Home   >   News   >   Local news   >   Christian lobby ‘getting desperate’

Christian lobby ‘getting desperate’

By on February 7, 2011

Claims today by the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to the legalisation of polygamy have been slammed by activists as a desperate scare tactic.

The Australian reports this morning on moves by the ACL to step-up its opposition to the marriage equality debate.

An online petition pushing for the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act to be retained has also been established as part of the fight against the growing tide of support for marriage equality reforms in Australia..

ACL claims if marriage is redefined, as it has been in Canada, “the next push will be for marriage to include polygamous relationships, as is currently being tested in a court in Canada”.

Australian Marriage Equality national convener Alex Greenwich said polygamy has not been legalised in any of the countries which allow same-sex couples to marry.

“In Australia the definition of marriage is quite clear — it is a loving committed union freely entered into by two people, something which can easily encompass same-sex partners but which is fundamentally different from polygamy which is usually one man marrying and lording it over several women,” he said.

“By using a desperate scare-tactic like the threat of polygamy, the Australian Christian Lobby is showing it has no real case against allowing same-sex couples to marry.”

Greenwich said he was disappointed the Christian Lobby had yet to reciprocate the commitment made by his group to a respectful and mature debate on marriage equality, and has instead condoned hatred.

“We stand by our pledge to conduct this important public debate with respect and call on opponents of reform to do the same,” Greenwich said.

About Staff Writers

71 Comments

← Older Comments

  1. Baz

    February 10, 2011 at 10:22 am


    I never said marriage substantially improves our standing in society. How on earth did you get that? Marriage is a travesty for heterosexuals, that’s why fewer and fewer of them do it, and of those that do the subsequent divorce rate is around 50%. Yet you people talk about it in such lofty terms. I don’t get it.

    I agree totally in the right of the individual to build a life how they want to, but that requires freedom. Freedom to be different. Freedom to be yourself. Throughout the history of civilisation, marriage was never about freedom. And anything that requires a license from a government is the polar opposite of freedom.

  2. mark of sydney

    February 10, 2011 at 10:48 am


    Brendan of Wollongong your reaction to “There are vast quantities of Gays who oppose Gay Marriage” and you say prove it?
    Lets then..
    While there is a tiny fractioon of gays/lesbians like myself & partner who have our the commited relationship ceromony the LARGE majority of gay men in Australia have no care in the world for Gay Marriage,why?
    Because their to busy fucking around in casual one-night to a “couple of hours” stands.
    Gay men dont care if you look like Brad Pitt (At 25) or a Male model,THEY are not interested in hanging around,they only want a FUCK then they piss-off.There “Majority” of gay men in Sydney are not interested in a Relationship let alone Gay Marriage,the closest they seem to go is a Casual “Fuck-Buddy” as Nobody” is ever good enough for them.Also a Boyfriend/Husband would take the thrill out of going out and being “Seen” on the scene.
    These words are sicking,I hated saying it,but its our fault that we are sending this message to the Hetro community that we are not Interested in settling down into “Marriage” but rather have one Party after another,Its hard to be taken seriously isn’t it?
    Thanks

  3. rob1966

    February 10, 2011 at 12:48 pm


    @mark of sydney

    Just a tad of self-loathing there?

    Seriously, to label all gay males based on the antics of a few “scene queens” is doing nothing more than highlighting your own ingrained homophobia. I wonder, do you also believe that heterosexual couples don’t support straight marriage because they go out on weekends and “f*ck around” and have “one night stands”? Of course not.

    Your personal bias and perception is not supported by the results of surveys, or the support that same-sex marriage receives from both within and external to the homosexual community.

    It seems that you believe that homosexuals should all stay at home, and remain quite – the old the only good homosexual is an “unheard and unseen” homosexual.

    I’m guessing that you think it is outrageous that a same-sex couple flaunt their sexuality by daring to hold hands or share a quick kiss in public?

  4. mark of sydney

    February 10, 2011 at 2:31 pm


    Dear Rob1966,
    I value your opinion.
    Hetrosexuals fuck around,but the majority of them “Sow their Seeds” by 35 marry & settle down,where as the majority of Gay men are still partying and fucking around 45+.
    Secondly u say the good homosexual stays home to be “Seen and unheard”
    well the majority of Gay men living in the “Burbs” don’t wish to shake a hornets nest of Hetrosexuals next door.
    Ive know of many gay men (In my Flinders days) who always commented how much “We live in the City,Wouldn’t dare travel past Newtown,its not safe”
    Holding hands Rob? stealing a Kiss? try it in a Shopping Centre at Parramatta,Campbeltown,Liverpool,Penrith,It might be ok at marickville metro,But to the hetros in the west,your asking for trouble,shits ya doesnt it?
    thanxs

