Gay law change may force us to divorce

NICK JENSEN’s wife Sarah is the only woman he’s ever loved; but the couple is prepared to divorce in protest against any change to the law to accommodate same-sex marriage. “My wife and I, as […]

MY wife and I just celebrated our 10-year anniversary. But later this year, we may be getting a divorce.

Happy couple facing divorce; Nick Jensen and his wife Dr Sarah Jensen… “As Christians, we believe marriage is not a human invention. Our view is that marriage is a fundamental order of creation.”

Happy couple facing divorce; Nick Jensen and his wife Dr Sarah Jensen… “As Christians, we believe marriage is not a human invention. Our view is that marriage is a fundamental order of creation.”

The reason has nothing to do with the state of our marriage. We were married at 21 after being high-school sweethearts for several years before that.

In fact, my wife is the only woman I have ever loved, the mother of our children, my perfect match.

So, the decision to divorce is not one we’ve taken lightly. And certainly, it’s not one that many will readily understand. And that’s because it’s not a traditional divorce.

You see, after our divorce, we’ll continue to live together, hopefully for another 50 years. And, God willing, we’ll have more children. We’ll also continue to refer to each other as “husband” and “wife” and consider ourselves married by the Church and before God.

So why do this? It will certainly complicate our lives as we try to explain our marital status on the sidelines during Saturday sport. The reason, however, is that, as Christians, we believe marriage is not a human invention.

Our view is that marriage is a fundamental order of creation. Part of God’s intimate story for human history. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman before a community in the sight of God. And the marriage of any couple is important to God regardless of whether that couple recognises God’s involvement or authority in it.

My wife and I, as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same sex couples.

The State (initially England) only got involved in marriage laws in 1753. For the 600 years before that in Europe, the Church acted as the official witness. Before the church had this role, marriage was simply a cultural norm ensuring children had the best possible upbringing.

In Wales, for example, a couple would jump over a broomstick in the doorway of their new home to be married, and jump back across it to divorce. In fact, the main reason the State got involved at all was to address financial problems with property and inheritance law.

This otherwise odd move of the State into marriage was ultimately permitted as long as it was seen as upholding a pre-existing societal good. Families, as the basic building block of communities, benefitted from the support and security of formal legislation.

If our federal parliament votes to change the timeless and organic definition of marriage later on this year, it will have moved against the fundamental and foundational building block of Australian society and, indeed, human culture everywhere.

Indeed, it raises a red flag when a government decides it is not content only having sovereignty over land, taxes and the military – but “words” themselves.

This is why we are willing to divorce. By changing the definition of marriage, “marriage” will, in years to come, have an altogether different sense and purpose.

It will not be about the mystery of difference in sexual unity, as children come from gendered dissimilarity. It will not be about building and securing communities into the future.

When we signed that official-looking marriage certificate 10 years ago at Tuggeranong Baptist Church, we understood that the state was endorsing marriage, as currently defined, as the fundamental social institution – with all that this implied.

But if this is no longer the case, then we no longer wish to be associated with this new definition. Marriage is sacred and what is truly “marriage” will only ever be what it has always been.

It’s worth saying that our decision is not as extreme as it may seem. We will still benefit from the same tax and legal provisions of the state’s “de facto” laws.

However, what is significant is this issue will echo the growing shift from state education to private religious institutions.

This shift is no doubt because the majority of Australians, who are people of faith, believe their children are better served there. If the federal government pursues a change to the definition of marriage it will further alienate and divide the community.

For example, there are many Christian denominations that will simply stop officiating for any civil marriages rather than go along with the government on this.

Many Christians, like my wife and me, as well as people of other faiths, will simply reject the need for the State to recognise their marriage. Instead they will look to the authority of their church, mosque or temple. But there are broader implications for everyone, not just people of faith, to consider on this issue; for example, children’s rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and the broader fundamental rights of conscience and association. With our media’s relentless push to get this “over the line”, these issues have barely been noticed so far in the national debate.

This has been a big decision for my wife and I. Some will accuse of us being bigoted or too hateful to share. But this couldn’t be further from our intentions.

The truth is, “marriage” is simply too important. It is a sacred institution, ordained by God. It has always been understood to be that exclusive relationship where one man and one woman become “one flesh”. Any attempt to change the definition of marriage by law is not something in which we are able to partake.

Here we stand, we can do no other, and I know we are not alone.

Nick Jensen is the director of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, which helps develop leaders in public policy (lmi.org.au)

UPDATE: Nick’s brother Soren has penned a reply that bears reading.

, ,

367 Responses to “Gay law change may force us to divorce”

  1. Anonymous
    June 20, 2016 at 5:45 pm #

    My ex and me were together for Two years and 4 months, we were very happy to be husband and wife, last month we went to california and stayed with his family, after we got back he started acting distant, then he started hanging out with a girl, and kept sneaking off to go hangout with her, so i got upset, i could not endure, i tried to do everything to please him but it got worst, one day he left the house and never came back, i tried reaching him but no way i could reach him, because of the heart break he has put me into, i went into search of a real spell caster but I was scammed several times, but I never relented in my search because I want a happy life with my boyfriend, when i saw testimony about spell caster Mr Robinson buckler on the internet, so i contacted him and to my greatest surprise (((robinson.buckler @ yahoo. com))) restored my relationship, my boyfriend came back to me, i took him back and I am now settled with my him by the magic power of Mr Robinson buckler spell,

  2. Denis Sutherland
    August 31, 2015 at 8:43 am #

    You either believe and accept the Bible albeit got at by satan and his minions, you need a min of 6x translations to get a consistent doctrine, or you don’t. Simple!! If you do then same sex marriage is abominable as is homosexuality as defined. If you don’t then the current hoo haa is stridently put out there always with the support of satan’s numbers. The second coming will finally put what God requires into place whilst in the meantime He gives incredible time to wake up and displays divine patience with His opponents lead by the nose by satan. Mind you as the Bible says whether you accept God and His Word is determined by God, He knows who are His and who are not.

  3. Peter Watson
    August 2, 2015 at 9:19 pm #

    Here is the bottom line on the planned destruction of all human relationships –
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRTqw9g0sg4
    you are now either with God or the Devil – there is no middle ground.If you watch this and hate it you are in the latter’s Camp.

    • H
      October 10, 2015 at 12:57 am #

      Mass ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Why are people so willing to blindly believe without doing any background research whatsoever?

      First of all, Christianity was created by a Roman Emperor – Constantine – in league with his forked-tongued little mate, Eusebias.

      Constantine wanted all religions to fall under one banner with himself at the head….but why am I telling you this when you can do your own research?

      Remember Constantine? He had his wife and eldest son murdered because he was a suspicious, paranoid, fruit loop.

      Nothing like starting a religion with blood on your hands, is there?

      I also suggest you read, ‘The Forged Origins of the New Testament” by Tony Bushby. Even the Catholic Church admits to the truth that’s been exposed.

      And then check out How Christianity Was Invented over at beyondallreligion.net

      If all that truth doesn’t deflate your gay/lesbian hate sails, then nothing will.

      Jesus was an invention, people. Christianity was an invention.

      None of it is real, which means none of your ‘moral judgments’ and hate crimes against your fellow human beings are valid. If anything, they’re indefensible.

      • Jane
        November 29, 2015 at 5:01 pm #

        Thank you H, voice of reason & sanity!

  4. Bradley Steffens
    June 30, 2015 at 12:26 am #

    In an opinion piece for Time magazine entitled “Government Should Get Out of the Marriage Business Altogether,” American senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul echoed my comment made here a few days ago and, indirectly, the sentiments of the Jensens. http://time.com/3939374/rand-paul-gay-marriage-supreme-court/

  5. Garry Fielding
    June 29, 2015 at 10:34 am #

    In response to Eric Glare

    We don’t excise groups of people from society because they have some “features”, as you wrongly put it. Homosexuals can live in harmony in the society without fear or discrimination. It’s also not “features”, but behaviours on which homosexuals are distinguished from heterosexuals.

    And it’s based on these behaviours that the laws of the land treat them differently. What you are debating is not that we coexist in harmony, but you want to hijack a word that is sacred to the majority of society i.e. heterosexuals and want to distort it by associating it with a behaviour which is repulsive to most of us. Not only that, you also want to them (gays) to benefit from government’s family assistance, which should only be given to couples actively involved in bringing (giving birth) and raising children in this country, in normal environment of a father and a mother, so the child is not deprived of the involvement of a woman and a man throughout his or her life.

    Homosexuality is a life style centralised and immersed is lewd sexual activity, and you want me to be ok with a child being in the midst of that, which is what will happen if we recognise same sex marriage.

    How about we start associating the word gay and homosexuals to mean and include cannibals and people who have sex with dead rotten animals?

    • Eric Glare
      June 30, 2015 at 2:41 pm #

      Stop being dishonest Garry Fielding and synthesis your thoughts. You are not going to let two 80 year old lesbians who no longer have libido get married. Nor will you let 2 men who have never had nor want to ever have insertive sex get married. Behaviour does not fit your reams of protest – you use behaviour belatedly, strawman style, because you know your discrimination against peoples is immoral.

      We LGBTI, the diversity of peoples which you don’t have the guts to even mention (not once), do not have a unifying culture or behaviours, except we have common but vastly different persecution (sexuality vs trans vs sex). Despite being out for 28 years, I have not knowingly met an intersex person except online. We do not have a common type or level of sexual activity or promiscuity, we don’t commonly have children and there is no evidence we expose children to sex any more than heterosexuals – in fact pre-teens are fed a diet of heterosexual objectification. We do not have a type sex that isn’t practiced more by heterosexuals. Some groups are infamous for not having libido, eg MTF transwomen due to hormone treatment.

      Your whinging rhetoric merely serves to paint us as different to justify your hate – to make us different artificially to you. With a smear of sodomy. We are more diverse than another group in our society because we come from and belong in every ethnicity and culture, from every family there is. And we all have relatives like you. And your’s is a stock standard whinge to protect the choices you have made. That is why our private behaviour must be repulsive to you or your whole life’s value is questioned.

      We are not fooled about your motives, Garry. “Homosexuals can live in harmony in the society without fear or discrimination” is a claim from you that is a complete lie for your have no such intention to not persecute: now that is so repulsive we insist on anti-discrimination laws that are upheld to protect us. Marriage equality must flow from those laws otherwise they are farce.

      • TJay75
        September 5, 2015 at 3:19 pm #

        Attitudes about homosexuality may differ from one generation to another or from one land to another. But Christians aren’t carried about “…by every wind of teaching.” (Ephesians 4:14) Instead, they adhere to the Bible’s view.

        Jesus didn’t encourage his followers to accept any and all lifestyles. Rather, he taught that the way to salvation is open to “everyone exercising faith in him.” (John 3:16) Exercising faith in Jesus includes conforming to God’s moral code, which forbids certain types of conduct—including homosexuality.—Romans 1:26, 27.

        The Bible makes it clear that God designed sex to be engaged in only between a male and a female and only within the arrangement of marriage. (Genesis 1:27, 28; Leviticus 18:22; Proverbs 5:18, 19) When the Bible condemns fornication, it is referring to both homosexual and heterosexual conduct. —Galatians 5:19-21.

        And while the Bible disapproves of homosexual acts, it does not condone hatred of homosexuals or homophobia. Instead, Christians are directed to “respect everyone.”—1 Peter 2:17

        The Bible also doesn’t comment directly on the biology of homosexual desires, though it acknowledges that we are all born with a tendency to go against what God commands. (Romans 7:21-25) Rather than focus on the cause of homosexual desires, however, the Bible prohibits homosexual acts.

        Many claim that violent behavior can have a genetic root and that as a result, some people are predisposed to it. (Proverbs 29:22) What if that was true? As you might know, the Bible condemns fits of anger. (Psalm 37:8; Ephesians 4:31) Is that standard unfair just because some may be inclined toward violence?

        Let’s suppose I didn’t approve of gambling but you did. Would it be reasonable for you to insist that I change my view, simply because millions of people choose to gamble?

        Most people (including homosexuals) have some ethical code that causes them to deplore certain things—perhaps fraud, injustice, or war. The Bible prohibits those behaviors; it also draws the line at certain types of sexual conduct, including homosexuality.—1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

        The Bible is not unreasonable nor does it promote prejudice. It simply directs those with same-sex urges to do the same thing that is required of those with an opposite-sex attraction—to “flee from fornication.”—1 Corinthians 6:18.

        The fact is, millions of heterosexuals who wish to conform to the Bible’s standards employ self-control despite any temptations they might face. Their numbers include many who are single with little prospect of marriage and many who are married to a disabled partner who is unable to function sexually. They are able to live happily without fulfilling their sexual urges. Those with homosexual inclinations can do the same if they truly want to please God.—Deuteronomy 30:19.

        • Eric Glare
          September 5, 2015 at 6:18 pm #

          Nice post on the surface but it is simply not true that most Christians practice what you preach or even believe – most erroneously think sodomy refers only to anal sex and that fornification revolves around sex while married not the original meaning of adultery from first sex until death. It is pure hypocrisy and bigoted discrimination to single out homosexuality from all the other sins that are so common amongst the accusers.

          We are not asking you to change your mind. We are asking not be persecuted – which verse proclaims the right of persecution on Christians? We are asking for the same religious freedom you enjoy, the same freedom of moral belief, the same freedom to believe in the moral good of our biology as you enjoy, the same freedom to marry who we love. Freedom from discrimination. If you had a moral approach to this page and its issues you would have mentioned these things rather than just dumping your rose-tinted viewpoint which everyone else is expected to support.

          • TJay75
            September 8, 2015 at 1:20 am #

            If being a Christian is what we claim, then following the teachings of Jesus Christ obviously has to take precedence in our lives. Living up to God’s righteous standards is what Christ taught. He never taught that we can pick and choose which of God’s laws we will follow. Listening and obeying all of God’s laws is what it means to be a Christian because that is what Christ taught.

            Your response shows how little you know about the history of this world and about why Jesus condemned fornication in every form. He did so because such actions violate what God determined long ago to be holy, clean and upright from his standpoint—-not yours.

            If you don’t like God laws, then how can you really consider yourself a Christian? You claim that you’re asking for the “same moral belief” but are in fact glazing over the moral code of sex as determined by God.

            Jesus put so much emphasis on proper conduct, that he even went as far as to say that, “…everyone who keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her, has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matt 5:28)

            In addition to the Ten Commandments, God gave Moses further decrees including this following law, “You must not lie down with a male in the same way that you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable act.” (Leviticus 18:22)

            The apostle Paul put even greater emphasis on abstaining from immoral conduct in his letter to the Corinthian congregation when he said,

            “…do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, and extortioners will not inherit God’s Kingdom.” (1 Cor 6:9,10)

            The apostle Paul continues in verse 18,

            “Flee from sexual immorality! Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body, but whoever practices sexual immorality is sinning against his own body. Do you not know that your body is the temple of the holy spirit within you, which you have from God? Also, you do not belong to yourselves, for you were bought with a price. By all means, glorify God in your body.” (1 Cor 6:18-20)

            When we read and meditate on the laws of the God of the Bible, it becomes very clear how God feels about certain forms of conduct. God himself determined what is clean and un-defiled from his standpoint. He never encouraged nor accepted a piece-meal effort when it comes to following his righteous laws and anyone whom would claim to be a Christian but then choose to ignore parts of the law for their own God-dishonoring desire is proving false to their Christian identity.

            As Christians, we are given strong directives by God, not just through Moses but also to many other God-fearing individuals throughout history, including Christ whom rebuked the Pharisees when he said, “…Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.'” (Matt 15:7-9)

            Of the few remaining Biblical prophecies yet to be fulfilled, none could be more sobering nor bear as much weight as these last few words to John,

            “Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to repay each one according to his work…Happy are those who wash their robes, so that they may have authority to go to the trees of life and that they may gain entrance into the city through its gates. Outside are the dogs and those who practice spiritism and those who are sexually immoral and the murderers and the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices lying.” (Revelation 22:12-15)

            “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll. If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things that are written about in this scroll.” (Revelation 22:18,19)

          • Eric Glare
            September 8, 2015 at 11:56 am #

            Reply to Tjay75 1:20am: you have just fleshed out the hypocrisy of Christianity that I mentioned -the hypocrisy that moralises a defence of bigotry and discrimination. But it is by no means a reply to my post even though you pretend it is. It is another dump about what belief that Christians should be adhering to. You do not attempt to address the persecution of LGBTI peoples and the bigotry around their biology. You do not contend with the request for religious freedom, the same that you enjoy. Calls for freedom from discrimination are ignored.

            “If you don’t like God laws, then how can you really consider yourself a Christian?” You were so intent on dumping belated propaganda about your beliefs that you assumed without reason what my beliefs are. I am a fundamentalist antitheist atheist, that is I fundamentally believe religions and belief in gods is wrong and immoral. So intent on stealing other people’s religious freedom you cannot entertain any other options even though those who actually believe as you do are a small minority. It is this selfish blindness you display and the lack of real care of fellow humans that I find immoral about belief in religion.

            Yet we have hope because religious homophobia is increasingly seen as inexcusable and immoral like racism. That is the direction of social harmony and peace.

          • Ralph Horner
            September 8, 2015 at 3:14 pm #

            Hi Eric (September 8, 2015 at 11:56 am #), you seem to have convinced yourself otherwise but I’m sure homosexuality doesn’t have anything to do with biology per-se – it has to do with feelings. If it were a matter of biology it would die out because, by definition, homosexuals cannot reproduce.

            It’s also very confusing to be talking about “religious freedom” when you call yourself an atheist. Religion is the disciple that deals with God/ the Order of/behind existence. There are obviously some foolish and false ideas about religion and God out there but there are also genuine/true religious ideas and genuine and true ideas about God.

            These do not line up with a particular religious tradition or sect. There are good and sensible people in all traditions and sects. There are also good and sensible people who do not identify with any organisation. There are also many atheists who see the folly and foolishness of pretending that a same-sex relationship can be called ‘a marriage’ – a friendship (of sorts) yes but not a marriage.

        • Ralph Horner
          September 8, 2015 at 1:50 pm #

          TJay75 I agree with your sentiments. Aside from what God says on the matter, I think ‘gay marriage’ is one of the silliest ideas and quite possibly the silliest that humans have ever managed to come up with. ‘A man + a man’ is not and cannot possibly be equal to (or the same as) ‘a man + a woman’. The same term cannot be the descriptor of these diverse types of relationship – the first typified by sameness – the second by complementarity (the potential to become one with their complementary partner and to continue the species by procreation). God’s directives/commandments (unsurprisingly – because He is the Creator) agree totally with common-sense and reason.

          The point you made about the Bible/God not condoning hatred, homophobia and persecution is also very telling. People who have (or still do) think and act in this way have been and are a major part of the problem. They are in as much trouble (possibly more) with God as those who have knowingly or inadvertently chosen to make homosexuality a part of their life. Despite the appearance sometimes given in the Bible, God does not judge and punish people. It’s the evil they do and come to love that eventually does the punishing (because that’s the nature of evil/disorder). God’s laws are designed to save people from those bad choices and the punishment they bring.

          Only a life according to the proscribed order/God’s wise order can bring freedom and blessedness. God is total forgiveness for anyone who recognises their faults and weaknesses and asks His help to change their troublesome attitudes and habits. Someone who does not understand or believe in God, can still be motivated to change to living a life of reason and common-sense.

  6. Kara Smith
    June 28, 2015 at 1:30 pm #

    Divorce is a sin according to The Bible. So to protest what you consider sin you are going to sin. And in God’s eye (again also in The Bible) all sin is equal. You’re a hypocrite at best and an idiot. You’re not effecting anyone’s life but your own and your childrens. If you are married in you hearts and not by law you aren’t married in God’s eyes either, following the laws set for you is also in The Bible. Maybe you should read through The Bible again before you speak. Love thy neighbor as thy self.

    • Ralph Horner
      June 29, 2015 at 10:00 am #

      “If you are married in you hearts and not by law you aren’t married in God’s eyes either, …” (Kara Smith – June 28, 2015 at 1:30 pm #)

      I’m afraid I disagree with you Kara. The sin in divorce is not in the rescinding of the legal contract but in the divorcing of heats and minds from the marriage promise. There are people who have given up loving and caring for each other who still maintain the external appearance of marriage.

      I believe there are many ‘de-facto’ couples who for various reasons have not gone through a legal ceremony who are married in the sight of God because their hearts and minds are one. ‘Gay marriages’, on the other hand, when and where ‘legalised’ by the state, do not bring about marriage ‘in the eyes of God’ because they do not meet the male/female criterion for marriage.

      I don’t agree with what the Jensen’s have proposed. It’s extremely impractical but it does demonstrate their passion for the truth about marriage and their concern for society.

    • rhema
      June 30, 2015 at 3:22 am #

      when the law is trash, as a child of God who fears God, your are advised to ignore that law. The three Hebrew boys in the book of Daniel of the bible, they did not even give it a thought before denying it when the law ordered every citizen to bow down before the kings golden statue.

      When the culture and the law are in conflict with the scripture, I tell you my friend that the scripture must stand and crush that law. May God open your eyes and give you understanding For your benefit read 1Corintheans 4:1-2 and Romans chapter 1 from verse 18 and find out things for yourself

      • Eric Glare
        June 30, 2015 at 3:32 pm #

        Rhema thanks for showing verses that support your opinion and its cherry-picked nature. I call Romans 1 the bigot chapter as it encourages people to see more evil traits when they see one such evil: “[v 29] they have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.” Homosexuals and murder? That is pure bigotry. Pulling yourself up by pushing others down. And it seems to encourage persecution: “[v 32]..God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death..”

