that I disagree completely with this couple’s threat of divorce. If they follow through, the destruction of their marriage will be solely their fault, and cannot possibly have any valuable outcome.

    • robw77 says:

      Thanks for the dialogue eddie. I am not following your logic. The full representation of their position is stated, and I said nothing to not “permit” them from having it. It is NOT a position that is the Christian “Worldview” however, and I say that as another Christian. Their position cannot be justified by the Bible, nor has it been recommended by other anti-gays. And of course they want control over the rules.

      As far as their “religious principles”– please explain what those might be. I see none in evidence. How are they loving god, loving their neighbor as they would themselves?

      I don’t understand the case you are trying to make, except that you feel people who make homophobic moves publicly should not be confronted for them due to some twisting of the concept of “tolerance.”

      • Ben in oakland says:

        “I don’t understand the case you are trying to make, except that you feel people who make homophobic moves publicly should not be confronted for them due to some twisting of the concept of “tolerance.”

        You win the internet today!

    • Ben in oakland says:

      “This couple does not want control over the rules, they simply don’t want the rules changed from what their worldview says God has ordained.’

      Well, that may be their worldview, but it is beyond their control. Lot’s of people don’t live according to what some people claim, without a shred of real evidence, God has ordained. 2/3 of the world thinks with some reason that the Christian story is a quaint myth. Are these two going to stop going to church has a protest?

      And that was exactly Rob’s point. If they are willing to get divorced, they obviously don’t care what god has ordained. Unless they truly believe that only their commitment made in their church has validity. However, if Hubby wants to visit Wifey in the hospital, he may have some legal issues to confront– ones that gay people have to confront all of the time.

      “If they follow through, the destruction of their marriage will be solely their fault, and cannot possibly have any valuable outcome.”

      If that’s your belief, then what on earth are you posting about? Because that is also what Rob was talking about. They are–wait for it– acting as if they do want control over the rules, and are going to throw a temper tantrum if they don’t get their way.

      • RalphH says:

        Ben, maybe you could look at this a different way. The people “throw(ing) a temper tantrum” are those advocating ‘marriage equality’. Marriage is what it is – the joining of two complementary entities – in the case of humans, the joining of male and female. It’s not dependant on a legal definition or a religious one. There is no ‘inequality’ just because some people want to destroy (by redefining) it’s meaning.

        I think the Jensens are very brave to stand up for what they believe is right/to act according to their conscience. It helps to have read their statement http://citynews.com.au/2015/gay-law-change-may-force-us-to-divorce/ rather than rely on Rob’s biased critique.

        A same-sex conjunction will never be the same as a male/female conjunction regardless of all the emotionalism in the world or any legalistic mumbo-jumbo. The real meaning of marriage is not in it’s social aspect (that’s all advocates for ‘marriage equality’ want) but in the inner, spiritual conjunction of hearts and minds of the complementary entities – male and female.

        As I understand it, the Jensens love each other and want to retain the real spiritual meaning of marriage. The legal meaning, if it is changed to verbally include same-sex relationships, will have become a contradictory, confused, meaningless farce which they understandably want nothing to do with.

        • Ben in oakland says:

          What nonsense!

          ” Marriage is what it is – the joining of two complementary entities.” Complementarity is a catholic doctrine, not a fact of the world, nor mentioned anywhere in any law governing marriage, and completely divorced from reality, unless you mean to say that a penis and a vagina are all that is required for marriage. Or worse, that all men are alike and all women are alike.

          ” It’s not dependant on a legal definition or a religious one.” We’re talking about LEGAL marriage. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

          “is no ‘inequality’ just because some people want to destroy (by redefining) it’s meaning.” Really? I want to destroy marriage– by getting married? How easily is the fundamental building block destroyed simply by letting the “wrong people” into it. When you say I want to destroy marriage, you are not demonstrating anything by why your arguments cannot be taken seriously.

          “A same-sex conjunction will never be the same as a male/female conjunction regardless of all the emotionalism in the world or any legalistic mumbo-jumbo.” But religious mumbo jumbo about the church being the bride of Christ is OK and complementarity is just ducky.

