Issues – Wayne Connor

Proposed new definition of marriage in Australia

Wayne — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 04:22:39 +0000

I disagree with the proposed changes to the marriage act because I am convinced biblically that it is not in our best interests to live in a way different than that which God designed us for. Therefore marriage between a woman and a man is better and I should be able to argue for it in the secular arena. So here is my submission to the government on the issue. It’s not perfect, but it’s an attempt to reply in a way other than ‘it’s wrong’.

This is where they ask for submissions:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=spla/bill%20marriage/index.htm

Part 1 Do you agree?

I think this motion is redefining something that the writers don’t understand. What is marriage? Two people can be friends, housemates, sexual partners. Why marriage? The current definition has some logical undergirding: the basic biological natural family unit – the ability of a normal married couple, male and female, to procreate.

Where does the current definition arise from? Why to ‘the exclusion of others’, ‘for life’ and ‘man and woman’? We may not be a christian nation but these three elements arise historically from the Bible. So why, if we want to leave this definition behind, do we still have two parts of the definition – ‘for life’ and ‘to the exclusion of others’?

This failure to see why marriage exists means that any change from the current definition leads a definition that is arbitrary, one that accommodates whatever the current social trends are. Therefore we be forever amending the marriage act. Why not polygamy, or marriage to a (consenting) animal, or bisexual marriage between three people? On the human rights argument, all these are legitimate. The old definition has some logic to it, the new one is completely arbitrary – yet it still discriminates. So why not just ‘marriage is a voluntary union of people.’ I think we have failed to see the fundamental truth behind marriage: a man and a woman in lifelong exclusive union form the basis for a family.

Also the current definition is written with an agenda. It should read “marriage means the union of two people…” The phrases “regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity” are unnecessary. They appear to be about promoting acceptance of different sexual orientations, not just a plain reworking of who can marry.

Part 2 legal implications?

1. The new definition of marriage is inconsistent. How can it be regardless of sexual orientation yet be just between two people and to the exclusion of all others? Between just ‘two people’ and ‘to the exclusion of others’ discriminates against people of a particular sexual orientation in a similar way that the current male and female definition discriminates – it’s just that the new definition has no inherit reason as to why.

2. Marriage is so fundamental to christian obedience to the bible that if this goes ahead, and the state’s definition of marriage becomes radically different to the bible, then I think the church will need to define it’s own “christian marriage” and we will have two marriages, one secular and one Christian, with neither being recognised by the other. Traditional churches in order to obey biblical marriage may refuse to recognise some secular marriages. I don’t now where this leads but it may get messy.

Morals and giving. Interesting article i…

Wayne — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 23:43:19 +0000

Morals and giving. Interesting article in the Australian…
‘We are probably incapable of universal compassion. In the end, we are a self-interested species which dishes out the occasional dose of compassion when it suits or when the media gives us the signal.’
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/distant-rains-fall-on-deaf-ears-here/story-e6frg6zo-1225989811212

The right and wrongs of an Ethics Trial

Wayne — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:50:25 +0000

Well if you are like me you will have received emails asking you to sign a petition against the ethics trials in NSW.
Have you read Peter Jensen’s 10 reasons why it’s a bad idea.

Did you listen Simon Longstaff on ABC radio and read his reasons why it’s a good idea .

Have you read the invitation letter sent out to parents outlining the contents of the course and inviting all kids to join.

I’m not sure what to make of it all. I’m inclined not to agree with thin edge of the wedge arguments, as long as in this case the door is left open for SRE. If the trial came to our school I think I’d let my son go along to try it out for 10 weeks. I’m not sure that he’d want to. But if all his friends did he might. It would certainly raise some interesting discussions given the content of the course including when it’s right to lie, the limitations of absolute morality and so on.

So after spending an hour or so looking at the issues, I’m not decided. I’m not inclined to sign a petition. I have a hunch that this might mean less people in scripture classes but I’ve never been into forcing SRE onto kids. Do I sign a petition? Do I concentrate on making the opportunities for scripture that we do have as good as they can be?

So it’s back to pastor mode. I’m hopeless at this sort of stuff. I’m busy, too busy. I could have spent that hour with my kids, or preparing a sermon. I’m wondering to what extent am I responsible to keep up on all these issues to try and lead people in how to think about them?