        In 1 Cor 4, you truncate the message and what follows is pivotal: “It is the Lord who judges me. [5] Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.” Both of these passages say the judgement belongs to God and you are to wait.

        The latter chapter goes on to say much more to condemn your attitude specifically. “[9]…like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings….[11] To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. [12] We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; [13] when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment.
        [14] I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children.”

        Your quotes rebuke you Rhema. You exalt yourself and make judgement all because you are not willing to sacrifice and you want us to make it easy for you. Another persecuting Christian trying to stop Revelation from coming true. With blinded morality.

    • TJay75
      September 8, 2015 at 2:17 am #

      God hates a deceitful, treacherous divorce. He will personally hold accountable those who frivolously leave their mate, especially when they do so with the motive of taking another partner.—Malachi 2:13-16; Mark 10:9.

      While it is true that the God of the Bible hates a divorce, Jesus made a clear distinction of it with regard to fornication when he was questioned by Pharisees,

      “And Pharisees came to him intent on testing him, and they asked: ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of grounds?’ In reply he said: ‘Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said: ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart.’ They said to him: ‘Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?’ He said to them: ‘Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” (Matt 19:3-9)

  7. Gay Ally
    June 27, 2015 at 7:40 am #

    ENJOY YOUR DIVORCE!!!! #LOVEWINS

  8. Shaq
    June 27, 2015 at 4:56 am #

    The evidence in the Bible regarding homosexuality is ambiguous. Yet Jesus made it quite clear that divorce is a sin. But the Jensens, like most Christians who’re against gay equality, never ever come out and do a mass protest about repealing the divorce laws, do they. Maybe because divorce is not a vote winner, and too many fellow Christians would also be against its repeal.

    • Ralph Horner
      June 29, 2015 at 11:49 am #

      Shaq, I don’t think there is any ambiguity. Homosexuality/same-sex sexual relations wherever mentioned directly or indirectly alluded to in the Bible, are always done so in an extremely negative context.

      On the other hand, heterosexuality is accepted as the norm and a blessing. In the OT, God’s positive statement and command about sexuality condones and blesses heterosexuality. In the NT Jesus reiterates this.

      Jesus also made it quite clear that he was not about getting involved in political, cultural or social issues. When he spoke of divorce he was talking about the divorce that takes place in the heart and mind when someone decides to break their marriage promise not about the legal technicality.

  9. Klaus Auberger
    June 22, 2015 at 4:02 pm #

    Some do not want to arrive in the 21st century. Burning of witches and quartering is no longer there.

    • Garry Fielding
      June 22, 2015 at 10:00 pm #

      What if you are not religious and still agree with them?

      Their argument entails the redefinition of marriage and how it will impact them.

      They (the Jensen’s) are still people, and apart from their beliefs, they make good logical sense. Read below

      “Indeed, it raises a red flag when a government decides it is not content only having sovereignty over land, taxes and the military – but “words” themselves.”

      By divorcing and living together, they are demonstrating that apart from the marriage certificate, nothing will change.

      “”It’s worth saying that our decision is not as extreme as it may seem. We will still benefit from the same tax and legal provisions of the state’s “de facto” laws.””

      • nonyabusinesskthanks
        June 27, 2015 at 6:17 am #

        I just want to know how same sex marriage effects you personally?? I am not a religious person by any means, but I was always under the impression that judging was a sin… am I wrong? Does me eating a doughnut make you fat? No I dont think it does, so explain to me how, and why, you would let same sex marriage effect?

        • Ralph Horner
          June 29, 2015 at 9:34 am #

          nonyabusinesskthanks, I think you need to think a little bit deeper. When my children and grandchildren (indeed any children who are all the future of the world) are taught lies/false things, that effects me personally because it can result in their sadly limiting their lives or severely messing them up. This reflects not only on those I know and love personally but on the whole of society.

          The claim that marriage is just about love/emotion is false. It is possible to love wisely and to love foolishly. There is no ‘equality’ issue.

          The claim that we are stereotyped by our feelings/orientations is false. We do not become a slave to/victim of our feelings/inner promptings unless we choose to. We can choose what type of feelings to identify with and make our own.

          The claim that same-sex relationships and male/female relationships are of a similar and compatible nature is false. They are distinctly different just as male and female are distinctly different.

          The list of false ideas and propaganda necessary to maintain a delusion goes on.

          The Bible/Jesus has two messages about judging – ‘judge not’ (Matthew 7:1) and ‘judge wisely/righteously’ (John 7:24) that address two different areas of life.
          ‘Judge not’ means that we can’t/shouldn’t attempt to judge any person (including ourselves) to BE evil (or good). Only God (being omniscient/all knowing) can do that.
          ‘Judge wisely’ means that we can (and need to) judge actions/behaviours (our own and others) against a moral, ethical and spiritual code.

        • TJay75
          September 8, 2015 at 2:40 am #

          Your impression of what Judgement is, started with God’s righteous laws about judging others. That moral sense didn’t evolve from an amoeba swimming in a pool of water millions of years ago. It’s God’s righteous laws that were given to the Israelites at the base of Mount Sinai at the beginning of the 15th Century BCE, and it is these laws which govern our motives to act a certain way. Whether our actions are right or wrong in God’s eyes depends upon how we respond to his righteous laws.

          God didn’t make us into a race of robots but instead endowed us with free will and the hope that we will use that free will to honor him by listening to the Christ and obeying his laws. That is what it really means to be a Christian. Anything outside of that is just an attempt to demean something that God already established long before any posters to this forum even existed.

          Nice try though.

      • Robert Gehrman
        June 27, 2015 at 7:48 pm #

        And how exactly will it impact them?? LOL you closet cases make me giggle.

        • Garry Fielding
          June 29, 2015 at 10:29 am #

          In response to Robert Gehrman

          “”And how exactly will it impact them?? LOL you closet cases make me giggle.””

          If you bothered to read up and down this thread, you may have figured that out. But assuming you have not done so? Here is my analogy.
          Asking how the redefinition (butchering, corrupting, hijacking) of the word marriage will impact those who are currently married, is like redefining the word Vegan, to include meat eaters. Meat is repulsive to most vegans, likewise the homosexual practices, are repulsive to the general heterosexual community, and I cannot see the majority of those wanting to be associated with that lewd and offensive practice.

    • Ralph Horner
      June 23, 2015 at 10:47 am #

      “Some do not want to arrive in the 21st century. Burning of witches and quartering is no longer there.” (Klaus Auberger – June 22, 2015 at 4:02 pm #)

      I agree with you Klaus (any relation to Santa?) Here we are in the 21st century, supposedly with universal education, yet we still have people who can’t see that a ‘man + man’ is intrinsically different from a ‘man + woman’ – people who want to have this contradiction written into our civil law, forced and enforced on the entire population.

      We still have people who want to let blind emotion rule their lives rather than reason and common-sense. Although marriage is greatly enhanced by love, marriage is not intrinsically about love. One can love another person, a relative, a stranger, a male, a female, a cat, a dog, a house, a story.

      The list goes on but none of those loves have anything to do with marriage unless the object loved is a complementary being with the capacity to join together in such a way as to become one. The word marriage applies logically to the potential joining of male and female and nothing else on that infinitely extendable list.

      Of course, without love and faithful commitment it would be no more than a cold and meaningless relationship. But, despite the Beatles ‘Love is all you need’ song, love (an emotion) alone is not the criterion for marriage. If it were we could equally marry a house or a tree or half a dozen of each. The claim of ‘marriage equality’ is meaningless in this context.

      And yet in the 21st century we still have people pushing this illogical barrow that defies reality just as surely as the idea that King Canute could stop the tide coming in does. Making it law will not make it real – it will make those who believe in it out of touch with the obvious truth – that it is not a real marriage and will not deliver the fulfilment that a real marriage can. Sooner or later the lucky ones will crash back to reality just as some of those deluded by the escapist world of drug addiction do. Unfortunately some will not.

      There obvious can be other types of loving human relationships but only the loving relationship of one man and one woman qualifies for the term marriage. If we take that word away and reapply it we will need another word to mean what marriage now means. Haven’t we got much more important and sensible things to do with our lives?

      • Gary Fielding
        June 23, 2015 at 1:40 pm #

        Well said Ralph. There are far better things to discuss, like terrorism for example

        • Stanza Matic
          June 23, 2015 at 2:38 pm #

          Said he who has posted seemingly endless comments on this thread. An amazing record, driven by a morbid fear of homosexuals.

          • Atticus Finch
            July 29, 2015 at 1:33 am #

            There seems to be a lie in society that people have swallowed. That if you do not agree with homosexuality you must fear or hate them. That is a lie !!!!!!! You do not have to compromise your convictions to be compassionate

          • John
            July 29, 2015 at 9:51 am #

            Wow. Really? you chose Atticus Finch as a pseudonym? Did you miss the whole point of that whole book?
            Then again they say five exclamation points is a sure sign of an insane mind so what does seven say! Not every one who is opposed to gay marriage fears or hates them Finchy but Gary sure as hell does. He’s made that quite clear.

          • Eric Glare
            July 29, 2015 at 3:20 pm #

            Atticus Finch I agree it is not necessarily fear or hate of homosexuals but that immediately raises the question of why bother stigmatising us. Why even think long enough of us? And why did you think it important to give us an extremely untimely belated scrap of a comment as if there wasn’t enough already?

            Man do you get it? You have given yourself no room for credibility -except if we take the third meaning (you know in a dictionary) of homophobia: fear of your own sexuality; internalised homophobia. You poor thing having to continually swallow your own lies: “you do not have to compromise your convictions to be compassionate”. Convictions that are a dam wall against the rising passion from within.

      • Garry Fielding
        June 26, 2015 at 4:21 pm #

        “people who want to have this contradiction written into our civil law, forced and enforced on the entire population.”

        Ralph Homer this is the real debate, yet its been falsely taunted as religion vs progress and equality. Keep up the good fight

        • Ralph Horner
          June 27, 2015 at 11:31 am #

          Progress and equality? What a misnomer Garry! I will always remember June 26, 2015 as the day that five unelected and unwise judges of the once justifiably proud US of America sold out the truth and made a lie ‘law’. The only thing to do now is remove the hypocrisy of ‘In God We Trust’ from the US currency.

          • frost
            June 28, 2015 at 4:49 am #

            I mean in god we trust shouldn’t be on the money, money belongs to the government and the government can not have an religion. Why not I’m gods we trust for the Hindus, or in Allah we trust? There should be no reason the government to favor a religion on the bills it prints.

  10. Beat
    June 22, 2015 at 1:18 am #

    Wow, how can someone still believe that the Bible is “God’s word”? The being Christian or Muslim or anything like it is something good – while punishing other people who don’t believe in this crap? In 2015, really? I bet they’re going to say the same about Harry Potter in 1000 years. And then they add more BS every 50 years… and suddenly he was real and was able to heal and make Vodka out of water… and fly – of course.

    • Garry Fielding
      June 22, 2015 at 11:29 am #

      Why are you focusing on them being Christian?

      Their argument entails the redefinition of marriage and how it will impact them.

      Please share your faith belief, or worldview, as I’m sure i could return the favour and commit the genetic fallacy.

      They (the Jensen’s) are still people, and apart from their beliefs, they make good logical sense.

      “Indeed, it raises a red flag when a government decides it is not content only having sovereignty over land, taxes and the military – but “words” themselves.”

      By divorcing and living together, they are demonstrating that apart from the marriage certificate, nothing will change.

      “”It’s worth saying that our decision is not as extreme as it may seem. We will still benefit from the same tax and legal provisions of the state’s “de facto” laws.””

      • Shaq
        June 27, 2015 at 5:21 am #

        If you’re going to talk linguistics, then you need to look at history too. The word ‘marriage’ comes from the Latin word ‘matrimonium.’ This means simply, to be in a state of marriage/wedlock.

        Now the term ‘wedlock’ has no gender specifics. Unlike marriage, which refers to a man and a woman. But it did not always carry this definition. When the word ‘marriage became popular, instead of wedlock, during the 14th century, it came via the Old French word ‘matremoine.’ This word, like wedlock and the original Latin, also has no gender specifics attached to it. Which means the definition, ‘between a man and a woman’ must have been added at a later date. Which means the word ‘marriage’ has already been redefined.

        It is also important to note that, up until the 16th/17th century, the different Church’s had nothing at all to do with marriage. You did not need a priest to perform the ceremony, you did not need a church and neither did you need god. So for 1600 years Christianity had no monopoly over the meaning of marriage or over the ceremony. Which means marriage has already been redefined.

        You’ll find that Christians like this have little interest in linguistics, languages and history, especially Christian history.

        • Gary Fielding
          June 27, 2015 at 4:23 pm #

          “Which means the word ‘marriage’ has already been redefined.”

          Redefined from what? Was it redefined from any other configuration, other than a male and female union?

    • anonymous
      June 23, 2015 at 11:16 am #

      Its dumb not to

    • Ralph Horner
      June 24, 2015 at 11:44 am #

      “Wow, how can someone still believe that the Bible is “God’s word”?” (Beat – June 22, 2015 at 1:18 am #)

      Good question Beat – I say they can and they’re at the mercy of opinion, whim and hedonism if they don’t.

      How can one believe – by being educated and willing to seek for the truth of life.

      By realising that there must by an ultimate, absolute truth beyond the grasp of limited, finite humans (with their opinions and whims) and that outside help is required to access the full picture or form an overview of the whole scope and purpose of creation. The Indian story of ‘Six Blind Men and the Elephant’ illustrate this point.

      By realising that the Bible is not a worldly document about history or science or politics or society but is about the inner world of the mind/spirit (non-physical mental states – the battleground of good and evil to rule our lives) that can only be explained and expounded by parable and using analogy and figurative language.

      By realising that most of the Bible, although using historical stories as a matrix, is not meant to be and cannot be understood literally.

      The human race has advanced in leaps and bounds in a worldly sense (scientifically and technically) but the advance has not been matched spiritually. We (as a race/species) still can’t share, we can’t do good for it’s own sake, we can’t look after the damaged and weak members of society effectively, we fight and often hurt (and kill) others for the most trivial, materialistic reasons.

      These are the sort of things the Bible deals with – how to fight against the selfish and greedy inclinations of our hearts and learn to love and serve others (see Matthew 25:31-46). It’s because of the ideals and principles disclosed in the Bible (and other Sacred Scriptures) that we haven’t totally destroyed ourselves already. The fact that some have twisted and abused it’s teachings for their own selfish advantage does not negate the truth of the message.

      Most importantly the Bible teaches about the existence and nature of eternal life giving a whole new perspective on our relatively short natural/earthly life. To disregard the Bible is to throw out it’s humanising effect and become the victim of unbridled human nature with all it’s contradictions and savagery.

  11. Lin
    June 20, 2015 at 10:14 am #

    Marriage predates Christianity, and even recorded history. Therefore, marriage does not belong to Christianity and you can drop that idea right now. Originally, marriage was an alliance of families, usually in which the people being married had no say in. So the definition of marriage has already drastically changed over human history. Why has it made these changes? Because as we become more civilized and empathic, we begin to realize that not everything is about us and that each individual deserves the rights to make their own decisions for themselves. Marriage equality is the next step towards a more civilized society and a major leap in human development. The ones who oppose it are egotistical fools to actually believe their opinions matter when it comes to the ways other people choose to live their own lives.. speaking of which, I really hope you two enjoy your divorce. Just keep in mind that the only ones who will be affected are you, so if you were hoping to pull at some heartstrings and sway decisions, I’d like you to know it isn’t working at all. Why don’t you spend your time feeding needy children or rescuing abused animals, rather than spending it trying to limit the ways people can love one another? It’s honestly the saddest thing to me that a love different than yours is more offensive to you and others than world hunger and wars.

    • sirakos
      June 20, 2015 at 1:03 pm #

      Lin. Your comment is great.

      This very much seems to be a debate between two kinds of people.
      Hateful people, and loving people.

    • Garry adams
      June 20, 2015 at 6:33 pm #

      “Marriage predates Christianity, even recorded history”

      Lin you cant be serious! Just in your opening sentence you have displayed so much stupid and ignorance.

      Christianity confirms the Biblical model all the way back to the beginning, in Genesis it says something to this effect, “for this reason a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife” this was the first marriage.

      Next up you are making a case for marriage that predates recorded history? If there is no recorded history from the thing you are trying to prove then where are you getting your opinions from? This is both illogical and arbitrary.
      With logic like that, i would suggest you do not take part in adult discussions.

      • Eric Glare
        June 21, 2015 at 7:47 pm #

        Garry Adams you believe in Genesis but are forgetting some of the most significant events that were ‘recorded’ there – typical of the view from blood-stained glasses. All the blights of humanity are there: incest, rape, child rape, trafficking children, imprisonment and objectification of women, inter-marriage punished by war, revenge, capital punishment, murder for injury, slavery, deception for material gain, punishment of children due to their parents, punishment of peoples for the sins of their forefathers generations ago, the invention of race, diverse language, xenophobia, war, genocide, theocracy and religious supremacy and political porky pies to facilitate denial of reality (eg, the Ark; Methuselah lived 969 years and Jared 962 years). All these evils of humanity were not just condoned by the book’s god but ordered by it as a supreme creator.

        Genesis is packaged as supreme irrefutable moral justification for murderous evil. To me it is clearly the most evil book every written and has taken thousands of year up until just the last century to start to reverse its immorality and to begin treating our fellow humans fairly and respectfully as we ourselves would like to be treated. In a relative short time in conjunction with democracy (no surprise there), much of what was ordered in Genesis has become illegal and marriage equality is next.

        To not fight until marriage equality is achieved is to condemn all these antidiscrimination laws that have set the scene and delivered an evidence-based moral imperative for equality. No point having our diverse biology of sex, gender and sexuality being protected at law but not being able to marry. It’s an obligatory step of humanity on our journey toward peace. Away from the evil of our genesis.

        • Garry Fielding
          June 22, 2015 at 10:11 am #

          Eric are you the one with the mental illnesses? sorry not making fun, its just I cant remember. If you are, then your comment would then make lots more sense to me.
          Firstly, I never advocated any religion, as its irrelevant to my premise. As I know and study the major religions, I can refute or debate them without adhering to them. Just to prove my point that you are completely clueless, and should refrain from having any influence on vital changes to this nations law. I ask for proof that the Bible advocates incest? Child rape? If you are successful with proving your claim, we can move onto the rest. If not i will not waste my time giving you a free education.

          But firstly a tip for you, learn the difference between a narration and a command. If i go by your retarded logic, our news reporters support terrorism, rape, theft, car accidents, crime….simply for reporting what has taken place. Please stop commenting on here, you are making yourself look really foolish.

          As for the rest of your drivel, its painful to even read let alone disseminate.

          • Eric Glare
            June 22, 2015 at 4:01 pm #

            Apart from being exceedingly rude, mean and too lazy and forgetful to look at this page, yes again, I do have collection of mental disabilities – yes you are picking the right scab. Yet you remember me calling you out for trivialisation. You are bullying. And you think inconsistent puerile childish argument is good enough to carry your fearful and anxious avoidance of equality.

            “Firstly, I never advocated any religion”. But you did advocate for Genesis and not just as a historical explanation but literally as if Adam and Eve were real people:
            “Christianity confirms the Biblical model all the way back to the beginning, in Genesis it says something to this effect, “for this reason a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife” this was the first marriage.”

            “I ask for proof that the Bible advocates incest? Child rape?” Cherry picked. Read Garry, I said in Genesis and I refer to “righteous” Lot’s two nights of drunken procreation with his married daughters which is blamed on the daughters (yeah as if) and presented as positive and a just outcome especially as it led to the much-boasted lineage of Jesus. If you do genuinely study religion you will know that many times the god of the Bible ordered rape and pillage of neighbouring tribes with and without sparing the virgin girls whose rape is their marriage.

            Narration vs command is not very relevant as most were commanded (as you should know) and then the presence of any story in the Bible of God’s word is advocacy.

            You dare troll this page calling everyone who opposed you stupid and only after conceitedly using pro-religious argument do you tell us you don’t even believe. A bit of bother is your entire argument.

          • Sebastian Cook
            June 24, 2015 at 12:49 pm #

            So, ummm, yeah — you just equated the people who “wrote” Genesis to modern-day news reporters. You do realize that a great deal of what was “reported” in the Bible didn’t actually take place, right? Never mind, forget I asked that question. And you consider yourself to be a religious scholar? Yikes.

          • Gary Fielding
            June 24, 2015 at 2:13 pm #

            “So, ummm, yeah — you just equated the people who “wrote” Genesis to modern-day news reporters. You do realize that a great deal of what was “reported” in the Bible didn’t actually take place, right? Never mind, forget I asked that question. And you consider yourself to be a religious scholar? Yikes.”

            Yikes you have not understood the argument, neither do you know anything about red herrings or strawman, because if you did, you committed them both, which would then make you ignorant. Show me where i called the entire Bible a narration?

        • Garry Fielding
          June 22, 2015 at 9:57 pm #

          My apologies if you got offended, when referring to your mental problems, I should have known better.

          Your comments are so illogical, ill-informed and emotive, that I was almost making excuses for you, that’s all.

          “”Cherry picked. Read Garry, I said in Genesis and I refer to “righteous” Lot’s two nights of drunken procreation with his married daughters””

          Once again you have not provided positive proof, but just cherry picked, and made up stuff from thin air, and side stepped my questions. Again, where is incest or child rape commanded? Where does it say Lots daughters were “”righteous””?