          “The real meaning of marriage is not in it’s social aspect (that’s all advocates for ‘marriage equality’ want)”. More nonsense. Plenty of gay Christians (one religion) exist, who believe that god blesses their marriage, as do their ministers and churches. The social aspect? How about the social, legal, familial, faith based, financial, child-based, freedom based, spiritual, bases– and many, many more. your arrogance is astounding.

          “but in the inner, spiritual conjunction of hearts and minds of the complementary entities – male and female.” And that’s why there is no divorce, infidelity, adultery, and abuse
          in the religious and heterosexual worlds.

          “The legal meaning, if it is changed to verbally include same-sex relationships, will have become a contradictory, confused, meaningless farce which they understandably want nothing to do with.” My marriage could hardly be a farce, except to people whose moral and human superiority has no limits in the imaginations of their hearts.

          If my marriage causes YOURS to be a confused, meaningless farce, you should never have gotten married to begin with.

          • RalphH says:

            “Complementarity is a catholic doctrine, not a fact of the world, nor mentioned anywhere in any law governing marriage, and completely divorced from reality, unless you mean to say that a penis and a vagina are all that is required for marriage. Or worse, that all men are alike and all women are alike.” (Ben)

            It may be a “catholic doctrine” Ben but long before that it was and still is “a fact of the world”/a fact of life. Complementarity is implicit in the word/term ‘marriage’. That is why it has been/is used for the complementary joining of human beings. “A penis and a vagina” obviously complement each other but that is only the beginning of the complementary gender differences between men and women. Of course men (individually) and all women differ but all men, as a group (and likewise all women), have gender sameness.

            The idea and argument for ‘marriage equality’ is a complete furphy based on an illogical assumption. If complementary sexual relationships and same-sex relationships are equal then men and women must be the same. Obviously that’s a nonsense. Men and women are ‘equal’ but they are not the same.

            It’s because they are equal (but different – in a complementary way) that they can form a marriage/complementary relationship with each other. This does not apply to same-sex relationships which are not and cannot be marriages. We can make a law stating that they are but that’s just as silly as King Canute’s fan club who believed that he could stop the tide coming in. All such action does is enshrine a falsity/lie into our legal system. The law should be based in reality not in whim or fashion.

            IMO, the Jensen couple are responding (in a rather extreme way) to an emotional foolishness that will create immense confusion and problems in their lives and the lives of the entire community. Their ‘solution’ may be impracticable but I salute them for having the courage to stand up to the delusive foolishness of (so-called) ‘marriage equality’

          • Ben in oakland says:

            Sorry, Ralph, you haven’t made an argument, you haven’t defined anything, you haven’t presented evidence.

            you’ve just made assertions about a religious doctrine, and stated them as fact, using the time honored process of not defining anything, assuming your conclusions, and getting on the circular logic merry-go-round. Men and women are complementary– which you haven’t defined. All men have gender sameness– which you haven’t defined. all women have gender sameness– which you haven’t defined. Same sex and opposite sex relationships are not equal– whatever THAT means. But then, all opposite sex relationships are not the same– whatever that means.

            I mean, REALLY? “It’s because they are equal (but different – in a complementary way) that they can form a marriage/complementary relationship with each other. This does not apply to same-sex relationships which are not and cannot be marriages.” Nonsense. Circular logic.

            Here’s a statement, based upon your theology, that I am absolutely certain you would make. (My apologies if I’m wrong about that, but I’ve had this debate many many times). You would say, “A Woman makes a lousy father.”

            You know how I would respond to that? “A lot of fathers make lousy fathers.” So much for gender sameness, whatever that may be.

            Robert George has tried to make these arguments, and has done it better than you. That still doesn’t mean that the arguments have any basis in fact, logic, or experience.

            Frankly, there is no logic and no fact being presented here.

