Australia votes Yes for same-sex “marriage”

[Philip_B]

Will Parliament act on the results of the survey? I'm not familiar with the particulars of the Australian Parliament.

The complicated reality is that they do not have to as the survey is non-binding. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the opposition have both pledged to support the legislation, and as I understand it all members will have a conscience vote. I think that means if you wanted to vote no and also wanted to affirm the mind of the people as spoken, a member of the house might abstain.

why is it only christianity that the left and homosexuals are attacking for homophobia and same sex marriage. the left and homosexuals never cry about same sex marriage in other religions...its like the left and the homosexuals have an agenda to destroy christianity.

In the debate in Australia the consistent phrase used by the YES campaign arguing about the NO cause has been the expression 'religious groups'. The YES campaign has had a number of reasonably high profile Church people on board, a group called I think Progressive Christians, and I observed that a number of Uniting Churches in my area were outright campaigning for the YES campaign.

In a sense I think Australia may well be different to a number of other countries, and we have a strong Christian Left movement, which sometimes makes centrist and rightist Christians feel unwelcome and uncomfortable. I know when the LNP (our equivalent of Republicans and Tories) was elected into government, I was told we would no longer be able to pray for the Prime Minister. I responded saying we should let our faith inform our politics, and not let our politics inform our faith.

I think we sometime let politics have too loud a voice, and I am aware that some preachers politicise the gospel to a point where it loses its point. I am not convinced that homosexuals have an agenda to destroy Christianity, but rather they are more concerned that we should recognise them as human beings, who like every other human being are made in the image and after the likeness of God.

We are not defined by who we keep out, but by who we let in. We should be willing to affirm the dignity of every human being, and one glance at the news tells you we are not always as good at that as we should be.

 

[Paidiske]

The YES campaign has had a number of reasonably high profile Church people on board, a group called I think Progressive Christians, and I observed that a number of Uniting Churches in my area were outright campaigning for the YES campaign.

Christians for Marriage Equality were being very vocal/visible, too. What I observed was that this cut across denominational lines. Some Catholic leaders were outright defying their church's official line. The Anglicans were a (typically) mixed bag; and I've heard strong comment on all sides from members of the Uniting Church.

(That's the "big three" in the landscape of Australian churches; in the latest census 22.6% of Australians were Catholic, 13.3% Anglican, and 3.7% Uniting. After that, we have more Muslims and Buddhists (each) than any other single Christian group).

 

[Arcangl86]

The complicated reality is that they do not have to has the survey was non-binding. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the opposition have both pledged to support the legislation, and as I understand it all members will have a conscience vote. I think that means if you wanted to vote no and also wanted to affirm the mind of the people as spoken, a member of the house might abstain.

Thank you. This added context I was missing. It might be different in Australia, but in the United Kingdom a conscience vote means that the parties aren't going to whip their members into voting a certain way.

 

[Radagast]

Thank you. This added context I was missing. It might be different in Australia, but in the United Kingdom a conscience vote means that the parties aren't going to whip their members into voting a certain way.

AFAIK, our Labor party (yes, spelling, I know) is not having a conscience vote. SSM is party policy for them. That means that SSM will be adopted.

 

[Philip_B]

AFAIK, our Labor party (yes, spelling, I know) is not having a conscience vote. SSM is party policy for them. That means that SSM will be adopted.

I thought the decision was to allow members not to contradict their conscience but allow them to abstain.

 

[Radagast]

I thought the decision was to allow members not to contradict their conscience but allow them to abstain.

That was the position of the LNP (for foreign readers, more conservative) party.

I could be wrong, but afaik the Labor party still has "Yes" as party policy.

But it doesn't matter; all but a handful of politicians will vote "Yes."

 

[Philip_B]

That was the position of the LNP (for foreign readers, more conservative) party.

I could be wrong, but afaik the Labor party still has "Yes" as party policy.

But it doesn't matter; all but a handful of politicians will vote "Yes."

Agreed. I know
There were a couple of older members ALP who get a conscense vote as it is a private members bill - technically.

 

[SBC]

It’s indeed a sad day for Australia in that 61 percent of Australians have now voted to allow same-sex “marriage”. As 69.5 percent of the population voted in this non-compulsory plebiscite it means that the vast majority of Australians have failed to support the institution of the family.

The World shall not be satisfied until it has corrupted everything sacred, and belittled anyone who does not accept their corruption.

Pss 9
[17] The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Radagast]

That's the "big three" in the landscape of Australian churches; in the latest census 22.6% of Australians were Catholic, 13.3% Anglican, and 3.7% Uniting. After that, we have more Muslims and Buddhists (each) than any other single Christian group.

Probably more than that; it depends what you do with the 9.6% "not stated" group.

And "more Muslims and Buddhists (each) than any other single Christian group" only holds true if you split up all the Christian groups, but lump the various kinds of Muslim and Buddhist together. There are (at least) 562,900 Buddhists in Australia, for example, and 567,300 Orthodox.

 

[Paidiske]

Probably more than that; it depends what you do with the 9.6% "not stated" group.

I'm assuming they would be distributed amongst the different denominations fairly evenly (rather than being all, say, Baptist, which would make the Baptists much bigger than the results suggest). For the non-Australians reading along, the census gives you the option of just saying "Christian," which may be ecumenically satisfying but doesn't give us much information about where Sunday morning might find you worshipping!