  5. Brendan of Wollongong NSW

    February 11, 2011 at 12:22 am


    Well said, rob1966. Mark of Sydney, claiming many gays are *apathetic* about marriage or reject it for themselves personally is NOT the same as the original claim that “vast quantities” of gays oppose legalising same-sex marriage. If you too claim the latter, once again I say “prove it”. The problem with using anecdote as evidence is that a) you don’t know what you don’t know, including how blinkered your own view may actually be; and b) all generalisations are false, including this one ;)

    As it happens, there are also straight people disinterested in marriage who only want to fuck too. Is that a reason to deny all straights the right to marry? Clearly not. So why do it to all gays? Contrary to Mark’s insinuation, the many gay folk who are clearly NOT interested in “one party after another” should not have to prove anything to anyone in order to access an equal human right to consensually marry the adult person that they love.

  6. rob1966

    February 11, 2011 at 8:40 am


    @Mark of sydney .. again you have failed to support your claim.

    As for “holding hands” .. claiming that doing it “out west” is asking for trouble, is just highlighting your ingrained homophobia.

    If we don’t demonstrate that we exist, that we are everywhere in society, that we are no different to “straights”, and that we are as “normal” as anyone else all we achieve is perpetuating the homophobia that exists.

    So much has been achieved in the past 30 years, but much more is still to be done. The brave gays and lesbians that first marched in 1978, and those who followed in later years shouting slogans such as “we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it” did so much to normalise the existence of homosexuals in the minds of so many.

    We need to stand up for our rights – and that includes the rights of all members of our community, whether they want to get married or not.

    I know mid-40s straight guys who go out weekends to pick-up, and married straight guys who play around on their wives (and vice versa) .. but you don’t hear me shouting out that straights don’t deserve to get married.

    If you don’t want to step foot outside your closet door that is your perogative – but don’t expect the rest of our community to cower inside there with you.

  7. Mark of sydney

    February 11, 2011 at 11:55 am


    Rob1966,
    Im not going to argue anymore,this is just stupid “Happy mardi gras” see you on the news,darling

  8. Ben

    February 11, 2011 at 3:59 pm


    There is an important kernel of truth being argued here.

    The majority of heterosexual marriages are monogamous. Affairs do happen – and are grounds for divorce.

    The majority of gay relationships are not monogamous. Many do not aspire to monogamy and have a variety of understandings about how their open relationship works.

    The Marriage Act talks about “to the exclusion of all others” – meaning sexually exclusive.

    It’s one reason I prefer Civil Unions to Marriage. At the point in the ceremony where Reverend Lovejoy says “to the exclusion of all others”, I dont want to cross my fingers.

  9. Dave

    February 12, 2011 at 12:24 am


    Statements such as homosexuals are not monogamous lack any foundation and is offensive, disgraceful, and homophobic. The argument for Civil Unions should not be made using homophobia. “I can’t be trusted to marry”, is a stupid argument. Whilst the author of the argument may think most of us are promiscuous, there is no evidence to show we are any different to heterosexual people. And I am not sure it is my business what couples do or do not do if they are heterosexual or not. If they are happy then I thought that is what matters. It is their bloody choice what they do. How far is government meant to reach into our life? It is bad enough the try and regulate marriage instead of the community.

    Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke had an affairs, let alone infidelity being a major reason for divorce. And should we talk of all those brothels operating 24hrs overflowing with men who have wedding rings on? What about the office affairs? Really, people are the same. I have been monogamous in my relationship of 10 years, so have most of our friends who heterosexual and homosexual.

    The Federal Governments own data, shows a major reason why heterosexual people divorce is from infidelity. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/WP20.html

    A number of courts around the world have ruled that schemes separate from marriage cannot be equal to marriage. Most recently, the California Supreme Court ruled on 15 May 2008 that giving the unions of same-sex couples a name that was separate and distinct from marriage reduced gays to “second-class citizens”. Studies in the US and UK also show that civil unions do not deliver the same legal security and social recognition as marriage.

    I support equality under the law, and do not support a second-class system of marriage known as Civil Unions. I do not pay half taxes, but all taxes. I do not love my partner less then the next couple. I do not expect my government to treat me as though my love is worth less, or not really the same. I can grow old with my love, I can look after him when he is ill, I can lay him to rest when we are old, but I can never get married?

  10. ben

    February 12, 2011 at 11:51 am


    Dave, most male homosexual relationships are not monogamous – that statement is neither offensive nor homophobic.

    It reflects the experience of most gay men in relationships. Why you should feel shame about that, or feel a need to point the finger and say “heterosexual couples do just the same!”…frankly that reflects your own internalised homophobia.