          • RalphH says:

            “Sorry, Ralph, you haven’t made an argument, you haven’t defined anything, you haven’t presented evidence.

            you’ve just made assertions about a religious doctrine, and stated them as fact, using the time honored process of not defining anything, assuming your conclusions, and getting on the circular logic merry-go-round.”

            I’ve made a good, logical argument Ben but you haven’t listened. Complementarity is not a “religious doctrine” just because religious people talk about the principle. Probably the simplest complementary entities to think of are a nut and a bolt. When you join them together they form a new entity that is far more useful than the original entities were by themselves. The two entities complete each other to perform their intended use.

            Two nuts or two bolts are not designed to go together. You can wire them together or weld them but they still don’t form a useful item. The nut/bolt relationship is a marriage type relationship. There are different shapes and sizes of nuts and bolts but a nut is always a nut; a bolt is always a bolt and individually both are pretty useless unless a compatible nut and bolt are joined together.

            It doesn’t take much imagination (and there is no need for religion) to see that this same principle applies to male and female. Biologically they can combine together as a vehicle for the production of new life forms but that is merely the base line of their complementarity. Male and female complement/complete each other on the mental, psychological and spirituals levels of existence also.

            “Men and women are complementary– which you haven’t defined.”

            What’s to define? It means that they’re designed in such a way that they can join together to complete each other.

            “All men have gender sameness– which you haven’t defined.”

            What’s to define? All men are of the male gender – that’s why they’re called men. Ditto for all women being of the female gender.

            “Same sex and opposite sex relationships are not equal– whatever THAT means.”

            It means that one is a complementary relationship and one is a non-complementary relationship.

            “Nonsense. Circular logic.”

            You certainly haven’t shown my arguments to be nonsensical or circular, merely claimed that they are.

            “You would say, “A Woman makes a lousy father.””

            I would say that a woman can never be a father. Some women have substituted for fathers and done a good job of it but they always do it in a womanly way.

            “A lot of fathers make lousy fathers.” Agreed, but all have the potential to be good fathers.

            “Robert George has tried to make these arguments, and has done it better than you.”

            Hadn’t heard of “Robert George” till I Googled him. His arguments are somewhat different from mine.

            “Frankly, there is no logic and no fact being presented here.”

            This is not so. I think what you really mean is that you disagree with me.

  35. jerbearinsantafe says:

    Reblogged this on JerBear's Queer World News, Views & More From The City Different – Santa Fe, NM and commented:
    Another fabulous missive from this gay dad, who’s always ready to take a stand for what’s right!

  36. kindheart101 says:


    So, should everyone remove their left hand because they use their right? This is just a silly ploy to get their name in the news, and it worked, exposing them for the FOOLS they are! LOL Can we say backfire?

    Great letter!

  37. Dr. Rex says:

    Reblogged this on It Is What It Is and commented:
    So very well stated! I wish they would read it …. Basically, drop the tantrum, don’t be foolish & grow up!!

  38. Ben in oakland says:

    Dear Mr. and Mrs. Aussiebigot:

    Here are my promises to you.

    If you toss out your god-ordained marriage just to show some spite towards people you don’t know getting married, I promise not give even the remotest resemblance to a shit about it.

    If you think so little of the promises you made to God in front of all of your family, I promise not to care any less about it than I already don’t.

    If you think you’re going to make some money out of this, I’m pretty sure that you won’t.

    If the validity and strength of your marriage are so dependent upon my marriage not existing, so much so that you would dissolve it if my exists, well, all I can say that you have even less belief in your “sincere religious beliefs” than I do. And I don’t.

    It’s very much like that recent Mormon brief to the Supreme Court on the marriage case: 900,000 abortions will result is gay people are allowed to marry each other. To come up with a conclusion like that shows a certain amount of contempt for heterosexuality, morals, God ordained marriage, and sincere religious belief that the people getting divorced allegedly have.

    But y’know what? I don’t even give shit about that, though I might roll my eyes just a wee bit.

  39. jrmacclurej says:

    I must admit that my reaction to such threats is that the couple’s marriage must be terribly weak if it is threatened by whether or not they agree with the marriage of someone else.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s