Either way, my point is that the large denominations were certainly not univocal on the matter.

 

[Radagast]

I'm assuming they would be distributed amongst the different denominations fairly evenly

I think so too, which would make all the percentages about 10% higher.

For the non-Australians reading along, the census gives you the option of just saying "Christian," which may be ecumenically satisfying but doesn't give us much information about where Sunday morning might find you worshipping!

And a quite substantial 612,400 people did exactly that. I assume that some of those are nondenominational, others don't attend any church, and some are making a philosophical point.

Either way, my point is that the large denominations were certainly not univocal on the matter.

I'd love to see how members of large denominations actually voted, as opposed to what their leadership said. Guess we'll never know -- although the big "No" votes in Muslim electorates tells us something about the Islamic vote.

 

[Episaw]

This is such an important topic, so I'm glad that Jesus himself addressed the issue while on this planet. Oh, wait, that's right, he never said anything about it. He talked a lot about loving each other and not judging.

Your comment suggests the paucity of teaching on this subject in the church as it is addressed comprehensively in scripture.

I did a check of marriage in a concordance and there are 770 verses on the subject. Not one mentions marriage between two men or two women.

The reason for this is simple. The Jews knew that same-sex relationships of any kind were an abomination to God, therefore, the absence of same-sex marriages and any instructions about them.

Next God said in Genesis 2:24 Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh.

Atheists say that the church did not invent marriage. That is correct. God did and it involved a man and a woman.

Next, Jesus confirmed what God said and did in Mat 19:4 But answering, He said to them, Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning "created them male and female"? And He said, "For this reason, a man shall leave father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.

Jesus had every opportunity to say differently and include same-sex marriage in his dissertation but he didn't. He reiterated what God had said. That means the Jesus did not give place to same-sex marriage.

If God and Jesus made it clear marriage needed a male and a female, primarily as a vehicle to populate the earth (that means children are integral to marriage) then we have no reason to entertain any marriage that does not involve a man and a woman.

And God brought marriage about because he said it was not good for man to be alone so he took a part of Adam's side and formed another version of him which was called, woman as in wo-man.

Obviously, God decided that it was no use producing another Adam as he needed someone complimentary to him.

If we care to examine history, society has always been premised on a man and women marrying, even in tribes that have had no teaching on the subject. That is why we have 7 billion living on this planet because men and women have been marrying and having children.

The demand to recognize homosexuality as a valid expression of life has only been around for the last 50 years. I guess in a last ditch effort to destroy what God has created, Satan has gone all out to make everything except male/female marriage legitimate.

Having a degree in Sociology, I learned that if the family disintegrates, society disintegrates.

Today a full frontal attack on the family is happening and we as salt and light have to oppose it in all its forms.

 

[Paidiske]

I'd love to see how members of large denominations actually voted, as opposed to what their leadership said. Guess we'll never know.

Yes, that would be fascinating.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, that would be fascinating.

You could probably find electorates that were mostly Catholic. Not sure if any mostly Anglican ones exist.

 

[Philip_B]

I'd love to see how members of large denominations actually voted, as opposed to what their leadership said.

Surveys of people who affirmed they attended Church at least once a month I think showed 58% in favour but that was some time (as in a couple of years) before the Postal Survey.

 

[Radagast]

Surveys of people who affirmed they attended Church at least once a month I think showed 58% in favour but that was some time (as in a couple of years) before the Postal Survey.

I would be very, very surprised if that were really true. Nationally, just under 62% voted yes. I would expect the number to be much less for churchgoers, and much higher for nonreligious people.

Remember that past surveys suggested 76% of Australia was in favour of SSM, but the true figure was only 62%. Those past surveys were clearly very inaccurate.

 

[Philip_B]

I would be very, very surprised if that were really true. Nationally, just under 62% voted yes. I would expect the number to be much less for churchgoers, and much higher for nonreligious people.

Remember that past surveys suggested 76% of Australia was in favour of SSM, but the true figure was only 62%. Those past surveys were clearly very inaccurate.

I am not sure where I had that idea - though I am sure I did not make it up, because looking at the church life survey results which was results of the 2011 survey, suggests that Church attenders were on average more opposed than in favor.

 

[SBC]

I did a check of marriage in a concordance and there are 770 verses on the subject. Not one mentions marriage between two men or two women.

Amen!

1 Cor 7
[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication,
let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

[39] The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[tulipbee]

It’s indeed a sad day for Australia in that 61 percent of Australians have now voted to allow same-sex “marriage”. As 69.5 percent of the population voted in this non-compulsory plebiscite it means that the vast majority of Australians have failed to support the institution of the family.

same sex marriage isn't the same as opposite sex marriage. one is ordered by God and the other is social invented marriage. both use the same word. same sex tried to steal God's reason for his marriage commands. socially, they stole couples insurance discounts, legal agreements and family identities that is meant to help couples and thier children. now the world wants to separate themselves from Christianity and that means they need to come up with another word, marriage. like partnerships. stealing and pretending is forbidden by The word of God

 

[ken777]

It saddens me that there are some members of the church who want to see other Christians punished for what they believe.