          You don’t deserve a answer to any of your other questions until you either provide some proof or else concede.
          Lots daughters getting their father drunk… this is clearly a narration. If you don’t know that, you can’t be helped, it really is that simple. I basically DREW PICTURES FOR YOU, using news reporters as analogies, but like a two year old child, you just don’t get it.

          Anyone else on here feel my frustration?

          “Narration vs command is not very relevant as most were commanded (as you should know) and then the presence of any story in the Bible of God’s word is advocacy”

          That’s pure BS. Yahweh never commanded Lots daughters to get their father drunk. Once again, this is narration. Once again, by your logic, and I’m struggling not to say retarded logic, again. The equivalency would be to charge the news readers or historians with advocating the crimes that they have reported. If you cannot comprehend basic logic, I suggest you refrain from taking part in these discussions. Try it, i dare you? Ask any christian or theologian about this matter.

          “”You dare troll this page calling everyone who opposed you stupid and only after conceitedly using pro-religious argument do you tell us you don’t even believe. A bit of bother is your entire argument””

          Try me, not everything about religion is wrong. I study Islam, does not make me a Muslim. I study Buddhism and Hinduism. Without been proud or conceited, I know the bible and Koran better than most its followers. This debate is not a religion vs Gay marriage. This debate is pure logic and reason. I have not brought religion into this, others have. I have just corrected their ignorance and lies. Once again, I suggest you refrain from taking part in matters you know very little about, as the more you speak the more you make an entire fool of yourself.

          • Eric Glare
            June 23, 2015 at 3:09 pm #

            The narration (er duoh – the whole thing is narration) of Lot who was “righteous” (2 Peter 2:7-8; not said of his daughters -faux misunderstanding again for a faux attack) is dependent on the myth of being ‘blind drunk’, in itself a ‘sin’. Alcohol causes disinhibition by reducing synthesis of higher cognition and only unmasks ill intention which is why we do not let drunkards escape responsibility for their actions. Today with this type of story narrated by men, we don’t blame the daughters we say he was the perpetrator of incest and of rape, assuming as is likely they were under age of consent -although married, liar Lot had tried to pass them off as unmarried virgins.

            How is the story of Lot’s children-grandchildren not incest? How is the incest condemned or discouraged instead of justified?

            Now Garry that is how you argue something is illogical. Just dumping key words and the odd call of BS is not an argument. It is just protest and a whinge.

            “Once again, I suggest you refrain from taking part in matters you know very little about, as the more you speak the more you make an entire fool of yourself.”
            You are the fool who puts yourself into my private life, my affairs, my family, my culture and my people.

            I bet you could not even annunciate the biological and cultural differences between sex, gender and sexuality. In fact you are too scared to step away from homosexual and same sex. Many words but not once LGBTI. Too scared to actually acknowledge the marriage equality campaign that is where the debate is.

          • Garry Fielding
            June 23, 2015 at 5:06 pm #

            In response to Eric.

            ///The narration (er duoh – the whole thing is narration) of Lot who was “righteous” (2 Peter 2:7-8; not said of his daughters -faux misunderstanding again for a faux attack) is dependent on the myth of being ‘blind drunk’, in itself a ‘sin’. Alcohol causes disinhibition by reducing synthesis of higher cognition and only unmasks ill intention which is why we do not let drunkards escape responsibility for their actions. Today with this type of story narrated by men, we don’t blame the daughters we say he was the perpetrator of incest and of rape, assuming as is likely they were under age of consent -although married, liar Lot had tried to pass them off as unmarried virgins.How is the story of Lot’s children-grandchildren not incest? How is the incest condemned or discouraged instead of justified?///

            Er duoh it was you who earlier argued for divine command and approval.

            So much stupid that its hard to contain myself. first you said Lots daughters were righteous now you have moved the goal posts and attacking a straw man. I need clear admission that you were wrong, not some half convoluted cover up to mask your incompetency. It never says his daughters were righteous, it never says or implies his daughters were underage, stop lying! You need to admit this before i can move on with your other dribble. I will be waiting, unless you do, game over, and get lost, this is becoming tedious.

            You fail to understand, and quote context. This was in the early phase of humanity, and Lots daughters took matters into their own hands, hoping to continue the human race. Same question as where did Cain get his wife from?
            Or on the atheistic worldview, who did the first male and females offspring (or early humans) procreate with? These are elementary questions. It is obvious Cain had to marry his sister. As Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters…. But later as humanity grew, the practice was outlawed. (Leviticus 18:6-18).

            By your logic and standard, any woman who gets a male drunk, to achieve their goal, are the victims??? You really are no good at this are you?. How much more humiliation do you want to bare before you realize you are completely incompetent.

            ////////Now Garry that is how you argue something is illogical. Just dumping key words and the odd call of BS is not an argument. It is just protest and a whinge.
            “Once again, I suggest you refrain from taking part in matters you know very little about, as the more you speak the more you make an entire fool of yourself.”
            You are the fool who puts yourself into my private life, my affairs, my family, my culture and my people.////

            Another straw man. I wont nothing to do with your private life, family, affairs and culture…

            It is you who wants to hijack marriage and corrupt its meaning, which will then enter my private life. The whole populous has gotten married with the knowledge that it was exclusively defined as a male and female union. Its deranged people like yourself who want to move the goal posts and cause untold problems for those already married.

            \\\\I bet you could not even annunciate the biological and cultural differences between sex, gender and sexuality. In fact you are too scared to step away from homosexual and same sex. Many words but not once LGBTI. Too scared to actually acknowledge the marriage equality campaign that is where the debate is.//////
            Dont need to, its irrelevant to the topic. equality does not apply. we are talking redefining words to mean something that cannot fit, and will have devastating effects on the innocent. That is why my vegan analogy is so powerful.

            Now one last time acknowledge defeat that you are wrong to interpolate into sacred text what is simply not there or even remotely implied. If you cannot I see no reason to educate you further as you will stick your fingers into your ears, like a child and pretend not to hear.

          • Eric Glare
            June 25, 2015 at 7:29 pm #

            Garry Fielding [comment-95663], none of what you attribute to me is true. Nowhere on this page has anyone said that Lot’s daughters were righteous or even any other characteristic for that matter.

            The old switch the question trick with a misquote. And repeat after eliciting a protest. Add a big dose of ridicule with an incredulous attitude and faux indignation to polish the contrived character blame.

            If your position was genuine and morally defensible you would not have to resort to so much ridicule always playing the person, for example telling them they “displayed so much stupid [sic] and ignorance” and to warn “do not take part in adult discussions [to Lin; comment-94885]”. Just a tantrum.

    • vera
      June 21, 2015 at 6:58 am #

      Lin, I am sorry to read how misinformed you are. Marriage was
      created in the Garden of Eden – read Genesis ch. 1- 4
      and it was expressly created for pro-creation. This is why the
      only authentic marriage is comprised of a male and female. Any
      other perversion is the idea of sinful man and not the Creator –
      The God of Judeo-Christianity. I am so saddened by the
      errors you display in your thinking.

      PR ONTOWE

      • Ralph Horner
        June 21, 2015 at 2:57 pm #

        I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said Vera. Whence comes this mistaken idea that marriage predates religion? Religion has been around as long as people have. There is an implication of marriage in the creation of two genders (male and female), marriage being the joining together of those two complementary genders as the vehicle for producing new life and continuing the species.

        Marriage does predate Christianity but the Christian scriptures (with the inclusion of the OT of the Jewish Church) date back to creation itself. The principle governing human sexuality is given in the second chapter of Genesis (verse 24) – before the Fall from the blessed Garden of Eden state of mind that was enjoyed by the earliest humans.

        Christ reiterated the law of sexuality (Matthew 19:4-6) showing that nothing has changed. Homosexuality doesn’t get a mention because it’s nature has already been explored in the OT and shown to be a gross misuse of the sexual function.

        There is no excuse for discriminating against and vilifying people who have this problem (all people have problems of one sort or another) but there is good reason for not pretending that such a relationship is a marriage.

        All the bogus stuff about ‘equality’ is a ‘red herring’. There is no inequality, only different choices – for either a complementary (male/female) relationship or a same-sex relationship. The two types of relationship are intrinsically and essentially different.

      • John Griffiths
        John Griffiths
        June 21, 2015 at 4:25 pm #

        You seem confused Vera, Genesis is not viewed as a historic document by any serious religious scholar in the world.

        Furthermore while spirituality has been with us a very long time there’s little evidence for organised religion before 10,000 BC, so we can be reasonably certain people were coupling up before then, unless you’re claiming marriage is an un-natural state foisted on society by the church?

        • Garry adams
          June 21, 2015 at 6:52 pm #

          John Griffiths who are these “serious religious scholars that reject Genesis?
          And what written historical sources are you referring to? I want to know about those older than 10, 000 years since this is what you implied, and specifically to marriage, since this is the subject.

        • Garry Fielding
          June 22, 2015 at 10:52 am #

          John Griffiths thanks to Google any whacked out notion can be believed, begin with a priori and you will find what you are looking for, in text or even out of context.
          Here just to prove my point http://creation.com/gobekli-tepe

          It is important to keep in mind (with regards to Gobekli Tepe) that less than 5% of the excavations are complete, with still over 95% incomplete, assumptions are rife, and not facts. Further, excavations will eventually give more data, but until then we don’t know enough, and if the other party is at liberty to speculate then so is the other. rocks and building material don’t talk, they have to be interpreted.

          there are numerous sites like this, that give their evidence to prove Genesis history and archaeology. https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/

          I don’t supply these links to prove anything, other than anything can be proved, its up-to you to find that truth and decide for yourself which one makes the most sense to you, not popular belief. And as Google grows with information that task will become more daunting. Good luck.

    • TJay75
      October 11, 2015 at 9:04 am #

      Marriage began in the garden of Eden between Adam and Eve. After Adam and Eve inherited sin for their mistaken choice to disobey God’s direct command to them, not to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, they passed that inherited defect through the generations which followed after them. Just like a dented bread pan will always produce loaves of bread with the same shape of that dent, so too, Adam and Eve passed that inherited defect to their children. (Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-5,14-19)

      The rest is history. Leading up to the day when Noah built the Arc, he was commanded to do that by God because God realized how completely immoral and wretched that generation had become——-hence the reason why he told Noah to build the Arc and to gather his family and the animals to enter into it. (Genesis 6:5-24; 8:1-4)

      Modern archaeological science has corroborated these historical events that were recorded in the ancient scrolls that make up God’s word. From those events in Noah’s day up to the time when God’s son Jesus came to the earth (which, in fact, would be when Christianity began) and thereafter, the historical record is quite accurate.

      Following the things Jesus Christ taught is what it means to be a Christian and as Jesus said, he didn’t come to destroy the ancient law or the prophets but instead to fulfill the Mosaic Law covenant which was given to Israelite’s at the foothills of Mount Sinai.

      When the recently discovered Dead Sea scrolls (dated from around 125 to 100 B.C.E.) were compared with ancient Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts from about 930 C.E. (almost a thousands years later), only minor differences were found, mostly in spelling. Yet when fully compared, it shows how well preserved God’s Word was kept throughout ancient history.

      How can we be certain that the contents of the Bible we have today truly reflect the original inspired writings?

      Regarding the Hebrew Scriptures, part of the answer lies in an ancient tradition that was established by God, who said that the text should be copied. For example, God instructed the kings of Israel to make their own copies of the written Law. (Deuteronomy 17:18) Additionally, God made the Levites responsible for preserving the Law and teaching it to the people. (Deuteronomy 31:26; Nehemiah 8:7) After the exile of the Jews to Babylon, a class of copyists, or scribes (Sopherim), developed. (Ezra 7:6, footnotes) Over time, those scribes made numerous copies of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures.

      Through the centuries, scribes meticulously copied these books. During the Middle Ages, a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes carried on that tradition. The oldest complete Masoretic manuscript is the Leningrad Codex, which dates from 1008/1009 C.E. However, in the middle of the 20th century, some 220 Biblical manuscripts or fragments were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those Biblical manuscripts were more than a thousand years older than the Leningrad Codex. A comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Leningrad Codex confirms a vital point: While the Dead Sea Scrolls contain some variations in wording, none of those variations affect the message itself.

      What about the 27 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures? Those books were first penned by some of the apostles of Jesus Christ and by a few other early disciples. Following the tradition of the Jewish scribes, early Christians made copies of those books. (Colossians 4:16) Despite attempts by Roman Emperor Diocletian and others to destroy all early Christian literature, thousands of ancient fragments and manuscripts have been preserved until our day.

      Christian writings were also translated into other languages. Early translations of the Bible include those in such ancient languages as Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Latin, and Syriac.

      “Well,” some may say, “Not all copies of ancient Bible manuscripts contain identical wording, so wow, then, can we know what the original text contained?”

      The answer is quite simple in fact…

      The situation could be likened to that of a teacher who asks 100 students to copy a chapter of a book. Even if the original chapter was later lost, a comparison of the 100 copies would still reveal the original text. While each student might make some errors, it is highly unlikely that all the students would make exactly the same ones. Similarly, when scholars compare the thousands of fragments and copies of ancient Bible books available to them, they can detect copyist error and determine the original wording.

      Commenting on the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar William H. Green stated: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.” Regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures, or so-called New Testament, Bible scholar F. F. Bruce wrote: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.” He also said: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”

      While its easy to poke holes through something one might not fully understand, it takes a concerted effort of thorough research and study to come to the right conclusion about the historical evidence we have to date.

      As mentioned before, much of modern science already corroborates these ancient historical events.

  12. Michael
    June 20, 2015 at 4:12 am #

    Being from America, an atheist (former Pentecostal Christian) who is well versed in the Bible and theology…here is the thing…

    I don’t care (and neither does the rest of the world) if Nick and Sarah split. Since the ban on gay marriage has been lifted in 37 out of 50 states here in the U.S. and with the Supreme Court about to announce its ruling on gay marriage, it is a hot topic here.

    Saying “God” instituted marriage is like saying “This book of fairy tales that is full of holes in its infallible doctrine (written many centuries ago, with its first ruling on homosexuality written over 5000 years ago) which can’t be proven to be even remotely true…defines marriage. This is idiotic!

    If the christians want the word “marriage” (like they own the word), fine. Give it to them. But let’s make another word in our laws to mean the same thing…like “bonded” or “partnered” and do a “find and replace” in our laws. Every place that has the word married or marriage…now becomes bonded or partnered. Therefore, the christians are happy and the homosexuals are happy.

    But as we know…that won’t make the Christians happy at all…because the gays will still having butt sex and that disgusts them. Just because they can’t understand that being gay is not a choice (just like being hetero isn’t a choice) and that there isn’t a god telling you what to do (a biblical god…it’s just men that think they have an inside track on a supernatural imaginary friend they they think is supposedly the creator of this fine mess we call the universe), we have to listen to their poisonous, self righteous, judgmental dribble.

    Religion poisons everything!

    • TJay75
      June 24, 2016 at 2:04 pm #

      You clearly contradict yourself at just about every other sentence, but to dismiss the Bible as some fairy tail as you so assert, aptly shows how little you actually know about world history and archeology——-both of which confirm this “so-called” book of fables as you like to refer to it.

      You exclaim that people “…can’t understand that being gay is not a choice (just like being heterosexual is not a choice)…,” but you fail to realize how much you just nullified your own logic——-or should I say lack there of?!

      You say heterosexuality is not a choice just as you presume homosexuality is not a choice and then fail to realize that you just made a conscious decision to accept one or the other based upon your preference——-of which you’ve clearly shown to the rest of us reading your meaningless conjecture.

      To acknowledge that our lives have some moral precept——-whether it’s believing that things like murder, rape and incest are wrong——-but then stopping short of acknowledging homosexuality as an inter-related causal link, but instead insisting that it is just fine and acceptable is like saying that, while it’s wrong to bully someone, even to the point of beating them up and dragging their integrity through the mud on purpose——–it’s okay to watch a boxing or UFC match, in which the participants essentially do the same thing.

      Talk about hypocrisy!——-There is just as much of it among those whom claim that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

      You can make pretend that a part of our human history doesn’t exist for your own convenience all you want——-but that doesn’t change our history nor the fact that the God of the Bible clearly demonstrated by his destruction of the two ancient cities Sodom and Gomorrah, how he felt about His human creation abusing themselves and those around them in this way.

      It was detestable to God and that is why he destroyed those two cities.

      If you pay real close attention to what’s going on right now, the stage is already being set by the oligarch’s with the current governmental push for gender-neutrality and the forced influence of these sick and twisted ideologies which only defy what it means to be a human being, not to mention dishonor the heavenly creator of all life——-the God of the universe——-the one whom has every right to set universal laws and righteous principles to live by.

      How dare we, as God’s human creation, question his rightful sovereignty. How easy we forget what history has taught us…

      Sodom and Gomorrah were real cities, of which have been thoroughly examined by archeologists for years. The evidence of their discoveries have proven beyond the shadow of any doubt, that those two ancient cities were destroyed by a big event, of which was further corroborated by the large deposits of sulfur and ash.

      Anyone who doubts the existence of the Sodom-Gomorrah ruins should pay a visit, look around and feel the ruins for themselves!

      It’s easy to poke fun at those whom believe in an intelligent origin of our own lives as we know it, to make pretend these things don’t matter for the sake of one’s own selfish and God-dishonoring longing——-but to think that we’ll escape God’s final judgement by claiming to be Christian but at the same time doing what God, long ago, already said was not acceptable conduct, is not only bold defiance of the One whom gave us our life to begin with but also shows how truly desperate we are to bend the rules all the time because we simply don’t care what any one else thinks.

      It’s one thing to flaunt something to get a rise out of another——-but it’s an entirely different matter all together when what we flaunt openly dishonors the Creator and Ultimate arbiter of all life——-the one whom has the right to determine how we should live…

  13. Krista
    June 20, 2015 at 1:19 am #

    I’d like to point out that marriage was originally a business transaction… The father would sell his daughter to the man she’d marry, she had no say in it…. So uhh. Why can’t my fiancé still buy me from my dad? Oh right, probably has something to do with my basic human rights. Which changed the original definition of marriage. Congrats to your divorce though, I hope you did buy your wife for a good price. Say 3 chicken and an ox.

    • Garry adams
      June 20, 2015 at 6:38 pm #

      Krista you are missing the point entirely.
      Even if there was a marriage contract….it still fits the definition of marriage, been between a man and a woman

      • Krista
        June 21, 2015 at 1:28 pm #

        No, I think you’re the only one here missing the point. The fact that you can’t sell your daughter into marriage already means that the definition of marriage. We’re changing it again. If no one is forcing you to marry a dude, it won’t affect you. So perhaps you need to shut up and let the grown ups talk, because obviously, you don’t understand the concept that it’s not your rights that are being denied to marry the person you love. You remember what that is right?

        • Garry adams
          June 21, 2015 at 7:11 pm #

          Sometimes its a good idea to let people talk, the more they talk the more they reveal how little logic and reason is behind their position.

          For starters what has selling your daughter to a male have anything to do with redefining marriage to include same sexed couples?
          By your logic, we should allow pedophiles to marry, since Muhammed has already married a six year old girl, so your logic goes, “marriage has already been violated, so why not again?”
          Regardless of the abuse in previous history, it is crystal clear that it was always a male and female, that has never changed.
          And you are completely wrong to say it will not affect anyone, that is absolute rubbish!
          Every married couple living today will forever have to quantify their marriage , with similar words to, uf a man, “but im married to a woman” or if a lady, she will have to say, “but im married to a man” this will become highly contraversal and very uncomfortable.

          Right now none have to do this and if we leave marriage alone, none will ever have to.
          Hope this helps i tried to keep it simple for you.

          • PJ
            June 25, 2015 at 11:37 pm #

            You sound angry, Garry.

        • TJay75
          October 12, 2015 at 8:11 am #

          I would kindly like to direct your attention my post that appears directly before Michael’s comment on June 20, 2015.

  14. R@
    June 18, 2015 at 3:37 pm #

    Are you aussies still living in the 18th century?

    Sweden have leftt all that behind us and moved on

  15. Ross Beale
    June 17, 2015 at 4:44 pm #

    Well I won’t be listing my status as married on any GOV documents as marriage will now mean something completely different, I guess we will all have to put ‘other’ now. The Gov needs to create a new word for Normal marriage, perhaps Kiddushin.

    • Krista
      June 20, 2015 at 1:21 am #

      I like this. It’s fun to say, it just rolls off the tongue.

    • trinityhaus
      June 20, 2015 at 4:08 am #

      Are you really that stupid? Marriage is secular holy matrimony is non secular. Very simple. And the state of one persons marriage has no bearing on yours, otherwise when people married for money, convenience, for the sake of the kids, to get into the country and all the other fake reasons people marry, you would be saying the SAME THING,.

  16. Camila Díaz (@Camila_DiazS)
    June 17, 2015 at 3:30 am #

    This is a clear proof why gay marriage isn’t bad for anyone. I mean, who would care if Nick and Sarah get a divorce? Just them! That’s exactly what happen with same sex marriage, just the gay couples who want to get marry would do it (and hopefully live happily ever after).

    Nick, if you want to divorce your wife, don’t blame it on gay people, cause LGTB community wouldn’t care about your life and the decisions you make.

    • Ross Beale
      June 17, 2015 at 7:18 pm #

      Well there is clear proof that children should have a Father and a Mother.