    If you and your partner are monogamous, good luck to you. If you and your partner have an open relationship, also good luck to you. Both deserve no less rights than a heterosexual relationship.

  11. Dave

    February 12, 2011 at 9:03 pm


    Ben back up your homophobia.

  12. Dave

    February 12, 2011 at 9:07 pm


    Ben as Labor Party hack form your previous post, I cannot understand why you would stoop so low as to resort to homophobia. What next we are not safe around children so we should have Civil Unions. I guess that is the problem with Labor. They have forgotton what is was like to be human, and put party policy ahead of people no matter what cruelty is inflicted.

    Do not lie about us to support your case of Civil unions. You have provided no evidence at all, and when challenged still could not provide any evidence.

  13. Frank

    February 13, 2011 at 2:33 pm


    Dave:- you shouldnt base on argument on gay relationships and monogamy. Do you seriously need data to prove that men don’t do monogamy well LOL! But I make no apologies for gay relationship being less monogamous than straight.

    As a community we used to be so out there – now we demand our own version of the 1950′s, demanding Lesbian hen’s nights and a gay honeymoon suite*.

    (*with a heart shaped sling)

  14. Dave

    February 13, 2011 at 6:23 pm


    Frank- Some of us are more or less out there like Shane Warne, some of us are not I guess, I am just not sure what that has to do with us having any inequality in marriage law. But a good point about men being men.

  15. Pingback: Christian lobby 'getting desperate' | Star Online

  16. Connie Wenceslao

    March 16, 2011 at 6:16 pm


    Marriage should only be limited to a man and a woman.

  17. Tony Zegenhagen

    March 16, 2011 at 10:27 pm


    If any society or economic system is to survive then one must make allowances to re-produce.
    This is why society and governments forward special rights to those most capable to do so. That being the union of a man and woman in marriage.

    Why should society or any government for that matter grant special prevleges or rights to a small group of homosexuals (a minority within a minority) over the needs,wishes and wants of the greater society.
    Whether secular or Christian, homosexual marriages should not be now or ever an option.

  18. Dave

    March 17, 2011 at 10:00 am


    Tony Zegenhagen

    Your whole notion of discrimination is based on an idea that all of society will wake up and become homosexual when Same-Sex Marriage is again legal. Well that never happened in other countries, so why would Australia be so unique?

    This is an absurd and without any foundation.

    You then vilify all couples who are not married and have children, and couples that are married but do not have children.

    Same-Sex marriage happened throughout history and will continue long after you and I are gone.

    In addition it is frankly none of your business that I am marrying my partner.

  19. Free Thinker

    March 17, 2011 at 2:46 pm


    How would two people of the same sex affect me, is like asking how would anything that goes on a few houses down the road from me affect me – it could be drug addition, domestic abuse. I am not equating these with SSM in the physical sense but the point is today they won’t affect me but over time it will and in a manner I wasn’t expecting.

    So the argument – how will it affect me – is flawed

  20. Callan

    March 18, 2011 at 12:29 am


    Dave, it is other people’s business that you are marrying your partner. If we didn’t care what each other did, then we would not be a community. If I see someone getting hurt whom I don’t know, then I will intefere – I won’t turn away and say it’s not my business. It’s my business if homosexuals want to marry because I think it’s not only unnatural, but also wrong. Sure, it’s only my opinion – and that’s all any of us can give, and our opinions are the foundation behind the future laws of our country. My main concern is homosexuals raising children – that’s “double wrong”. Sure, you can say some heterosexuals are terrible parents, but I’m not talking about specific examples – I’m referring to the concept. My opinion is that it’s conceptually wrong for homosexuals to raise children. Give their pure hearts a break – why fight what nature so obviously tells us? The facts are in the anatomy, not in your feelings – feelings are so easily warped.

  21. Dave

    March 18, 2011 at 9:29 am


    Free Thinker and Callan

    So finally we have some truth, the real argument, the homophobic argument, the pure hate, is homosexuality is not natural.It should not be around children.

    Yes, we can genetically replicate homosexual fruit flies, lesbian mice, but find not cure for bigotry.

    What is your next plan, to kill homosexual animals and insects? Maybe to take away the millions of children around the world that have had Same-Sex attracted parents? Many are adults by now. They are hardly marching in the streets. But people march against the hate you stand for.

    I have to ask how do you expect me to engage you when you deny my natural existence? When you call me unnatural? When you hate, when you live full of Bile? Jesus washed the prostitutes foot, he did not say you are not natural. He lived a very different life to the both of you.

    No it is not your business what I do or do not do. It is disgusting and arrogant you would think you should have any say over my life.

← Older Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment Login