  17. Ralph Horner
    June 17, 2015 at 1:12 am #

    The amazing thing to me is in the comments – how many people have no idea of what marriage is. Marriage is a term that describes a complementary conjunction which is why a male and a female (being complementary) can form a marriage but two of the same sex cannot.

    The Jensen’s protest may not be practical but it is well founded and logical. If so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ is legally supported the term marriage will no longer be about marriage i.e. about complementarity but about appeasing personal whim.

    Marriage, as a legal term, would no longer reflect what marriage really is. Even if they were to legally divorce under such an eventuality, the Jensen’s would still be married (the true meaning) as to their hearts and minds.

    Same-sex couples, even though they retagged their relationships as ‘marriages’ would only be married as to the new corrupted meaning, not as to the true meaning of the word. Same-sex relationships can never be of the same order as complementary/male and female unions because men and women are not the same. This is so obvious – why on earth are so many people duped by the inadmissible cries for equality.

    • Garry adams
      June 17, 2015 at 6:04 pm #

      Ralph Horner what they are attempting to do is completely illogical. As i have already demonstrated with a very clear analogy. It would be like forcing the word vegan to now include meat eaters, that really is how retarded this new movement is.

      Imagine that for a moment, a person who is exclusively vegan, will then have to add “but im a non meat eating vegan” if this is not stupid i dont know what is. Put another way, a married man or woman will forever be saying something to the effect ” im married naturally” or “I have a normal/traditional marriage”

      This will become highly contraversal and uncomfortable. This problem does not exist at the moment and it needs to stay that way.

      • Ralph Horner
        June 18, 2015 at 10:15 am #

        I agree with you completely Garry and I think it’s a very apt analogy. The problem is that the pro ‘marriage equality’ lobby is not thinking logically. When one thinks logically there is no ‘equality’ issue. As your analogy shows the distinction between a marriage (male/female) relationship and a same-sex relationship is one of being mutually exclusive.

        The plea for ‘marriage equality’ is based entirely on emotion – the feeling of having missed out on something good and worthwhile. The claim is that both types of relationships are based on love but the fact that love is involved does not override the difference.

        Vegans and carnivores both love their chosen eating style/habit but unless we want to live in a confused, inexplicit world where nobody knows what anything really is (and hence are unable to gauge it’s true quality), it’s ridiculous to think that one word will cover both.

        • Garry Fielding
          June 18, 2015 at 10:10 pm #

          “it’s ridiculous to think that one word will cover both.”

          Spot on Ralph, one word cannot cover both hence why we have different words to describe different eating habits, herbivore, carnivore and omnivore. The name marriage is synonymous with male and female union. To alter this in any way will cause untold difficulty for those already married. Once again this is not a victim-less crime, redefining marriage has huge ramifications and should never be allowed. Vegans would be appalled if their descriptive term was made to include meat eaters, completely and utterly illogical!

          • sucariya
            June 20, 2015 at 12:25 am #

            You are surely joking.

          • Garry adams
            June 20, 2015 at 6:41 pm #

            Sucariya, are you going to contribute anything to this discussion or are you just a trolling fanatic with nothing intelligent to say?

          • TJay75
            October 12, 2015 at 10:58 am #

            I completely agree with Gary Fielding. You sound like a grown up whom knows what their talking about.

            Naysayers and people whom seek to bend the rules for their own selfish and God-dishonoring conduct, really are just looking for a way to excuse themselves from accountability for their God-dishonoring conduct.

            If one can remove culpability from the equation then anything goes really!——-What will we have next on the chopping block——-a take down of the laws which condemn rape and murder as wrong?!

            Sure its easy to see why those things should always be considered wrong——-Oh, but, God forbid the unnatural act of perverting oneself by going against the natural laws he put in place, when he created the universe and our earthly home, all of a sudden its considered an act of treason?!

            How about how God really feels about all this?!

            Whom the heck are we as mere humans, (dust as God called us), to even think we have the right to determine for ourselves what is right and wrong?!——-How dare we even encroach upon his universal sovereignty like that?!

            There are 3 parties responsible for the deplorable condition in which we find ourselves today——-Satan the Devil, Adam and Eve! It was because of their choice to defy God’s righteous decrees in the Garden of Eden, that so many of Adam and Eve’s offspring today have chosen to also follow their own way instead of adhering to God’s laws. That still is no excuse to do wrong just because others also do wrong. That kind of thinking is exactly what led to the destruction of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 18:20; 19:1-13,15-17,23-25)

            The apostle Paul, out of righteous indignation, warned the early Christian congregations about this very matter when he said,

            “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I, then, take the members of the Christ away and join them to a prostitute? By no means! Do you not know that anyone who is joined to a prostitute is one body with her?…Flee from sexual immorality! Every other sin that a man may commit is outside his body, but whoever practices sexual immorality is sinning against his own body.—1 Corinthians 6:15-18 (NWT)

            “For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.—1 Thessalonians 4:1-7 (KJV)

            The apostle Peter further emphasized this same Godly principled in 64 C.E. (about 14 years later) when he wrote,

            “…there will also be false teachers among you. These will quietly bring in destructive sects…bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct, and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words. But their judgment, decided long ago, is not moving slowly, and their destruction is not sleeping. Certainly God did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into Tartarus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment. And he did not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people. And by reducing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes, he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly people of things to come.—2 Peter 2:1-6 (NWT)

            “And he rescued Lot, who was greatly distressed by the brazen conduct of the lawless people…Daring and self-willed, they are not afraid to speak abusively of glorious ones…these men, like unreasoning animals that act on instinct…speak abusively about things of which they are ignorant. They will suffer destruction brought on by their own destructive course, suffering harm as their reward for their own harmful course…”—2 Peter 2:7-13 (NWT)

            “Their eyes are full of adultery and are unable to desist from sin, and they entice unstable ones. They have a heart trained in greed…Abandoning the straight path, they have been led astray. They have followed the path of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the reward of wrongdoing, but was reproved for his own violation of what was right…These are waterless springs and mists driven by a violent storm, and the blackest darkness has been reserved for them. They make high-sounding statements that are empty. By appealing to the desires of the flesh and with acts of brazen conduct, they entice people who have just escaped from those who live in error. While they are promising them freedom, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for if anyone is overcome by someone, he is his slave.”—2 Peter 2:14-19 (NWT)

            God created the universe, the earth and everything that supports and makes life possible and gave us very simple rules to live by. He is the Alpha and the Omega, as spoken about through his agent prophets, the Almighty God whom created these things and he alone has the right to lay down laws for us to follow.

            The only reason people today are disobeying those laws are because we inherited that sinful course from our ancestral parents Adam and Eve. Our current imperfect state was never part of God’s plan for his creations but, in his infinite wisdom, he knows that the best way solve the issue raised in the Garden of Eden by Satan the Devil, is to permit humanity to prove to themselves that they are not capable of making up their own rules to live by and that God’s righteous laws are really intended for us to govern our lives in the best possible way.

            That is why God hasn’t brought about his final judgment upon the earth yet because he is giving humanity a chance to come to the rightful conclusion about him, by using the gift of free will he gave us to do so.

            But time is running out as we obviously can tell by the deplorable state this world is in now. The prophecy about this condition, referred to as “the last days…” (2 Timothy 3:1-5), clearly shows that we are already there.

            It won’t be much longer now before God finally steps in to put a stop to the rampant wickedness so prevalent among human society today. And when he does, as for me, I know that I don’t want to be swept away with the wicked when he reigns in that destruction, but instead, as a follower of his Son Jesus Christ, I seek to be preserved alive in this soon to be Great Day of Judgment.

            “Preserve me, O God, for in thee do I put my trust…Thou wilt shew me the path of life, in thy presence is fullness of joy, at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.”—Psalms 16:1,11 (KJV)

        • George
          June 20, 2015 at 7:06 am #

          Marriage has meant many things throughout the history and cultures. No, marriage does not exclusively include a man and a woman. It’s definition encompassed/encompasses arranged marriages (not about love), child marriages, polygamy and even forced marriage. For the bible lovers even it says that women are to be subdued to their husbands and polygamy.

          • Garry adams
            June 20, 2015 at 6:43 pm #

            George it still involves opposite sexes, so your point again?

          • TJay75
            October 12, 2015 at 11:59 am #

            God never condoned a forced marriage however it is a divine institution for intimate relationship between husband and wife.

            When establishing marriage, God did so not only to provide a close companion who together, would physically complement each other, but also to make a provision for producing more offspring, doing so within a family arrangement.

            “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”–1 Cor 7:2 (KJV) [ There is no allowance here for plurality of mates on either side. ]

            Also, God is not the originator of polygamy. He gave Adam just one wife. Later, Lamech, a descendant of Cain, took two wives for himself. (Gen 4:19) In time others imitated his example, and some took slave girls as concubines. God tolerated the practice, and under the Mosaic law he even instituted measures to assure proper treatment of women whom had such a relationship. He did this until the Christian congregation was established, but then required that his servants return to the standard that he himself instituted in Eden.

            As for Abraham, he took Sarah as his wife. When she was about 75 years of age and thought she would never bear a child, she requested her husband to have relations with her maidservant so that Sarah could have a legal child by means of her. Abraham did so, but it led to serious friction in his household. (Gen 16:1-4)

            God fulfilled his promise to Abraham regarding a “seed” by later miraculously causing Sarah herself to become pregnant. (Gen 18:9-14) It was not until after Sarah’s death that Abraham took another wife.—Gen 23:2; 25:1.

            Jacob became a polygamist because of deception on the part of his father-in-law. It was not what Jacob had in mind when he went to seek a wife in Paddanaram. The Bible record tells in considerable detail about the unhappy rivalry between his wives.—Gen 29:18 – 30:24.

            It is a well known part of ancient Biblical history Solomon had many wives as well as concubines. But not everyone is aware that, in doing so, he was violating God’s clearly stated commandment that the king “should also not multiply wives for himself, that his heart may not turn aside.” (Deut 17:17)

            It should also be noted that, because of the influence of his foreign wives, Solomon turned to the worship of false gods and “began to do what was bad in the eyes of God…And God came to be incensed at Solomon.”—1 Kings 11:1-9.

            Also, the Bible record does indicate that Cain married one of his sisters (Gen 4:17; 5:4) and that Abram married his half sister. (Gen 20:12) But later, in the Mosaic Law, such marriage unions were specifically forbidden. (Leviticus 18:9,11) They are not permitted among true Christians today. Marriage to a close relative results in a more-than-average probability that damaging hereditary factors will be passed on to their offspring.

            So why was brother-and-sister marriage not inappropriate at the beginning of mankind’s history?

            God created Adam and Eve perfect and purposed that all humankind descend from them. (Gen 1:28; 3:20) Obviously some marrying of close relatives, especially within the first few generations, would occur. Even after sin made its appearance, there was relatively little danger of marked deformities in the children during early generations, because the human race was much closer to the perfection that had been enjoyed by Adam and Eve. This is attested to by the longevity of people then. (Gen 5:3-8; 25:7)

            But about 2500 years after Adam became a sinner, God prohibited incestuous marriage. This served to safeguard the offspring and it elevated the sexual morality of God’s servants above that of people around them who were then engaging in all manner of depraved practices.—Leviticus 18:2-18.

          • Adam Ansteve
            October 12, 2015 at 12:40 pm #

            Geez TJay, that is a LOT of writing to explain why your piece of fiction should dictate other people’s relationships.

            Is it my turn now to explain how because Gandalf warned us not to wear rings of power we should ban jewelry? All writing is real right? Or could it be that even if the writing is really old it’s still super made up. Copies of Lord of the Rings are almost unchanged for 60 years! clearly proof Middle Earth is real!

            Ignoring your religious zealotry does not mean I remove culpability from myself so anything goes. It just means that I chose compassion for it’s own sake over dogmatic discrimination.

          • TJay75
            October 12, 2015 at 1:56 pm #

            In response to Adam Ansteve implying that Biblical history is a work of fiction:

            Marriage began in the garden of Eden between Adam and Eve. After Adam and Eve inherited sin for their mistaken choice to disobey God’s direct command to them, not to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, they passed that inherited defect through the generations which followed after them. Just like a dented bread pan will always produce loaves of bread with the same shape of that dent, so too, Adam and Eve passed that inherited defect to their children. (Genesis 2:15-17; 3:1-5,14-19)

            The rest is history. Leading up to the day when Noah built the Arc, he was commanded to do that by God because God realized how completely immoral and wretched that generation had become——-hence the reason why he told Noah to build the Arc and to gather his family and the animals to enter into it. (Genesis 6:5-24; 8:1-4)

            Modern archaeological science has corroborated these historical events that were recorded in the ancient scrolls that make up God’s word. From those events in Noah’s day up to the time when God’s son Jesus came to the earth (which, in fact, would be when Christianity began) and thereafter, the historical record is quite accurate.

            Following the things Jesus Christ taught is what it means to be a Christian and as Jesus said, he didn’t come to destroy the ancient law or the prophets but instead to fulfill the Mosaic Law covenant which was given to Israelite’s at the foothills of Mount Sinai.

            When the recently discovered Dead Sea scrolls (dated from around 125 to 100 B.C.E.) were compared with ancient Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts from about 930 C.E. (almost a thousands years later), only minor differences were found, mostly in spelling. Yet when fully compared, it shows how well preserved God’s Word was kept throughout ancient history.

            Regarding the Hebrew Scriptures, God instructed the kings of Israel to make their own copies of the written Law. (Deuteronomy 17:18) Additionally, God made the Levites responsible for preserving the Law and teaching it to the people. (Deuteronomy 31:26; Nehemiah 8:7) After the exile of the Jews to Babylon, a class of copyists, or scribes (Sopherim), developed. (Ezra 7:6, footnotes) Over time, those scribes made numerous copies of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures.

            Through the centuries, scribes meticulously copied these books. During the Middle Ages, a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes carried on that tradition. The oldest complete Masoretic manuscript is the Leningrad Codex, which dates from 1008/1009 C.E. However, in the middle of the 20th century, some 220 Biblical manuscripts or fragments were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Those Biblical manuscripts were more than a thousand years older than the Leningrad Codex. A comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Leningrad Codex confirms a vital point: While the Dead Sea Scrolls contain some variations in wording, none of those variations affect the message itself.

            hat about the 27 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures? Those books were first penned by some of the apostles of Jesus Christ and by a few other early disciples. Following the tradition of the Jewish scribes, early Christians made copies of those books. (Colossians 4:16) Despite attempts by Roman Emperor Diocletian and others to destroy all early Christian literature, thousands of ancient fragments and manuscripts have been preserved until our day.

            Christian writings were also translated into other languages. Early translations of the Bible include those in such ancient languages as Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Latin, and Syriac.

            There have also been archaeological discoveries which reveal evidence that Noah’s Arc landed where these ancient scrolls said it did, on the mountains of Ararat (Gen 8:4), in what is now eastern Turkey, lying close to the border of Iran. Many place-names in the region recall the Biblical account. Mount Ararat itself is called by the Turks ‘Aghri Dagh’ (Mount of the Ark) and by the Persians ‘Kohinuh’ (Noah’s Mountain).

            Archaeology has confirmed many historical events of the Biblical account with regard to these lands and has substantiated points once held in question by modern critics.

            Skepticism about the Tower of Babel, denials of the existence of a Babylonian king named Belshazzar and of an Assyrian king named Sargon and other adverse criticisms of Biblical data relating to these lands have all been demonstrated to be without foundation.

            Quite the contrary, a wealth of evidence has been unearthed that harmonizes fully with the Scriptural account, including, and most appropriately for the purpose of the topic of this discussion, the fact that the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah reveal clear evidence of an overwhelming destruction, wherein many samples of the ruins of these cities were taken from among the east and southeast of the Dead Sea.

            This is not mere fiction as you so foolishly state but in fact, is corroborated by modern archaeological science.

            You didn’t even give it the old ‘college-try,’ so I really can’t congratulate you on your attempt to classify fiction as opposed to fact. A reasonable and even non-religious argument, based upon all available artifacts and other forms of evidence, would still sound far less foolish than the meaningless conjecture you try to accuse others of.

            Maybe you should open the Bible and read it once and a while and then visit some of the places referenced in these ancient Holy writings so that fact from fiction can clearly be discerned rather than presupposed on your part.

            If the fact that crazy groups such as ISIS, whom have begun to destroy ancient artifacts, many of which relate to Biblical history, isn’t telling enough for you, that we are nearing the time Bible prophecy calls, ‘the last days,’ then maybe you should pay a visit to the museums which contain large remnants of much of this history, before, of course, they attempt to destroy that too, because really, what they are doing is attempting to destroy the true history of the world, all while at the same time, claiming to do so in the name of God.

            By their very actions, they’re in fact, dishonoring God!

          • TJay75
            June 24, 2016 at 2:27 pm #

            Polygamy was something that God only allowed for a short period of time in order to help grow the human family, but as the Biblical record shows, after the Israelite’s received the Mosaic Law Covenant, it was made very clear how God felt about the matter and Jesus later confirmed God’s feelings about being married.

            When the Bible refers to wives it is simply admonishing them to respect their husbands, just like at the same time it also admonishes husbands to respect their wives too. This is nothing that most respectable people don’t already try to do within the confines of their relationships.

            You can piecemeal your response all you want, but God is not wishy-washy nor does he expect his followers to be…

      • Suzy
        June 18, 2015 at 4:19 pm #

        The vegan analogy is a great one Garry! I have difficulty understanding why those wanting change always feel the need to take perfectly good easy-to-understand words from our “normal” vocabulary and seem to delight in putting them into a completely foreign context, ie marriage, rainbow, etc. Perhaps those of us who prefer the original meaning of our language, should simply take back our words and refuse to let go of them. Surely there are new words that could be explored by those wanting to “belong” and they would then have their own form of recognition rather than stealing ones that since ancient times have had another meaning. Inventive folk should be able to secure their own labels – come on it can’t be that difficult! Why steal what’s there when there are always more that could enter the language.

        • John Griffiths
          John Griffiths
          June 18, 2015 at 4:28 pm #

          Suzy, which “original meanings” are you talking about??

          The Old English of Beowulf is a bit of a mouthful these days.

        • Garry Fielding
          June 18, 2015 at 10:14 pm #

          Thanks Suzy, you are right on the money.

          Your choice of words “stealing” is very accurate. Reminds me of the stolen generation. where our government tampered with aboriginal families and removed children from their natural families and now reaped a whirlwind.

      • Eric Glare
        June 18, 2015 at 4:49 pm #

        You have called us retarded, stupid and brain dead Garry, the spiteful language of the defeated, but it is you who have not addressed why you need an analogy of opposites when single is the opposite of marriage. Claiming I “make no sense at all” is wimping out entirely, beaten because it was indefensible. You even moved the argument away from my rebuttal to this new spot in the posts so you could moral-wash it for another public airing.

        Why not argue reality instead? Because you need a fake black-and-white analogy to carry your disingenuous argument. Can’t you think of an analogy that is more relevant and more accurate to your case? How about black=hetero-married, white=single/unmarried and LGBTI relationships are charcoal? I think charcoal is just a version of black and maybe you think it is too white. See how easy it is when you remove the plank of bigotry and prejudice from your eye? Likewise, from your ears – haven’t you heard the warning bells of defeat of arguments that come down to calling the opposing side stupid and retarded?

        • Garry Fielding
          June 18, 2015 at 9:54 pm #

          context context “brain-dead and retarded” comments, learn the difference.
          My vegan analogy is spot on! Opposite of vegan would be a meat eater. Opposite of heterosexual would be a homosexual. Opposite of marriage would be divorced or single, your point?

          “”You even moved the argument away from my rebuttal to this new spot in the posts so you could moral-wash it for another public airing.””

          Or the reply tab was not visible, perhaps due to some malfunction, so i moved it where it would allow me to comment. To rest of your comments, are just empty drivel and don’t deserve any reply

      • Stanza Matic
        June 18, 2015 at 6:06 pm #

        So idiotic, that analogy. Denying anyone the right to marriage based on sexual orientation is more like saying vegans (or carnivores) may not visit the supermarket to purchase their particular food. (Hardly a very loving example, given we are talking about marriage, but let it stand.)

        Also, anyone who uses the word ‘retarded’ in that way is insulting people living with an intellectual disability, and their carers.

        • Garry Fielding
          June 18, 2015 at 10:39 pm #

          So idiotic, that analogy. Denying anyone the right to veganism based on food orientation is more like saying carnivores (or herbivores) may not visit the supermarket to purchase their particular food. (Hardly a very loving example, given we are talking about food choices, but let it stand.)

          Also, anyone who uses the word ‘retarded’ in that way is insulting people living with an intellectual disability, and their carers”

          I didn’t know words have feelings, so idiotic that logic.

          • Eric Glare
            June 19, 2015 at 12:34 pm #

            Garry Fielding, our arguments suggest words have feelings? That isn’t bonkers unless you are in primary school. That is spitting, frothing hate. And that is why describing us, our debate, our movement for equality as stupid, retarded and brain-dead are not allowed by the standards in most work places or in media reporting. As Stanza explained you used an unfortunate and ill group of people to insults us both directly by criticising our brain health to the point of no hope and indirectly because this bullying that we have had to live with for a life time creates mental illness, self harm and suicide.

            You know we LGBTI are bullied to despair. And you stopped by, desperate to make your point again and again, to prod and poke our wounds again.You are a scab picker without a real argument.

            I am fighting for my health and livelihood. Why are you so desperate? Why so devoid of any compassion?

          • Garry Fielding
            June 19, 2015 at 1:01 pm #

            “”Garry Fielding, our arguments suggest words have feelings? That isn’t bonkers unless you are in primary school. That is spitting, frothing hate. And that is why describing us, our debate, our movement for equality as stupid, retarded and brain-dead are not allowed by the standards in most work places or in media reporting. As Stanza explained you used an unfortunate and ill group of people to insults us both directly by criticising our brain health to the point of no hope and indirectly because this bullying that we have had to live with for a life time creates mental illness, self harm and suicide.

            You know we LGBTI are bullied to despair. And you stopped by, desperate to make your point again and again, to prod and poke our wounds again.You are a scab picker without a real argument.

            I am fighting for my health and livelihood. Why are you so desperate? Why so devoid of any compassion?””

            Eric Glare let me be right upfront, I DON’T BELIEVE YOU!

            You have chosen highly emotive words to make a emotional argument, void of logic and reason.

            According to your logic we should allow Islam to implement sharia law, so its adherents don’t become suicidal.

            You cant deal with sound logic so you are now “appealing to pity”. Yet where is the pity for the suicide bombers? Where is the pity for the stolen generations? The children who got to miss out on their natural families?
            And where is the pity for heterosexual couples who will be forced to quantify their marriage, constantly, controversially and with great discomfort? Where is your pity for them? Why are you devoid of compassion? Why are you using the law, to bullying people into accepting something they do not want?

            You may have deceptively and with malicious intent used those tactics in a controlled work environment, that forces everyone to accept what they, deep down in their heart of hearts, know to be wrong, but it wont work here.

          • Eric Glare
            June 19, 2015 at 2:55 pm #

            Garry I do believe Sharia Law should be allowed but it must remain subject to and inferior to the laws of state. This should be the case with all other religion in Australia but at the moment some Christians steel the religious freedom of other Christians (eg who would marry LGBTI), of Islamic ‘churches’, Buddhists and of atheist and agnostics. I believe in true religious freedom, not selectively, but maximised by freedom from other’s choices.

            Of course my prose is “highly emotive words to make a emotional argument” because unlike you I have been a victim of this discrimination for 50 years. Yes I don’t really belong to my family and I haven’t been involved with my siblings or their children. At times I don’t even thoroughly belong to LGBTI families because I am open about having mental illness. You are just another stereotype in the congo-line of hate.

            I do have pity for all the groups you mention such that my volunteer work and my advocacy has sort to lessen the load of discrimination and promote understanding. Yes that includes challenging xenophobia that would create marginalised terrorist supporters.

            We LGBTI have the moral imperative and we point the way to peace where Christianity has harboured the warmongers, the xenophobes, the sexual abusers, capitalist greed and those that would cull family of natural diversity – certified morality rather than objective evidence-based morals. Affording people basic respect and dignity (essentially Jesus’s commandment if you believe) regardless of your own beliefs does work for harmony and its absence is a legal liability wherever decisions are made about people.

            You merely call what is obviously good manners as “deceptively and with malicious intent” because they show you up as immoral and selfish.

          • Taylor B.
            June 19, 2015 at 6:24 pm #

            By your logic, Garry, we shouldn’t wear mixed materials for clothing and we shouldn’t eat shrimp. Also, slaves should be allowed, and selling off your daughter should also be legal. The bible shouldn’t be taken seriously, and if you choose to believe in it, then you should take it ALL to heart. Don’t f***ing cherry pick shit to help you sleep at night.

          • Garry adams
            June 21, 2015 at 7:38 pm #

            In resresponse to Taylor B.

            “By your logic, Garry, we shouldn’t wear mixed materials for clothing and we shouldn’t eat shrimp. Also, slaves should be allowed, and selling off your daughter should also be legal. The bible shouldn’t be taken seriously, and if you choose to believe in it, then you should take it ALL to heart. Don’t f***ing cherry pick shit to help you sleep at night.”

            That has got to be one of the dumbest comnents on here.

            Firstly where did i claim that i am religious? Just because i know alot about religions does not follow that i belong to them. I study equally islam, christianity, Hinduism….

            Just to prove my point, eating shrimp, mixing fibres or even slavery are not commands for christianity.
            The mixing of crops, fibers, animals, marriages….were all lessons for the Jewish nation.
            As history records, Israel was scattered (exiled) to the four corners of the earth, after some 2000 years they became a nation again. May 14, 1948. No loss of their native tongue, religion or tradition.
            The lessons that Yaweh taught them have served them well. Any other people group would have mixed with other nationalities, cultures and groups and could never have returned.
            Apparently this was all prophesied millenia before it happened that Yaweh will gather them again.
            I got all this from my christian friends, i listen and learn, i suggest you do the same.
            So to my point, you cannot introduce straw man arguments when you have no clue about my position.

            I never claimed or used religion, i just know it, and know it well. And you are misrepresenting their position.

            My argument was sound logic from the start.
            Redefining marriage is like redefining veganism to include meat eaters. Has nothing to do with equality or discrimination.

      • ron
        June 19, 2015 at 9:11 am #

        Garry,

        Can you help me, I have a predicament here. When automobiles were first invented, they were all cars. And we would drive them.

        But then later, trucks came along.

        I like driving my car. But my next door neighbor has a truck. And he says he enjoys “driving” it, as well.

        This can’t be right, can it? “Drive” is what you do to a car. Not to a truck. People who steer trucks around to get from one place to another should have their own word. “Drive” is my word.

        If he keeps this up, then every time someone asks me how I get to work, I won’t be able to just say ,”I drive.” I’ll have to say, “I drive A CAR,” lest they assume that I’m one of those people who owns a truck. And you know what THOSE people are like. Ew.

        What do you suggest?

        • Garry adams
          June 19, 2015 at 10:12 am #

          To answer your question, NO, i cant help you! You fail to understand a simple and clear analogy, that veganism like marriage has absolute meaning. While automobiles are vehicles and both men and women can drive them. Just shaking my head

        • Trev
          June 19, 2015 at 10:28 am #

          Sorry Ron, Garry is right. Marriage does have an absolute meaning. It’s between a man and a woman, or a man and his women, or his man and his woman and his concubine, or between a man, his woman and her slave or between a man rapist and his victim but other than those variations the bible (which also prohibits me from eating crabs so you know it’s focused on things that really matter) makes it pretty clear there is only one definition!

    • sucariya
      June 20, 2015 at 12:22 am #

      Nothing worse than a bigot who thinks they’ve well-reasoned their bigoted opinion. Marriage is a term to describe an ancient economic ritual in which a woman was given to a man in exchange for material objects. I hope you paid well for your wife.

      • Garry adams
        June 20, 2015 at 6:52 pm #

        Sucariya if you disagree with anyone then you are a bigot, am i right? You are against others having an opinion but you just shared yours. What does this make you, hypocrite? As for your other drivel its so stupid its not worth responding to.

  18. Jess
    June 17, 2015 at 12:56 am #

    I knew Nick and Sarah before they were married but we fell out of touch. Frankly, reading this, I’m glad. I am appalled that they can say such things, and more appalled that they genuinely believe what they’re saying.

  19. Garry adams
    June 16, 2015 at 7:50 pm #

    Who are you to tell me how i would feel?

    Slight awkward moment is a understatement! It will be extremely uncomfortable and highly contraversal, not to mention embarrassing! That is why marriage needs to stay as it is, it is not broken and doesn’t need fixing.

    You cant move the goal posts once husband and wife are married, i suspect this is the reason behind the Jensens course of action.

    Why are you using the word “equality”?

    Doesn’t fit and doesn’t make sense! This has nothing to do with equality, same sexed people already have equal rights.

    The word marriage is synonymous with a man and a woman. When someone says they are married there will be no need to add anything further. Homosexuals can think of their own name, who is denying them (“equality”) to do this?
    Redefinition of marriage is not a innocent or victimless move, as i have so clearly demonstrated.

    • ron
      June 17, 2015 at 2:10 am #

      Hey Garry,

      Seeing as most researchers place the worldwide gay population at somewhere around 10%, what reason do you have to fear someone would assume you’re gay? Wouldn’t most people assume you’re straight, based purely on the statistics?

      What are you so afraid of?

      Also, 50% of marriages end in divorce. If that isn’t “broken”, I don’t know what is.

      You haven’t clearly demonstrated anything. Who is the victim? Perhaps you should draw a diagram.

    • Eric Glare
      June 17, 2015 at 2:55 am #

      Are you aware intersex people do not have the right to get married, not yet? What an extreme case of faux misunderstanding of marriage equality. We LGBTI, not just homosexuals, don’t have equal rights for our relationships to be married. The idea we already have equality is just purposely the wrong equation, the wrong meaning to obfuscate unless inconceivably you would welcome us marrying your kids. You express a lot of anxiety of over being associated with homosexuality (protests too much?) and you did not show us the respect of an honest counterargument.

      I call it a kick in our goal. Thanks.

      • Trev
        June 17, 2015 at 9:06 am #

        Eric I THINK Garry believes that civil unions are equal to marriage. He’s wrong but it’s a common misconception.

        He is right on one thing. “Redefinition of marriage is not a innocent or victimless move” unfortunately the redefinition has already happened under Howard and the victims are my gay friends and colleagues not poor poor Garry.

      • Garry adams
        June 19, 2015 at 4:11 pm #

        Eric i am forced to respond here as there is no reply option to your last comment. Also the system will not allow me to copy and paste your comments so i will have to rely on memory.

        Firstly you said you would welcome sharia law but it would have to adjust to any government law.

        Have you any idea how silly that sounds?
        Sharia law will not ever tolerate homosexuality. Secondly you are suggesting religion (in this case islam) has it wrong, but the government’s have it right and they decide, and we should yield to them. Really? What about the Russian goverment? As one example.

        So let me ask a question, do you always accept everything the goverment says?
        I am sorry you have mental issues, but dont you then see that you are disqualified from taking any part in discussions, let alone lobbying the government to make changes, considering your faculties cannot be trusted.

        I am not taking a cheap shot here but been brutally honest as most of your response is so illogical, full of misconseptions and just plain ignorant, that i would have to write an entire page just to correct your logic.

        • Eric Glare
          June 22, 2015 at 11:30 pm #

          Pure evil stigma Garry:
          “I am sorry you have mental issues, but dont you then see that you are disqualified from taking any part in discussions, let alone lobbying the government to make changes, considering your faculties cannot be trusted.”

          Actually my dysfunction is mostly about capacity and endurance but not IQ and I have yearly neurospych tests to prove it. And I’m on lots of treatment. I still read scientific papers and have academic debate but I’m not about to do another PhD. What would you know about mental illness?

          You are just a selfish person who discriminates and effectively excises whole groups of people from society because they have features you don’t like. You’re first class all the way.

          • Gary Fielding
            June 23, 2015 at 1:56 pm #

            Eric if you have a PHD, then it certainly is not evident in all your correspondences. You are poor in logic and reason. All you have is childish and emotional arguments, void from from any substance.

            Your appeal to pity, and adhom is fallacious, and has not worked here.
            Btw the selfish and evil person is you! You are advocating to change a word for the majority, without any consideration on how adversely it will impact them.

            And finally, i could care less about your boastful credentials, when you are not on the side of truth NOTHING will and can help you.

    • Trev
      June 17, 2015 at 8:47 am #

      I was of course teasing you when i said it would be slightly awkward for you Garry. Of course I understand it would be foaming at the mouth, arm flailingly controversial(if you’re going to insist on repetitively using that word to hide your homophobia PLEASE spell it correctly) and embarrassing for you. Imagine being considered equal to a homosexual! You ARE a victim in this. You have a toy that you have and don’t want to share. Does that mean you SHOULDN’T share? No it doesn’t. It just means you need to stop being selfish.

      Garry if you were married pre-2004 the goal posts have ALREADY moved. They have moved multiple times since the marriage act was brought in in 1961.

      What you consider equal (same but different) is never the same. In fact “Same-sex couples and families get fewer leave entitlements, less workers’ compensation, fewer tax concessions, fewer veterans’ entitlements, fewer health care subsidies, less superannuation and pay more for residential aged care than opposite-sex couples in the same circumstances.

      Same-sex couples are denied these basic financial and work-related entitlements because they are excluded from the definitions describing a couple in all the federal laws in Appendix 1. Federal law after federal law defines a ‘partner’ or a ‘member of a couple’ or a ‘spouse’ or a ‘de facto spouse’ as a person of the opposite sex.

      Further, children in same-sex families may suffer because one or both of their parents are denied the financial and work-related entitlements which are intended to help families live better.” – humanrights.gov.au

      Those reasons are why we push for same sex marriage under the law.

    • Stanza Matic
      June 19, 2015 at 4:37 pm #

      So gay people can’t be married because you dread anyone thinking you are gay. I have been married for over 20 years, and I would not feel that other people having that opportunity would change my marriage one iota.

      I don’t fear gays and lesbians. They are really no different from heterosexuals in the desire to love and be loved; that is part of human nature. Thank God.

      • Garry adams
        June 19, 2015 at 11:11 pm #

        So it doesn’t bother you if someone mistakes your normal marriage for a abnormal one?

        Lets reverse the question.
        Would it bother samesexed couples if society assumed they they had a normal, natural, traditional marriage? The confusion works both ways.

        Whether it bothers you or not is irrelevant, you don’t get to decide for the 99% who are straight. You would have to have your head buried in the sand to assume it wont bother anyone, i know many men who would start a fight in two seconds, if someone mistook them for been homosexual.

        So lets use your logic, “It bothers me, yet it doesn’t bother me one bit if they think of their own name”
        So who gets to decide, the person who is bothered or the person who is not bothered? Anyone can make arbitrary statements, words have meanings and marriage is used only for opposite sex couples.

        Lets have a private vote and allow the entire Australian population to vote on this, give them the pros and cons and let the people decide.

        Your argument that the samesexed are missing out on love, because the word ‘marriage ‘ does not include them is simply not true, and insulting to them.

        “Thank God”

        What god? Both Allah and Yaweh condemn homosexuaity.

        • Bob
          June 20, 2015 at 11:49 am #

          Listening to a bigot try and defend their position is always a hysterical undertaking. Thanks for the laughs, Garry!

          The term “marriage” pre-dates religion. It’s a legally recognized bond between 2 individuals. In most countries these days, that bond in typically restricted to a minimum age of consent. There were periods in time where that was not the case…when pre-pubescents could actually marry. Some cultures allow men to have multiple spouses, some do not. Some young girls are forced into marriage, or bartered in trade.

          Whatever the case, claiming that marriage is only between a man and woman is bullshit. Marriage exists, again, as a legally recognized bond between two consenting adults. “YOUR” definition of marriage is immaterial. Gay marriage affects nobody on this planet except gay individuals. If you’re not gay, your opinion on the subject is completely moot. The majority cannot make laws concerning the minority when it comes to discrimination.

          Frankly, I grow increasingly frustrated by people of your mindset who seemingly cannot comprehend even the simplest ideas about discrimination. We don’t live in the 15th century, so drop your bigoted thinking and find a god-damned hobby because you certainly have way too much time on your hands to be actively involved in a subject that has absolutely NOTHING to do with you!

          • Garry adams
            June 20, 2015 at 7:11 pm #

            Bob if you are against bigotry then why are you against any other opinion that differs from yours? The word hypocrite comes to mind.
            Even though i never made one comment that suggests im religious, i would like to know where “marriage predates religion”?

            “The majority cannot makes laws concerning the minority when it comes to discrimination”

            Do you not see how stupid and contradictory that statement is?
            You are in effect asking the majority of goverment to make laws.
            Secondly, you are against free speach and democracy, something you are using to make your case. Are you not special pleading and a hypocrite?
            Redefining the word marriage to make it include homosexuality does in fact affect others.
            It will be confusing, controversial and cumbersome to quantify a marriage that was just a given it was between a man and a women.

            What you should be thinking is how dare this 1% minority group change married for the majority. Has nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination, they can find their own word.

        • Eric Glare
          June 21, 2015 at 8:17 pm #

          Bothered? That’s like a mosquito buzzing around. You say you are and will be hurt but all we can hear is a whine and lots of protest but all like 3 year old denied a lolly half an hour before dinner. Sure some of my attitude is toughened due to a life time of persecution but you simple do not make your case. You get it that there has to be some balance of harm here but you completely fail to see that you have dismissed your harm as insignificant: bother: worry, effort, trouble, difficulty or annoyance. Just a notch along from neutral. Is that all you have got?

          • Garry Fielding
            June 22, 2015 at 11:10 am #

            Firstly Eric, I have no idea who you are responding to?

            OK, lets play your silly game.

            Homosexuals already have equal rights, they can form a union (cohabit together), they can lobby the government for their entitlements, if entitled to any. Yet a marriage certificate is just a notch up from neutral (your words).

            “”bother: worry, effort, trouble, difficulty or annoyance. Just a notch along from neutral. Is that all you have got?”

            But a silly answer like that needs to be corrected.

            If you don’t mind trivializing other peoples concerns, then you wont mind us trivializing yours, see two can play that game. Game over! Move on, you are no good at this.

          • Eric Glare
            June 22, 2015 at 5:28 pm #

            Garry, of course you can see I was responding to you because that’s why you commented – you have to rebut. Even when you don’t have one you make out you do by fluffing like here.

            You make my point Garry. You only have bother as the reason – a wimpy whine, a silly game you lead us on. You can’t be honest, not even with words. Bothered is a relatively weak word, one notch from neural where there are many more strident ‘notches’ such as ‘traumatised’. Marriage is a notch above the automaton defacto but there are no more notches, there is no greater mechanism to recognise relationships in our society. More faux misunderstand from you.

            What is going on Garry, what aren’t you telling us? Being bothered and insulted doesn’t cover your rabid compulsion to oppose equality. You have always trivialised your own case because you can’t be honest with us or express yourself. And you trivialise our numbers to the lowest most corrupted result too (eg the Census). Why do you sound like me circa 1987 when I was trying to be heterosexual and fit the fundamentalist Christian cult of my extended family? It seems you live an anxious life wondering if the next person you come across is going to think you are gay. I am sorry if that is due to child abuse.

            Be honest and tell us who you really are and what you actually believe. What is your sex, gender and sexuality status? I am male, man and homosexual. Do you believe in equality generally? Equality for women? Do you believe in the moral good of anti-discrimination legislation on sex, gender and sexuality, ie hetero-LGBTI? Is it a greater insult than homosexuality to be thought of as transgender even if it is only suggested you regularly cross-dress rather than completely take the other gender?

          • TJay75
            June 24, 2016 at 2:46 pm #

            Only bullies and trolls are one’s whom stick around to continually tear down another person simply because they say they believe in God’s righteous principles.

            If you really were all about love you might try to understand why so many Christians have such a respect for God’s ancient decrees.

            Just like you would show love and honor to an LGBT flag or symbol, so too Christians have their own precepts to live by. For you to trash all over them simply because their teachings don’t condone your way of life is really no different than the racial biases which existed in the 50’s and 60’s, of which also promoted and perpetuated oppression and further hate and violence.

            You are simply advocating one form of hate over what you perceive as another form of hate——-So much for some solid analogical reasoning!——-I think its safe to say such logic quickly disappeared after your first few comments. Nice try though.

        • Adaman Steve
          June 22, 2015 at 11:15 am #

          Garry based on you repeatedly saying your issue isn’t one of religion it seems your ONLY issue is that you’re a big old bigot.

          No I don’t say that because you have an opinion different to mine. In fact I’m fine with Ralph and Vera holding a different opinion. I wish they’d change it but it is what it is. They’re coming from a religious place and no matter how discriminative I feel it to be, what can you do when someone’s God tells them to discriminate.

          You however are just a bigot. You’ve said to Trev that it would be insulting to be mistaken for a gay person and he’s right. The only people who will find it insulting is people who think they are better than gay people. You are definitely not better than a gay person.

          You pretend it’s logic, that it’s about defending the importance of the dictionary. That we can’t change words because words are words or some such thing but it’s only when you could potentially be considered gay that this sudden concern for words kicks in.

          99% of people are not straight. about 9-11% are gay (higher if you include people who at one time had a gay relationship but are straight). A lot more have a loved one who is so even though they are straight they want their loved ones to be able to marry.

          If you know many men who would start a fight if someone mistook them for homosexuals then congratulations! You know many assholes. I do hope we get a vote. If the best argument the No side can put up is “I don’t like people changing words and me and my asshole mates are bigots” I think we’ll be fine.

          • Garry Fielding
            June 22, 2015 at 12:27 pm #

            “”Garry based on you repeatedly saying your issue isn’t one of religion it seems your ONLY issue is that you’re a big old bigot.

            No I don’t say that because you have an opinion different to mine. In fact I’m fine with Ralph and Vera holding a different opinion.””

            And Ralph has expressed support for my premise, and Vera agrees with my premise. Your point again? Looks like the big old bigot is in fact you.

            You advocate tolerance, but are in fact intolerant of my views, that makes you a bigot on a grand scale.

            All you got is adhoms and fallacious reasoning. Show me some substance apart from your emotional dribble.

            You have committed the genetic fallacy; claiming that Ralph, Vera’s and even my positions cannot be taken serious due to their origins. Next is a false dichotomy, implying that anyone against the redefinition of marriage has to be religious and if they are not, they are bigots. Only two options?

            That would be like saying “only religious people are against abortions, and anyone that inst is a bigot” Just shaking my head!

            “”You pretend it’s logic, that it’s about defending the importance of the dictionary. That we can’t change words because words are words or some such thing but it’s only when you could potentially be considered gay that this sudden concern for words kicks in.””

            I don’t pretend to use logic, I do use logic and prove it. You on the other hand have thoroughly demonstrated that you are making baseless and fallacious arguments. Straw man, as another example.

            I have I not given a fine analogy about veganism? Veganism….like marriage has meaning that cannot include meat eaters, it impacts them.

            “”99% of people are not straight. about 9-11% are gay (higher if you include people who at one time had a gay relationship but are straight). A lot more have a loved one who is so even though they are straight they want their loved ones to be able to marry.””

            Even if the 10% was true, which it is not, more like 1%. Your point is emotional appeal, void of logic and concern for others.

            “”If you know many men who would start a fight if someone mistook them for homosexuals then congratulations! You know many assholes. I do hope we get a vote. If the best argument the No side can put up is “I don’t like people changing words and me and my asshole mates are bigots” I think we’ll be fine.””

            Have you any right to dictate to them how they are to feel?

            this is just more emotional blackmail. Have you not seen any football or boxing match….? Are you calling all these sportsmen names now? Simply because they find it insulting? If you find my position insulting, should i call you names?

            Whether sport or the school yard, someone will want to sledge their opponents, with the words “”Phaggot”” or similar, and a fight will start out? It is just a fact of life that straight men do not want to be associated with homosexuality, it is the highest insult.! Even if i don’t agree with this, its still a fact. The media can try and wash this down with “they questioned his sexuality”. Which is not accurate, as they did not question his sexuality, they know his sexuality, they want to inflict the highest insult for maximum impact and the “”phaggot”” word will do it every time. But the fact remains, words have definitive meanings, and to change marriage to include the same sexed will create far more problems than the LGBT are experiencing now. The word marriage is not broke, it needs to stay as it is. Whether your are a atheist or a theist is irrelevant.

          • TJay75
            June 24, 2016 at 3:16 pm #

            In response to Adaman Steve’s comment:

            “Garry based on you repeatedly saying your issue isn’t one of religion it seems your ONLY issue is that you’re a big old bigot.”
            —————————————————————————————–

            Wow!—Really?!

            You too sound just like another bigot——-Oh…Oops…did I just say that?——-But I thought this forum was all about bashing other peoples beliefs because they don’t agree?!

            Uh…I hate to say I’m a bit confused here, but I can’t help but to notice all the duplicitous yet demeaning comments being posted about Christians whom are simply advocating what they believe in. Hmm…I guess those two newly-wed-divorcee’s should have thought twice about posting this article with forum space——-wait a minute——-did I just say that too?——-Meh!——–What’s the use?!——-The majority of these posters are obviously more interested in beating someone over the head with an idea without realizing the consequence of that idea.

            While every action has a consequence, I guess if you’re an atheist/LGBT/aka–Non-Christian, then you have no culpability——-no responsibility for your own actions toward others——-never mind what you do in your private lives.

            Wow!—Most of those claiming no belief in God sure seem to have such a High and Mighty view of themselves when they’re promoting hate and violence toward Christians simply because a Christian advocates God’s word——-a precept of which, by the way, is exactly what Jesus Christ taught his followers to do.

            So sad that those whom claim to be all about love seem to show none of it when they condemn and malign and deride Christians as well as encourage hate of them.

            Jesus taught his followers to live by the things he taught and to admonish others to do what was right but out of respect for another person even if one didn’t agree. The simple concept he was referring to with such teaching was the point of reaching someone’s heart kindly with God’s word and the promises he made to those whom would listen to him and follow Christ’s teachings.

            So, um, let’s see, whom again, really is the hater here?!——-Nice try though.

  20. Little spaniard
    June 15, 2015 at 9:46 pm #

    Hilarious. Simply hilarious. I’m waiting for their reaction when someone tells them Earth is NOT flat lol

  21. Simonsays2015
    June 15, 2015 at 3:44 pm #

    I wonder if all the staff where Mr Jensen works and, more importantly, the medical practice where Dr (at least for now) Jensen works have agreed to, or are happy about, the publicity this article will bring. The ‘internship’ may be ok with it as it’s a Christian group but it’s hard to imagine the other doctors at the medical practice being too thrilled.

  22. Simonsays2015
    June 15, 2015 at 2:24 pm #

    David, these are time honoured traditions in the Churches. The Royal Commission into child sexual abuse is making this quite clear.

  23. Church
    June 15, 2015 at 9:34 am #

    I love how they say that it’s forcing them to do this, like if they don’t do it they’ll be punished by the courts or something.

    It’s not forcing them to do anything. The law doesn’t mandate that their marriage or any other heterosexual marriage be annulled if same sex marriage is legalized. Heck, not even their church is telling them to do this. They’re just trying to make so they say that gay marriage destroyed their marriage, when really they themselves is what ended it…by their own choice.

    But let’s hope the two of them stay married anyway. They sound like they deserve each other.

    • flootzavut
      June 17, 2015 at 5:28 am #

      This. All of this.

      No one is “forcing” them to do *anything* – no one “forced” them to have their marriage ratified by the state in the first place, for that matter. Literally no one – the state, the church, fellow Christians – requires them to divorce over this, and it’s only in their own heads that the state extending its support of marriage to same sex couples has any bearing whatsoever on their marriage.

      They are just throwing a tantrum that they don’t live in a theocracy.

      Just stupid, disgusting showboating. I am a Christian, but I am ashamed to be even remotely associated with turdblossoms like this.

  24. Anonymous
    June 15, 2015 at 9:19 am #

    Seriously? Is there a difference between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage? NO. Absolutely nothing. They are very ignorant and need to wake up.

  25. Mimihaha
    June 15, 2015 at 8:12 am #

    When I read about this in The Onion, I thought it was something they’d made up. What a couple of….people who deserve each other.

  26. Mikael Guggenheim
    June 14, 2015 at 1:04 pm #

    I fullheartly support your divorce. Please just do it right away and shut up about it. If you don’t care about other peoples happiness I sure as hell don’t care about yours.

    • Ted Turner
      June 14, 2015 at 5:50 pm #

      I thought marriage as an institution was also to ensure that the funded Church had a continuous stream of payers and to further ensure the future indoctrination of children into the church before they were mature enough to have developed their own free mind.
      The state was involved on health grounds to try and stop promiscuity and the spread of STD.
      Ironically, the initial public schools in England were setup with that name to make absolutely clear that they were not influenced by the State or the Church, because they reduce the encouragement of independent thought by dictating bias. That is why public schools charge fees as independents, because they’re not subsidised by institutions who want to make you think their way.
      And it sadly seems to be still required today, why are people still helplessly being led by fairytales that make no sense?

  27. Jón Valur Jensson
    June 14, 2015 at 11:06 am #

    It is altogether understandable that people are appalled at “homosexual marriage”, as from time immemorial, and still even with the vast majority of mankind, this has not been seen as natural.

    Plato’s vision was right: any leniency in these matters will have detrimental effects on society.

    And how can some Christians presume to know better than God Himself in these matters of marriage? How dare some Christians to contradict the Creator’s words, and the Son of God, about marriage of man and woman?

    • David Gordon
      June 14, 2015 at 10:28 pm #

      Creator’s words,written by man

    • Rob England
      June 16, 2015 at 5:15 pm #

      The words of demented old mystics that have been badly edited for several millenia are hardly relevant in the 21st Century

      • Ruthie
        June 17, 2015 at 6:23 pm #

        God’s word- the bible remains the same forever.It is never old fashioned or irrelevant.

        • John Griffiths
          John Griffiths
          June 18, 2015 at 9:16 am #

          Well, except as and when translations vary and books are added and deleted. It changes quite a lot over the years.

          • Ralph Horner
            June 18, 2015 at 10:56 am #

            I think you’re very mistaken John. Books are not “added and deleted”. The Bible is written in ‘dead’ languages – languages that are no longer used – so they do not change. We can always go back to the original and it will always be the same.

            Translations vary because the translation is into a living language and they can also reflect the translators prejudices and limitations of understanding.

          • Ruthie
            June 18, 2015 at 3:45 pm #

            The fundamental truths of God’s word never changes.

          • Trev
            June 18, 2015 at 4:23 pm #

            The fundamentals of God’s word Ruth? Like “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

            Except when it doesn’t suit you right and you want to discriminate?

    • flootzavut
      June 17, 2015 at 5:33 am #

      1) Please quote chapter and verse of Jesus’ views on same sex marriage.

      2) Equating platonic philosophy with Christianity puts you on some seriously dodgy ground, brah. Really. Don’t do that.

  28. vee705
    June 14, 2015 at 3:13 am #

    They need to understand traditional Biblical marriage:
    “11 This is what you shall do: every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall devote to destruction.” 12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young virgins who had not known a man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

    13 Then the whole congregation sent word to the people of Benjamin who were at the rock of Rimmon and proclaimed peace to them. 14 And Benjamin returned at that time. And they gave them the women whom they had saved alive of the women of Jabesh-gilead, but they were not enough for them. 15 And the people had compassion on Benjamin because the Lord had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.

    16 Then the elders of the congregation said, “What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?” 17 And they said, “There must be an inheritance for the survivors of Benjamin, that a tribe not be blotted out from Israel. 18 Yet we cannot give them wives from our daughters.” For the people of Israel had sworn, “Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin.” 19 So they said, “Behold, there is the yearly feast of the Lord at Shiloh, which is north of Bethel, on the east of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.” 20 And they commanded the people of Benjamin, saying, “Go and lie in ambush in the vineyards 21 and watch. If the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in the dances, then come out of the vineyards and snatch each man his wife from the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. 22 And when their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Grant them graciously to us, because we did not take for each man of them his wife in battle, neither did you give them to them, else you would now be guilty.’” 23 And the people of Benjamin did so and took their wives, according to their number, from the dancers whom they carried off. Then they went and returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and lived in them. 24 And the people of Israel departed from there at that time, every man to his tribe and family, and they went out from there every man to his inheritance.”
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+21%3A10-24&version=ESV

    • David Gordon
      June 14, 2015 at 10:33 pm #

      Sounds like kidnapping and rape.nice traditions

    • vee705
      June 18, 2015 at 5:16 am #

      To be clear, I don’t condone kidnapping or rape.
      Just pointing out that some of the Biblical ideas of marriage aren’t what most people think.

  29. David Cordover
    June 13, 2015 at 5:00 pm #

    We need more people supporting TRUE #marriageequality. At the same time we stamp out the outdated, demeaning and restrictive gender restriction of marriage we need also to address the mathematical, emotional and temporal abuses which current laws impose. Why should marriage be restricted to only 2 people? I say let us provide true freedom and allow an entire village to marry if they want. And why only to those you love. If I want to marry 40 people for whom I have feelings ranging from ambivalence to love then why am I denied the opportunity? Or what about the poor guy who hasn’t yet found love but is happy to settle by marrying the guy he really likes? We would deny him lifelong companionship? For myself I am most angered by the time imposition. I am prepared to give 10 or even 15 years but not my whole life to my partner. Why should we not be afforded the same legal protections or societal respect because we choose to have an end date less morbid than death. I call on everyone to lobby the conservative, bigoted, misguided lawmakers to allow this institution of marriage to evolve to a truely flexible and modern expression. The day that happens I will be able to achieve my dream of equality in society by marrying on this glorious day 18 women, 14 men, 2 transgender and 2 transsexual, some of whom I dislike, some I think are ok and a few I love, for periods of time ranging between 3 and 53 years, none for life. And when we achieve true marital enlightenment maybe, just maybe, we can have a society that does not publicly vilify people just for having a different belief. And we can all get along.

    • flootzavut
      June 17, 2015 at 5:30 am #

      Well done for destroying your straw man so utterly. You must be proud.

      • Ruthie
        June 17, 2015 at 6:27 pm #

        You are a very sick man David.What a mess our world would be in if you had your way.

    • Ross Beale
      June 17, 2015 at 5:47 pm #

      Yes this is the problem once you change one part of the law you end up with crack pots like yourself getting on board.

  30. vee705
    June 13, 2015 at 12:15 pm #

    I think someone needs to inform them of traditional Biblical marriage:
    “Deuteronomy 21:10-14English Standard Version (ESV)
    Marrying Female Captives
    10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.”

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A10-14&version=ESV

  31. eguavon eguaibor
    June 13, 2015 at 11:25 am #

    God uses the State to formalise marriage. A secular society will always do things that conflict with biblical principle.

    Responding by getting a divorce is akin to saying that people should plan to sin because they do not like what the government will do. Furthermore, it is equivalent to wrongly terminating the plan of God (the will of God) for one’s life on the basis of being offended. This is not supposed to happen and is plainly an affront to God. One does not pull out from God’s will just because an action is opposed.

    A married couple shouldn’t allow a government to move them to divorce, which shows that the couple is wrongly focusing on the pitfalls of the “secular contract” rather than the superior and holy marriage institution which is solemnised on the wedding day. In the event that the Marriage Act is amended to include same-sex marriage, it should not upset or otherwise affect the holy and unique spiritual ‘contract’ that a Christian couple personally and publically makes with God to wed, to His glory alone.

    If Christians start doing this, then it will be a classic example of being enticed by the flesh and not by the Spirit.

  32. pro-human
    June 13, 2015 at 5:49 am #

    Congrats. Your half-cocked threat to get a divorce if Gay Marriage becomes legal is the dumbest thing I read today- and I work in advertising.

  33. Timothy Faust
    June 13, 2015 at 5:17 am #

    That is terrible. Let me just look into my f*** bag here… Wait a second. Oh No! It looks like it is completely empty. Turns out I am all out of f***s to give about you and your nonsense.

  34. SoccerDad
    June 13, 2015 at 4:03 am #

    This couple is childish and moronic and downright unchristian.

  35. morgaine620
    June 13, 2015 at 3:49 am #

    Well I believe the definition of marriage has been quite different through out the centuries and millenia. I doubt very much there is only “one” definition of marriage even though religions tent to believe in this. This article might give some examples: http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries.

  36. Cathy
    June 13, 2015 at 2:49 am #

    Marriage is a legal and civil contract. Your infantile decision to get a divorce and commit adultery is your choice. Someone else’s marriage has zero affect on you, and your threat is ridiculous.

  37. John
    June 13, 2015 at 2:43 am #

    I wish more “christian” couples would do this. These two are standing up for what they believe in. Good for them.. Hopefully neither one of them will ever get sick.. or die.. because then they will enjoy the same bigotry Gay couples have for the last several decades.. being denied the right to be with the one they love at their dying moments. or being denied any death benefits. Being forced out of the room because you are not legally spouses and forced to watch the person you have spent the last who knows how long loving. Good for you guys. Show your good “christian” values by suffering the same abuses gay couples have been since the beginning..

    Retards..

  38. Nick
    June 13, 2015 at 2:36 am #

    Wait they want to get devorced because a contract to an imaginary friend’s imaginary plan xD? Yeah go right ahead no one cares, just means you don’t love eachother. It’s ok your imaginary friend or the people who actually love eachother won’t care one bit :p

  39. Luigi Severus Fletcher-Bieber-Horan
    June 12, 2015 at 11:53 pm #

    I am DYING to know which Bible version you two follow… Please reply.

  40. Garry adams
    June 12, 2015 at 11:30 pm #

    Not the best approach in my opinion.

    The better approach would be to lobby and educate our goverment leaders about the dangers of redefining marriage.

    Right now when a man tells someone he is married, it is obvious that it is to a woman. And vice versa. But imagine the uncomfortable, very difficult and controversial position, when a married man has to forever add that he is married to a woman, as he wouldn’t want to mislead or leave any doubt that his marrige could be homosexual!

    To shift the goal posts after a couple has married is not playing by the rules.

    Just imagine redefining the word “vegan” to include meat eaters? Stupid right? Well thats exactly the situation before us.
    If two men or women want to get together then call it something else.

    • Eric Glare
      June 13, 2015 at 5:48 pm #

      Garry, it just sounds so terrible and difficult for you and one wonders how you will cope: ” as he wouldn’t want to mislead or leave any doubt that his marrige [sic] could be homosexual”. You could have some gay man or a married bi who ignores wedding rings and thinks he can smile at you. And if you are like me, your legs will melt, the goal posts move and you will be speechless with a mouth filled with glue…danger!

      It isn’t like meat eating vs vegan though as vegan means no meat. Maybe you really want a word for marriage that isn’t so generic but screams ‘straight sex-married’ because even now we gay, bi and trans men are being encouraged to marry opposite sex and about quarter or so of us do for a while. It will get much more complicated with marriage equality as there is quite an alphabet, HLGBTIQ, and that is just for the individuals. Sarriage or harriage for straight marriage? You could just be ‘heternormative’ or norm for short. There’s some ideas to help.

      • Garry adams
        June 13, 2015 at 6:38 pm #

        Eric Glare, you make no sense at all.

        Why should i or anyone, who is married, have to specify, it is to the oppisite sex? This will be both uncomfortable and highly contraversal!
        The vegan analogy is a good one. Vegans dont eat meat, and marriage means man and woman. Do not reply to me again until you get a medical assessment for that brain dead comment.

        • Eric Glare
          June 14, 2015 at 6:00 pm #

          Garry, what is this, trying to pretend you didn’t say “But imagine the uncomfortable, very difficult and controversial position, when a married man has to forever add that he is married to a woman, as he wouldn’t want to mislead or leave any doubt that his marrige [sic] could be homosexual!”?

          And you ridicule Jennifer’s and my brain. It is you, who supposedly has next to no direct stakehold in this argument, that was a hysterical nellie as if a redback landed on your lap. It is you who can’t see that vegan is the opposite of meat-eating but the opposite of marriage is single. You are using mental illness stigma to ridicule us instead of our opinions: “get a medical assessment for that brain dead comment”. A repeat is not a rebuttal, Garry.

          For the record, my brain is highly assessed and medicated. I have several brain disabilities including surviving meningitis 12 years ago. That’s 12 years of struggling to live with disabilities whilst listening to pro-suicide disrespectful comments from immoral people like yourself who we notice does not manage grammar very well (eg “oppisite”). The marriage debate and mental illness are alike in that the most moral declaring people have the most selfish mean-spirited point view. Thanks for showing us a very thin silver lining.

          • Garry adams
            June 14, 2015 at 6:33 pm #

            Married men and women already have a name for their union, its called marriage. No need to change it or redifine it. You think of your name. The vegan analogy is a good one as it perfectly describes the stupidity when words are changed that dont fit.

            Im sorry to hear about all your mental problems, hope you are better. Sorry about the gramner, didnt know this was a spelling test

        • TJay75
          June 24, 2016 at 3:25 pm #

          Exactly. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

          • TJay75
            June 24, 2016 at 3:28 pm #

            Of course, I’m referring to Gary Adams comment about “Eric Glare” not making any sense at all, as mentioned above…

      • Trev
        June 15, 2015 at 10:04 am #

        oh Garry! You may have a slightly uncomfortable conversation? You may be mistaken for a homosexual?

        Why didn’t you say earlier? We’ll all stop pushing for equality of rights. The cost is just too great if you may have to add “to my wife” to sentences about your marriage.

        The English language is lttered with words that once had different meanings.

        Nice used to mean Silly. (you are very nice Garry! but that’s ok Silly used to Blessed. Awful used to mean “worthy of God” as in Awe Full. A hussy used to mean wife (feminine of husband), and to address your changing of the word vegan i’ll point out meat used to just mean food so why NOT change the word vegan? English is a LIVING language. Things change all the time. Things that don’t change die. Hopefully bigotry will die soon.

        • Garry adams
          June 15, 2015 at 1:06 pm #

          “Things that dont change die.”

          Is marriage dieing? What utter tripe!
          If words change all the time then why not invent a new word that describes a homo marriage? We could start a competition right here and award a prize to the winner. Who wants to go first?

          • Trev
            June 15, 2015 at 2:24 pm #

            Marriage as a Christian institution is dying. By the time the Marriage Act was introduced in 1962 Australia had over 50% of marriages being performed not by clergy but by civil celebrants. Marriage adapted to reflect society. Even still there has been a massive fall in marriages since the 1970s. Maybe opening it up to same sex marriage would allow the institution to have a resurgence.

            As for coming up with a new name for “homo marriage” how about gay and open minded people get to keep the term marriage and we come up with a new word to describe yours? How about “Deeply bigoted an homophobic marriage”?

        • Ralph Horner
          June 17, 2015 at 12:17 pm #

          Trev, I’ve read through your interplay with Garry and I can understand his frustration. I believe Garry is quite right in pointing out the distinction between marriage, which is a union of two complementary entities (i.e. male and female in human terms) and a same-sex liaison which involves two non-complementary (i.e. same) entities.

          The real childishness is this whole discussion is with those who think they can change reality by redefining a word. It’s true that words change or can have their meanings changed but in this instance we are faced with a situation where some want to use the one word as descriptive of two things that are essentially/as to their essence completely different.

          There is no rationale to this – only the desire to appear the same as the others who are/choose differently. The point was made somewhere that if we maintain distinctive terms one type of relationship will be adjudged as ‘lesser’/of less value than the other. Well, a marriage relationship (i.e. between the two complementing genders – male and female) has the potential of producing new life – a same-sex relationship does not.

          This should not be a reason for anyone to feel or act superiorly or self-righteously – it’s merely a fact of life. As many have noted many marriages are far from ideal but, of course, that has nothing to do with the principle of marriage. It’s a case of the principle being abused.

          • Trev
            June 17, 2015 at 1:52 pm #

            a 102 year old got married yesterday. That is not about the potential for new life. Unless we ban marriage for all infertile couples that argument has GOT to stop being used.

            When i was married there was no check box to indicate if i could have or even wanted kids.

            Ralph in some ways I think Nick has the right idea but he hasn’t taken it to the logical conclusion. Marriage from the State needs to be abolished. A ‘Legal union’ should be how the rights that are currently ascribed to marriage should be granted. Nobody seems to be lobbying for that however. All i hear from the Christian lobby is that we need to keep marriage special. That stinks of privilege. Somewhere else on this page I listed all the rights assigned to marriage that don’t exist for every other union. Tell me if you were unable to access those rights would you be fine with it?

          • Eric Glare
            June 17, 2015 at 5:01 pm #

            Ralph, as Trev points out, you are arguing about things that are not in the Marriage Act 1961. Your idea of complementarity is what you bring to marriage, not the law, and reflects your restricted idea of sexual practises. Straights who practise sex the same as us are able to get married as it isn’t in the Act. And you conflate gender with sex when the law is the latter. Remember trans and intersex people in couples who have the right sex designation but not gender are able to get married at the moment. To argue different topics not in the law is more disingenuous than “childish”.

            Further, we are more than complimentary enough to be captured by defacto recognition and take our responsibilities as a couple such as Centrelink benefits. Defacto, as everyone against marriage equality points out, is the same as marriage without the contract and ceremony. We want the same right, equality to convert our defacto to marriage as do straights. You would have to be dishonest not to disagree with all of this LGBTI relationship recognition/responsibility despite its years in law.

            The definition of reality is that it remains the same no matter the words used and words evolve to fit new current realities -some 18 countries and more about to. Marriage’s meaning globally has changed whether anyone in Australia likes it or not. Whilst you saw the need to protest a lack of “act superiorly or self-righteously” your aim is to “if we maintain distinctive terms one type of relationship will be adjudged [judged] as ‘lesser’/of less value than the other..”. Unable to discern reality, you believe we are inferior and less righteous suggesting your real objection is with the Sex Discrimination Act and its standing of decades.

            The silver lining from your comments is that your complaints have already been sorted into law in our favour. Uncomfortable reality?

          • Ralph Horner
            June 18, 2015 at 1:41 am #

            Response to Trev (June 17, 2015 at 1:52 pm # )

            “a 102 year old got married yesterday. That is not about the potential for new life. Unless we ban marriage for all infertile couples that argument has GOT to stop being used.”

            Trev, it is the male/female type of relationship that holds the potential for new life. There is no reason to exclude those who because of some physical impediment beyond their control (including old age), are unable to produce new life. It is the desire to do so that builds the mind and character into a marriage mentality. The choice of homosexuality, if adhered to, is the choice of a lifestyle that completely excludes the possibility of producing children.

            “When i was married there was no check box to indicate if i could have or even wanted kids.”

            There are many who enter into marriage for primarily selfish reasons i.e. loving the other person because they help fulfil their sensual and material desires rather than wanting to make the other person happy. Most however eventually grow up and grow out of that attitude to realise that one of the greatest and most fulfilling joys one can give their partner is to have children and cooperate in their education.

            “Ralph in some ways I think Nick has the right idea but he hasn’t taken it to the logical conclusion. Marriage from the State needs to be abolished.”

            There was no major problem before the modern proliferation of homosexuality through mass media. People intuitively knew that a marriage is a male/female relationship. That’s why it wasn’t written into our law (it was certainly implied) before John Howard rushed it in in the early sixties. Now many think that the term marriage can simply be extended to cover other types of relationship but that is not so because ‘marriage’ defines the type of relationship not just any relationship.

            Maybe a new all embracing relationship term would be helpful but it makes no sense to make that term ‘marriage’ when marriage is (and always has been) specific to complementary (male/female) relationships only.

            All i hear from the Christian lobby is that we need to keep marriage special. That stinks of privilege.

            “Marriage (a complementary, male/female relationship) is special – in the sense of being different from a same-sex relationship. It only “stinks of privilege” to those of the second group who want to be like the first group even though their specific choice excludes them.

          • Trev
            June 18, 2015 at 10:42 am #

            Ok Ralph straight off the bat homosexuality is NOT a choice. It may however be a physical impediment beyond their control (i only say may because I’m loath to imply that homosexuality is some kind of disability but it IS a barrier from having children so it this case…) so you are right there IS no reason to exclude same sex couples on that ground. Glad we got rid of that silly argument.

            “There are many who enter into marriage for primarily selfish reasons”

            I’m sorry did you just call me and every other childless couple selfish because my wife and I don’t want children?! Because I choose to love her wholly and she does not need children to feel complete and i respect that? Good thing they moderate these comments because otherwise there would be sooo much swearing. How dare you.

            “Marriage (a complementary, male/female relationship) is special – in the sense of being different from a same-sex relationship. It only “stinks of privilege” to those of the second group who want to be like the first group even though their specific choice excludes them.

            No it stinks of privilege because marriage under the law gives one group special rights. I don’t give a toss about the definition in the dictionary. I don’t care about the churches definition. The law should be about equality and claiming your love for someone of the opposite sex is more worthy of government benefits, housing rights, pension rights is the height of privilege.

            And yet again IT IS NOT A CHOICE. I, and pretty much every same sex marriage advocate will happily stop fighting the good fight if you prove me wrong on that one by CHOOSING to love a man the way you love your wife. If you can wake up tomorrow and just will sexual attraction to other men then you’ve beaten science and huzzah to you but until then stop it with that idiotic and incorrect claim.

            I really like the vegan analogy you and garry are fond of. It kind of proves my point because meat used to mean food so ‘vegans ARE meat eaters’ if you use the original meaning of meat. Words change.

          • Eric Glare
            June 18, 2015 at 3:45 pm #

            Ralph thank you for using the ‘homosexuality is choice’ idea because it removes you from the argument. It is an idea that separates the bigots from the thinkers who actually have a counterargument.

            Try some honesty Ralph and consider the real campaign beyond homosexuality to those issues you avoid and clearly don’t understand of diverse gender and biological sex. Too dangerous isn’t? Imagine telling an intersex person it is all their choice? Just one medical photo could remove your whole ‘credibility’. And trans people with their extraordinary suicide risk somehow find relief in ‘choosing’ the other gender. To you, bizarrely, somehow it is more like preferring chocolate icecream than innate biology evident by 4-8 years of age.

            One group however does have some choice: bisexuals and they feel forced to deny their homosexuality constantly condemning this part of themselves and pretend they are completely heterosexual. That’s choice like an in-law induced shotgun wedding. Prisoned by stigma and too afraid to be real, some will whinge against change insisting others make the same frustrating sacrifice that they were forced into.

            Your marriage-reproduction claims are similarly lacking in credibility and honesty: “It is the desire to do so that builds the mind and character into a marriage mentality”. For a 102 year old lady? She was more likely dreaming of getting out of her chair unassisted. How many mid-70s men and how many 60s women have you heard say they no longer have sexual desire? Not to mention the lack of physical function and energy that good character would accept as being an essential part of old age rather than dreaming unrealistically of reproducing.

            Honesty and good character would say that the desire to reproduce is not enshrined in the Marriage Act nor is it a gatekeeper issue of marriage. You merely exaggerate cultural preferences to exalt them from their cultural and religious base to pretend they are rules of everyone heterosexual and to pretend they are rules take from law with the sole purpose of discriminating against LGBTI.

          • Ralph Horner
            June 18, 2015 at 9:02 pm #

            “Ok Ralph straight off the bat homosexuality is NOT a choice.”

            I guess that depends on how one defines the term Trev. Some people experience a feeling of sexual attraction to others of their same sex. Feelings are “not a choice” – they come and go. If one acts on or from those feelings there is choice involved. If this were not so we would be puppets or robots – not human.

            To my mind there is nothing inevitable about being a homosexual just because one experiences same-sex attraction any more than it’s inevitable that one will become an adulterer if one experiences sexual attraction to someone else’s spouse.

            “I’m sorry did you just call me and every other childless couple selfish because my wife and I don’t want children?!”

            I’m glad you didn’t descend into vitriol because I wasn’t being personal. People can want and have children for selfish reasons. Wanting children so that the parent may feel complete is a selfish reason. One can also decide unselfishly not to have children for a number of practical reasons. There is a distinction between a “childless couple” who would love to have a child if circumstances permitted and a decision that other things are more important than children.

            “No it stinks of privilege because marriage under the law gives one group special rights. ……The law should be about equality and claiming your love for someone of the opposite sex is more worthy of government benefits, housing rights, pension rights is the height of privilege.”

            So marriage is seen merely as a means for obtaining perceived “special rights”. If there are special rights they are because of children and family which by definition same-sex couples cannot produce.

            “I really like the vegan analogy you and garry are fond of. It kind of proves my point because meat used to mean food so ‘vegans ARE meat eaters’ if you use the original meaning of meat. Words change.”

            I think you’ve lost the plot on this one. Your contradiction clearly demonstrates the incongruity of using the one term for two diverse groups.

          • Garry Fielding
            June 18, 2015 at 11:42 pm #

            “I really like the vegan analogy you and garry are fond of. It kind of proves my point because meat used to mean food so ‘vegans ARE meat eaters’ if you use the original meaning of meat. Words change.”

            Ralph did you get that??? ”Meat used to mean food” Apparently Trev thinks meat is no longer food. Secondly, and i am no expert on the Bible (so I had to ask my friends) meat is a generic term that Genesis 1;29 used to describe food. If Trev wants to take this literally then he clearly knows nothing about what words represent rather than what they mean. For example. Jesus said he is the door” I hope Trev doesn’t think literally a wooden door as even a very young child would understand

          • Ralph Horner
            June 19, 2015 at 10:26 am #

            That’s what I meant by Trev having lost the plot Garry. Some people seem to think that words can mean whatever one wants whenever. If that were the case we might as well throw away our dictionaries and go back to grunting and pointing.

            What seems to be missed here is that words are linked to/describe concepts. Words can and do change their meaning, usually due to ignorance and misuse. In the marriage case, people who see only the positive benefits of marriage but are ignorant of the concept of marriage believe that tacking that term onto their relationship will make it a marriage. That’s a bit like my rebadging my old Toyota as a Mercedes and believing it has become a Mercedes.

            Over time, if this ignorance and delusion persists, the term marriage may become tied to the new concept. But, of course the original concept (the conjunction of male and female) is now unbadged and will require a new word to describe it. How silly, illogical and petty can humans be when they are driven by emotion rather than reason.

          • John Griffiths
            John Griffiths
            June 19, 2015 at 10:42 am #

            Ralph, have you noticed that dictionaries frequently update their definitions?

          • Trev
            June 19, 2015 at 10:44 am #

            I’m stepping out of this debate. I’ve spent too much time responding to this stuff when Garry’s early bigotted comments are evidence his point of view is one of hatred and there is no arguing with that.

          • Eric Glare
            June 19, 2015 at 1:14 pm #

            Ralph, more silly word games at 10:26, completely ignoring that 18 countries and 35 states of USA have changed the dictionary. Even Google has changed the meaning of marriage. Try it, search ‘define:marriage’.

            Now words can change according to you but its “usually due to ignorance and misuse”. Words like equality, fairness, respect, dignity, love, responsibility, judgement, natural, family, greed – they all go through the conservatives’ warp drive. But take the word gay for example, originally meant “light-hearted and carefree” but then via ‘to act with gay abandon’ it became such a delicious derogatory word for homosexuals that it stuck as if we were skipping off to the gas chambers again. And the cold-hearted warp drive says ‘you’ve stolen the word gay’.

          • Ralph Horner
            June 19, 2015 at 2:22 pm #

            John, did you notice that I said “Words can and do change their meaning, USUALLY due to ignorance and misuse.” There are instances where the change is due to an increase of knowledge showing that the former was inadequate but that is not the case with the word marriage where the proposed change destroys the original meaning.

          • Ralph Horner
            June 19, 2015 at 2:24 pm #

            Trev, bigotedness is often in the eye of the beholder. If you went through all the posts on this subject you would find far more ridicule and vindictiveness directed at the Jensens than from the other POV.

            People sometimes become frustrated and lash out, more as a defence than an attack, when their ideas are ridiculed and dismissed. That does not mean that they are bigoted or hateful.

          • Ralph Horner
            June 19, 2015 at 2:50 pm #

            “Ralph, more silly word games at 10:26, completely ignoring that 18 countries and 35 states of USA have changed the dictionary.” (Eric Glare – June 19, 2015 at 1:14 pm #)

            I think you’ve proved my point Eric. When the meaning of a word is decided by popular vote (no longer tied to a specific concept) it can mean anything to any number of people. Even if it were a valid way of attributing meaning to a word, 18 and a bit countries is a small number compared with the total number of countries and populations involved.

            I sympathise with the way homosexuals have been treated in the past. It was often horrific and inhumane based on self-righteousness, bigotry and fear but, thank God, those days are long past in our/Western society. The problem now is that the pendulum has swung too far and now the bigotry and attacks (like the attack on the true meaning of marriage) are coming from the other side.

    • Jennifer O'Connor
      June 14, 2015 at 8:29 am #

      OH WOW GARRY! Imagine a world in which humans are so accepting of each other AND MATURE that a man could simply say he is married and not have to explain himself any further, nor feel the need to because he has his act together. Just imagine redefining the term idiocy to include……..every human thats ever demonstrated the an element of……(for crying out loud!)

      • Garry adams
        June 14, 2015 at 3:33 pm #

        Jenifer are you saying none have the right to ask? People will always ask.
        Your comment is just childish and emotionally driven. Grow a brain then come back here with something intelligent to say

        • Trev
          June 15, 2015 at 10:50 am #

          People have the right to ask. We can hope that as people become more understanding they don’t ALWAYS ask. But to think that your slight awkward moment justifies holding back equality for all is the definition of childish and emotionally driven.

          • Garry adams
            June 15, 2015 at 1:13 pm #

            You just dont get it do you?
            When i say im married i want to leave no doubt that i am not homosexual, as this is both controversial and highly insulting.
            That is why homosexuals need to come up with their own name to describe their union.

          • Trev
            June 15, 2015 at 2:14 pm #

            I do get it Garry, in fact i think we ALL get it. You’re homophobic.

            It’s only insulting to be considered gay if you think they are somehow lesser than you.

          • Eric Glare
            June 15, 2015 at 5:16 pm #

            Trev I agree but there might be something more than homophobia. Perhaps he is one of those guys who inexplicably, weirdly trip people’s gaydar or simply has that friendly glow of loving kindness and understanding. I don’t know but if I had all that attention maybe I too would have a ‘turn back the boats’ policy just so I could cope with the numbers and contain myself.

          • TJay75
            June 24, 2016 at 3:39 pm #

            You can trash all over God’s Righteous Commandments all you want, but you’re doing nothing different than advocating hate against another because of your own beliefs too.

            The longer you draw this argument out with childish antics——-the more stupidity gets brought to the fore as well as even more bigotry and hate. If you’re all about love——-then why don’t you do the loving thing and forgive the person you’re arguing with and just move on, since you convey the idea that your thoughts are so above theirs anyways——-what’s the point of hinging around in this forum then——-if it’s not for the fact that, you’re just trying to get a rise out of the person disagreeing with you——-Is that loving?!——-Does that show how amazingly advanced homosexual thinking is if it only falls back on exactly what you purport to be against in the first place—namely further hate?

            (Face hits palm of hand—yet again!)

          • John Griffiths
            John Griffiths
            June 24, 2016 at 4:01 pm #

            Tjay, aside from the obvious insanity of what you are saying, your inability to make your point in a single post suggests you are dangerously unhinged.

            Psychiatric care should be sought immediately.

  41. Tess
    June 12, 2015 at 10:04 pm #

    So because other people have the absolute audacity to hold views which differ from yours, Mr & Dr Jensen, you’re throwing a public tantrum and threatening to hold your breath till you turn blue … well, good luck with that, welcome to democracy.

    • TJay75
      June 24, 2016 at 3:44 pm #

      In response to Tess’ comment:

      “…welcome to democracy.”

      Satanic indoctrination is more like it.

  42. Francis Gary
    June 12, 2015 at 5:57 pm #

    I’m not christian but I think if you all TRUELY agree with equality for all then you can’t judge them for wanting a divorce its their right to make of marriage what they want to, just like EVERYONE else.

  43. Hugh Oxford
    June 12, 2015 at 5:01 pm #

    This is a misuse of the word “divorce”. The Jensens won’t be “divorcing” at all, they will simply be de-registering their biological, physical marriage with the state. They will still be physically, factually married, just as they would be if the state ceased to recognise marriages completely.

  44. cretaceouskitteh78
    June 12, 2015 at 1:58 pm #

    Three words: No. One. Cares.

    You obviously think your continuing to be married is absolutely vital to every person in your country if not everyone on the entire planet. Good for you! Congrats on your delusion. You just keep on thinking you’re that important.

    P.S. Marriage has been redefined soooo many times. Even disregarding that you’re only defining marriage as the modern, Christian version but even “biblical” marriage has changed over time. You forget all of that polygamy and taking of slaves as concubines and wives and incest that went on up in the Bible. But you’re worried about consenting adults who have matching plumbing getting hitched? And you’re getting divorced though the Bible forbids it except in cases of a wife’s infidelity? OK. That makes complete sense!

  45. Bradley Steffens
    June 12, 2015 at 11:53 am #

    Well said, Mr. and Mrs. Jensen. Moreover, I admire the courage you are showing to not merely pay lip service to your beliefs, but to act on them.

    I have said much the same thing for the last 20 years: Why is the state involved in marriage at all? Unmarried people are penalized (pay a higher tax rate) under American tax law. It is unfair to them, but it was understood that the state was furthering legitimate interests, and those interests did not have to do with whether or not people loved each other or wanted to pledge fidelity to each other. We have Hallmark cards for that. It had to do with structural, societal interests in creating and sustaining a stable environment for the raising of children. Yes, there were property interests as well. If representatives of the state are no longer interested in supporting those structures, fine. That is their prerogative. But why keep these antiquated, unnecessary, and discriminatory (against single people) laws on the books? Allow people to marry or not marry privately in religious and secular ways. Baptism also is a sacrament, but the state does not recognize it nor confer any special benefits upon it. As you intelligently point out, the state’s involvement in marriage is a relatively recent development.

    Get the state out of marriage. Live and let live. And then let’s see how many gays want to get married.

    • Hugh Oxford
      June 12, 2015 at 5:20 pm #

      Well, there are good reasons for the state to recognise biological marriages, because biological marriages have physical products – namely mothers, fathers and children – who have rights and responsibilities that justice demands are upheld and protected.

      I get your point, but we don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, it is totally irrational for the state to conflate same-sex unions with factual marriages, but that means that the legal definition of marriage should be correct, not that the legal recognition of marriage should cease.

  46. svc@telus.net
    June 12, 2015 at 11:39 am #

    Have at ‘er folks. I wish you all the best in your divorce.

  47. Gustivo
    June 12, 2015 at 11:08 am #

    That’s why I gave up practicing religion. Full of hate and ignorance instead of love, peace, forgiveness and harmony.

  48. Tay Swaim
    June 12, 2015 at 9:52 am #

    Well, Mr. and Mrs. Jensen, you’re apparently not very “good” Christians. For doesn’t it say in Romans 13: Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
    So, if you divorce, you’re simply living with your woman in sin and not following the laws of the land.
    Regardless of if you think you’re still married in the eyes of your church, by the laws of your land, you will not be. Thus, you will be sinning.
    Yep, that’ll show all of those homosexuals who simply want to be with the ones they love.
    I’m assuming brains don’t run in the family.

    • ites
      June 12, 2015 at 10:43 am #

      What a crap reason not to be jerks. ‘Do unto others….?’ More proof that moralistic Christians are the most obnoxious hypocrites on the planet and the worst kind of people. Dear Lord, save me from your followers.

  49. Pamela
    June 12, 2015 at 9:45 am #

    If you’re parenting with your genitals, I can safely say that you’re doing it wrong.
    Seriously though.
    Wrong.

    • Ben
      June 13, 2015 at 1:41 am #

      Could not have said it better myself, thank you!

  50. Mario Strada
    June 12, 2015 at 9:31 am #

    Nooooooo! Please don’t do it….

    Actually, now that I think of it, why should anyone care you two are a couple of babies?
    Let’s play this game together then: If you divorce, I’ll hold my breath until you marry back again, in civil court. If you don’t then I’ll die of suffocation and it will be on your immortal souls. You may go to HELL!!! The Humanity!!!

    (Disclaimer: The Devil does not exist, hell is not a real place, hell may be open to interpretation depending on your religion but if it exists we are probably living in it.)

  51. Ron
    June 12, 2015 at 8:41 am #

    Ugh boy. This guy actually believes that the state got into the marriage business because it “likes to see people get married.” Yeah, that’s it. Government is like a really sensitive person who cries at weddings and throws rice at the bride and groom. And therefore, the fact he and his wife are getting “divorced” is going to just absolutely break the poor government’s heart (aww…) and regret ever having let those evil gays join in on all the fun. And then the government is going to run after them in the middle of the night and stand outside their apartment in the rain and beg them to come back.

    Hey dum dum. Government doesn’t have feelings. It doesn’t *really* care whether you’re married or not. It’s simply trying to reward the formation of families, which it —rightly or wrongly— considers to be valuable to society as a whole. Marriage is merely a means to an end.

    But see, here’s the thing. You and your wife still intend on remaining a family. So, the big bad government still gets what it wants.

    In other words, as hard as it might be to believe…no one really gives a shit whether you get divorced or not.

  52. CP
    June 12, 2015 at 8:13 am #

    This just may be the dumbest thing I’ve read all year. The basis of their beliefs on gay marriage is Christianity, yet they’re going to divorce (a sin), live together & have sex outside of marriage (sin), have children out of wedlock (sin), & lie about being married (sin). The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. I don’t know anything about Australian law, but I hope their request to divorce is denied, so they look like the fools that they are.

    • Alex
      June 15, 2015 at 8:50 pm #

      I think you may be missing the point that for those who acknowledge God, it is only God’s opinion that really matters. If a couple has God’s blessing on their union and the couple commits their relationship to God, they are married in the sight of God. The Australian Government (and I suspect most other governments) does not REQUIRE that people get married. If it did there would be a very large number of people who would now be in prison. The Aus Government also does not have the authority to REQUIRE marriage, or to refuse a divorce, which effectively is just a de-registration of a registration of a piece of paper. De-registration of the registration of a marriage does not make a couple unmarried in the sight of God.

      Nick and Sarah, I know that as you earnestly seek to do what honours God, God will give you wisdom in your decision and will be with you. By the way, I agree with you.

  53. You Are the Reason People Hate Christians
    June 12, 2015 at 7:45 am #

    I’m pretty sure the Bible says that having sex out of wedlock is a sin. So if you get divorced, and you hope to have more children (please don’t), you’ll be sinning in the eyes of God. Plus the Bible speaks against divorce too? You people sure are smart.

  54. Renée Kelly (@kellysgal)
    June 12, 2015 at 7:19 am #

    If your union is that weak, more power to you. The rest of us who have no issue with what other people do in their lives will continue with our strong and established unions 🙂

  55. Teresa Conrad
    June 12, 2015 at 5:40 am #

    Gotta say that you are both cutting your noses off to spite your faces. No one’s marriage or how they live their lives has any effect on your marriage and life. It’s so refreshing to know that supposedly “good christian” people can promote so much hate in the name of their “religion”. I truly hope that when you two have children, that those children realize, when they become adults, that their parents were part of a world-wide promotion of hate. Nice legacy. Enjoy your divorce.

    • TJay75
      June 24, 2016 at 4:04 pm #

      Wow! For a minute there I was starting to think that maybe the LGBT community felt it had a higher form of love, but after reading such a slanderous comment, it’s obvious you’re just another bully promoting further one form of hate over another.

      Sorry to hear that you feel that it’s not Christian to denounce homosexuality as wrong. But True Christians live by the things Christ taught and he most certainly emphasized his Heavenly Father’s laws and admonished his true followers to do the same. That’s what it means to be a Christian.

      Jesus didn’t condone hating other people but he did admonish his followers to honor God’s righteous laws. This undoubtedly involves those whom would claim to be Christian to live by such precepts.

      The world-wide hate you speak of started way back in the Garden of Eden when Satan decided to challenge God’s sovereignty. Humanity has been on a downward-spiral ever since.

      Again—-if love is what you’re about then forgive and forget and move on from this forum instead of promoting further hate——the very thing your accusing Christians of doing.

      If you’re the bigger person here as you so assert yourself to be——-then do the right thing——-don’t stick around and argue, don’t antagonize and attack what you don’t understand, but maybe, at the very least, if you whole-heartedly embrace the concept of true love, you might try to understand why true Christians respect God’s righteous principles, instead of jumping on yet another band-wagon of hate directed against a kind-hearted people simply wanting to live in accord with the principles of their own beliefs.

      Thank you kindly for understanding.

  56. notquiteelvis
    June 12, 2015 at 5:25 am #

    Do it. Seriously, do it. I guarantee you that nobody on this good earth will care.

    You say you’ve got kids. I wonder, have they gone through the “do what I want or I’ll hold my breath” phase? If you’re like most parents, your reaction was most likely one of tolerant amusement, knowing that their tantrum would change precisely nothing.

    Now consider the reaction of the rest of the world, which has now discovered you by means of the magical Internet machine, to your little tantrum. Do you genuinely believe that you’ll get any reaction more favorable than tolerant amusement? You can sulk and pout and divorce and stamp your wee feetsies all you like, it will change precisely nothing.

    Really, the only remarkable facet of this sad episode is that you were actually immature enough to make this public. You’ve just threatened to hold your breath until you’re blue in the face, in full view of (basically) the entire planet. You realize, don’t you, that this means you have to follow through?

    So go on. Do it. Nobody will care, and you’ll change precisely nothing, but at least you’ll be self-righteous in the knowledge that you carried out your threat. For whatever that’s worth.

  57. EB
    June 12, 2015 at 4:41 am #

    Please do divorce, I’d hate to see this idiocy spread to any offspring the two of you might produce.

  58. Brad Salavich
    June 12, 2015 at 4:05 am #

    Your “traditional” biblical marriage in Genesis meant that your family would give you to a man you did not know. (no love there) Abraham had three wives, Solomon had 300, there are about 23 other marriages in the Bible with multiple wives at the same time (not one man, one woman). In Deuteronomy you had to marry the guy that raped you, he would pay your father 50 shekels for you. Then there is the whole interfaith and interrace stuff – cause the Bible didn’t allow them either (didn’t stop you though did it). Have you read the book of Ezra?
    I married my husband, in a Church, by an ordained minister (he has a PhD in Divinity btw) and THEN I registered it with the state. You were married a couple years before me, why have you waited so long to get your divorce? My marriage – it’s doing just fine, sorry about not inviting you to the wedding. It was awesome.

  59. Michael
    June 12, 2015 at 3:08 am #

    Unlike the other commenters here, I completely understand your position. My grandmother owned a beautiful painting by an artist who lived in her town, she loved that painting and would sit for hours looking at it. The artist was later caught interfering with young boys and my grandmother tearfully burned the painting. When asked why she did it, she said that the beauty of the painting was tainted and she could no longer have it in her home or heart. Marriage is a religious institution and I understand that Christians would feel this sacred rite is being tainted. Rather than howl at them and use easy words like bigot and homophobe, I choose to be tolerant of these people’s view. They aren’t imposing their beliefs, they are simply saying they cannot partake if the thing they see as beautiful (to them) is tainted.

    • Emma
      June 12, 2015 at 12:41 pm #

      That’s actually an interesting take on it, though I find very problematic the idea of comparing gay couples to child molesters… And please don’t say Christians feel this way — many, if not most of them, DON’T feel this way.

      • Michael
        June 15, 2015 at 11:04 pm #

        Emma I don’t believe I compared gay people to child molesters. It was an example of something that was tainted that was once considered beautiful by someone. How it was tainted is irrelevant.
        I just don’t understand how advocates can holler for tolerance and yet be the most intolerant group (broad strokes).it is interesting you raised child molesters though.. I did talk to a non Christian the other day who was against homosexuality altogether for a variety of reasons I won’t go into.. I asked him what he would say to someone who argued that it’s no one’s right to tell anyone who they can and can’t love. He responded that if that’s the case then why do we stop pedophiles from loving who they want? He said that if homosexuality is genetic then the same applies to pedophilia and incest. Why does society then say no to this? it’s the moral content of society that dictates through the law what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. A child is such until a certain age and then is of an age of consent. But he says it won’t be long (one generation) before challenges to that status quo begin along with polygamy, polandry, incest etc based on the ‘right to love’ argument. Interesting take.

        • Ron
          June 16, 2015 at 8:58 am #

          Oh wow. Where to even begin.

          We DON’T “stop pedophiles from loving who they want.” That’s impossible. “Love” is a state of mind. It’s not a physical act. No one can, nor do they ever even try, to tell pedophiles who they can love. Society tries to prevent them from carrying out physical acts, ie *molestation*, because it causes actual harm.

          There is no victim when two consenting adults enter into a homosexual relationship. Period. As much as conservatives would like to make themselves out to be the victims, it’s simply not true.

          The problem is that your morals aren’t based in anything of any real import. They just *are*. And you expect the rest of us to just accept it.

          And enough already with this “you’re intolerant of my intolerance” BS. How long before conservatives realize how ridiculous that position is?

          Here’s an easy way to show you how ridiculous it is….

          In order for gays to have want they want (equal marriage rights), you as straight person are required to give up absolutely NOTHING, except the ability to live in a world where gay marriage doesn’t exist…something you are not, nor have you ever been, entitled to.

          If 10,000 gay couples got married tonight, tomorrow you would wake up and your life would have not changed in any way whatsoever. In fact, it’s quite possible that you would never even KNOW that they got married, unless you went out of your way to discover that information.

          On the other hand, in order for YOU to have what you want (a gay-marriage-free world), gays have to give up something quite significant…the ability to marry whom they love.

          See the difference?

          Also…did you just accuse Emma of raising child molesters? WTF.

        • Trev
          June 16, 2015 at 10:38 am #

          How dare we be intolerant of discrimination!

          As for the ‘slippery slope to pedophilia’ argument it doesn’t hold water. It’s comparing a relationship of consenting equals with one where one of the couple is in a position of abusing power.

          That (false) argument could be applied to straight marriages. ‘I’m allowed to have sex with a woman because of marriage so i expect within one generation i’ll be allowed to just rape women and take what i want’

        • Eric Glare
          June 25, 2015 at 1:26 pm #

          For the record, we stop paedophiles because they seek people who can’t given consent because they are too young. Likewise incest does not have an equal footing of power from which to give clear consent. Child abuse is enabled by people who do not perceive or do not respect that children cannot give legitimate consent except to their direct peers (eg a 13 year old and 14 year old) – a sliding scale of consent as is law in most states. This isn’t a dictate of law or something about the corruptible/corrupted moral content of society. It is a truism proven time and time again by the damage caused. The law is the servant of the evidence.

          No one anywhere in our society suggests the law should ever give a right to love without consent.

          Michael is merely moral washing consenting adult homosexuality with the muck and crap of paedophilia and incest. It’s secondary role, responding to our current political climate, is to undermine our relatively weak prevention of child abuse and prosecution of perpetrators and enabling environments such as bloated moral positions that deny turning a blind eye and refuse to take their responsibility. The portrayal of ‘possibility’ in a generation tries to dilute the harm caused and our ability to respond ethically to evidence.

          The use of the third person by Michael (possibly true) is used to put at arms length the immorality he promotes.

    • John
      June 13, 2015 at 2:43 am #

      I see, I understand, it’s kind of like how I went to church as a kid and thought heaven was a neat idea, but once I saw how stupid relgion and the people that believed in it were, I couldn’t bring myself to believe even the good side, no matter how appealing.

    • Trev
      June 15, 2015 at 11:02 am #

      Almost works Michael however Nick chose to let the State recognise his marriage when people who didn’t believe in God were recognised (over 50% of Australian marriages are civil ceremonies), he continued to support State marriage when no fault divorce was allowed despite his gospel saying “God has joined together, let not man put asunder” both of these are theoretical taintings of his sacred rite. It’s only when a change occurs that affronts his homophobic side not his religious side does Nick suddenly feel like the State can’t redefine marriage.

      • Eric Glare
        June 25, 2015 at 3:20 pm #

        Trev add to the list of the corruption of the ‘sanctity’of marriage by churches who marry couples where one or both do not believe or do not practise or haven’t practised except for the benefit of church marriage. There is a high percentage to whom the beautiful building, the robes and incense and the tradition (eg forced by family expectations) are the main reasons not the religion – Easter, Christmas and life-stage rubber stamps.

        Then there are those (majority?) who believe their religion is the only true way but conveniently other Christian marriages are more sanctified than the union of LGBTI. Even Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu marriages are more sanctified. Strangely there is only one Hell where all other ways will end up. Pure hypocrisy.

        • Ralph Horner
          June 26, 2015 at 12:31 am #

          “Even Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu marriages are more sanctified. Strangely there is only one Hell where all other ways will end up. Pure hypocrisy.” (Eric Glare – June 25, 2015 at 3:20 pm)

          Eric, IMO “sanctity”/holiness/blessedness applies to the mutual loving and committed relationship of one man and one woman because that’s the order of life that God designed and ordained. This includes marriages from and across all religious traditions and all races. It also includes any de-facto male/female relationships where mutual love and commitment are at the heart of the relationship. All male/female relationships have the potential to be fulfilled marriages if that’s what the parties want and strive for but unfortunately many are based on selfishness rather than love.

          Obviously a same-sex relationship that involves mutual love and commitment is far better than one that does not but it is still not an expression of God’s order and prescription. If one does not believe in God it is still against the natural order/Laws of Nature which, from a religious perspective, are God’s laws of order on the natural plane of existence.

          In recent years much has been done (on the legal front) to overcome the intolerance and discrimination of previous times. This is reasonable and just but the campaign to redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships is a step too far.

          Because we are beings of free-will humans can avoid or act contrary to God’s order. The descriptive term (marriage) can be misapplied but that will not change the underlying principle that distinguishes male/female from male/male. As I said in another post, the term ‘marriage’ would no longer adequately cover the unique male/female relationship and another word would have to be assigned to do that.

          There is no hypocrisy. No one is ever sent to hell, people only ever go there by choice when they choose not to align themselves with God’s reality which is built on infinite love and wisdom. Instead they choose to build their own distorted reality which, rather obviously, lacks the sanctity, holiness and blessedness of those who use God’s principles as a foundation.

          • Eric Glare
            June 26, 2015 at 12:38 pm #

            Ralph the sum of your opinion is that your religious freedom to believe steals my religious freedom to believe in the moral good of my biology and to publicly celebrate my significant life partners as you can. You even insist on over-riding evidence and science with faith-based fake laws of nature. We think each other’s reality is fake but what is real and undeniable is the thieving of LGBTI freedom in a supposed secular society. That is wrong and not justifiable. It is as immoral and as mean as picking on the ranga phenotype and not letting them marry.

            Peace and harmony are in the opposite direction. And so is the future.

          • Ralph Horner
            June 28, 2015 at 12:42 am #

            Eric, my belief is not dependent on religion – it also agrees with reason and common-sense. The baseline in my argument is that men and women are different (not just the biology but the entire package). Therefore a male/female sexual relationship differs totally from a same-sex sexual relationship. One of these must be the norm and the other a deviation from the norm otherwise what’s the point of there being two genders.

            If one applies the ‘reductio ab absurdum’ i.e. if ALL sexual relationships were heterosexual – the species would continue and the world would go on as normal but if ALL were homosexual – the species would die out and there would be no future. The result is that heterosexuality has a very real and important purpose underpinning it, homosexuality has no such purpose and limits the overall purpose.

            Anyone/everyone is ‘free’ to believe whatever they want. The question is, “Is there a reality (of purpose) that supports that belief?” I think I’ve demonstrated that there is for mine. Anyone can analyse their beliefs and if they don’t stack up, change them. Beliefs do not have to be dependent on feelings (various attractions or inclinations) but also on thinking (the use of reason). Feelings can lead one astray as witnessed by kids and sweets and adults and substance abuse.

            I think your concept of freedom is skewed. True ‘freedom’ is not the ability to do whatever one wants. If that were so, everyone would be impinging on everyone else’s freedom. True freedom is doing what’s right and what’s right is that man was made for woman and woman was made for man (i.e. they complement each other) regardless of what anyone feels.

            When one of each choose to join together in a loving and committed relationship, the descriptor of that relationship is marriage (nothing to do with laws and who’s allowed or not). If it’s not a man and a woman it’s not a marriage, it’s something else – maybe a friendship of some sort. Many relationships currently called (and recognised by law as) marriage are not true marriages because love and/or commitment are missing. Yet the potential is still there because you have the base ingredient of a man and a woman.

            If the law is changed to call same-sex unions ‘marriage’ none of them will be a real marriage (regardless of love and commitment) because the essential ingredient for it to be a true marriage (i.e. a man and a woman) is missing. The law can only fiddle and confuse the meanings of words – it cannot change reality.

  60. JE
    June 12, 2015 at 3:04 am #

    Well, okay I guess – good luck with all that…

    Doesn’t make a darn bit of sense to the rest of us, but since it doesn’t hurt us if you go ahead with your plan, we’re not going to stop you.

  61. Eric Glare
    June 12, 2015 at 2:21 am #

    I find the argument disingenuous at best or a score in your own goal. Their marriage is not what is in the Marriage Act 1961, he does not believe in the Act as regulation, and his marriage would remain after divorce less some extra chat required. That’s his religious freedom to do so.

    But he still wants to use this regulation to exclude same-sex people – be honest, it is equality for all LGTBI.

    He would deny our religious freedom to marry and he would deny us freedom of our biology of who we are. All denying us for his freedom – I think that is selfish and unethical..

  62. smokin
    June 12, 2015 at 1:54 am #

    Well, I guess someone else is redefining marriage. These two are ill informed, and never understood the whole concept of marriage.

  63. Wim Blanken
    June 12, 2015 at 1:48 am #

    Please divorce and do not make more children as you clearly are not able to bring them up in a loving way. Awfull…. just awfull

  64. MissD
    June 12, 2015 at 1:35 am #

    Sounds to me like you’re looking for an excuse to get divorced…

  65. Zoe
    June 12, 2015 at 1:26 am #

    Dear Nick – just to let you know – I went to one of those private religious institutions that all you people of faith will have to resort to because your kids will be better served and it was run by lesbians! Shock horror! And they are women of faith. They do a much better service for the community than spreading fear and bigotry via a stupid stunt!

  66. Rocio
    June 12, 2015 at 1:17 am #

    Dear couple: You just stated you believe “marriage is a fundamental order of creation”.. and you are going to get divorced??…I mean would that be even physically possible in your imaginary world? I mean, if it’s God’s will,, how can you break it!. Are you actually planning to break the commands of your lord?… Who are you trying to piss off here, society or God?.

  67. Jack Eagle (@eagle_i_jack)
    June 12, 2015 at 1:14 am #

    I’m an Irish guy, married for 14yrs with 3 kids, living in Dublin – proud to say I voted Yes in our recent referendum on same sex marriage. When the same sex marriage was approved and carried through by the Irish voters the world did not end. The world will continue to get up in the morning and work through the day regardless of Australia’s decision to vote for same sex marriage or not! Nick Jensen and his wife Sarah should go ahead and get a divorce, but face up to the real reason for their divorce. What a stupid excuse to use a same sex marriage issue as a smoke screen for a bad marriage!! Their view is not Christian, I’m a practicing catholic and in my view, God is accepting of all no matter what failings/sins one brings with them. As for divorce here in Ireland it is relatively recent that divorce was introduced by referendum and again the world did not end on that occasion either!! Get a life you sad fools!!

  68. Scott Bradley
    June 12, 2015 at 12:11 am #

    It’s nice of you to think we give a crap.

  69. FullerR
    June 11, 2015 at 11:21 pm #

    Greatest tragedy here is that these two idiots were allowed to reproduce. There’s a special place in hell for the intolerant. Wonder if these two will be married when they get there?

  70. lbcitygirl
    June 11, 2015 at 11:16 pm #

    The truth is none of us care about your marriage. Go ahead and get divorced. Because this is stupid. Your marriage obviously never meant anything to you to begin with.

  71. Sarah Jones Geer
    June 11, 2015 at 11:11 pm #

    You know what is the most hilarious about this? Not just that no one will care whether one random couple gets divorced, not just that they are making a silly little token gesture anyway (since the only thing they’re actually CHANGING is not getting a tax break), but that for all their touting of what “god” hates, they will then be “living in sin” by cohabitating while unmarried.

    Hypocrisy, thy name is religion.

  72. Jen Beeds
    June 11, 2015 at 11:04 pm #

    I’d take them more seriously if they were willing to light themselves on fire in a public square.

  73. Diego Garcia
    June 11, 2015 at 10:13 pm #

    The most dangerous people in this world are religious people. These two are no different than other religions’ zealots who want to impose their beliefs on other people.
    Obviously this idiot didn’t consider the fact that getting divorced is not as simple as saying “I don’t like the addition of gay people to the institution of marriage and therefore i want to leave it”.
    I live in New York City where we have marriage equality and I can assure you society has not descended into purgatory because of it.
    My married gay friends are still sending their kids to school and raising them just like they were before marriage equality was instituted.
    What’s the difference? Now they have the same rights as my wife and I do.
    This couple should also look up the separation between church and state. They are the very reason why we need to uphold this principle more than ever.

    • Tfizzle
      June 11, 2015 at 11:52 pm #

      surely by writing this comment you are trying to impose your beliefs onto others?

      • John
        June 13, 2015 at 3:01 am #

        It’s true people will be good and evil regardless of religion, but religion often makes the evil sound good I guess(people who kill for religous reasons). I don’t consider people preaching atheism bad. Unlike religious preaching where they get a benefit(more people believe in an imaginary friend, the more real they seem to become, and you become more “good” in that imaginary organization’s eyes) an athiest just wants to help you not waste your life for that imaginary friend, they gain nothing from it except joy that they helped someone much like them, and that is a really selfless thing to do.

    • Michael
      June 12, 2015 at 2:59 am #

      Really? Religious people are the most dangerous? Stalin was atheist – he was responsible for more soviet murders than the Germans in WW2 Including an estimated 10 million Ukrainians.. What about Alfred Kinsey, your countryman? Jeffrey dahmer? Jim Jones? North Korea? Mao? Pol Pot? Please. Just like religion atheism has a great weakness. People. The hearts of men are desperately wicked and religious men usually fall for one of the three G’s that ALL men fall for to become evil. Gold, gals (or guys) or glory.

    • KSH
      June 12, 2015 at 3:51 am #

      This is the most idiotic protest against same-sex-marriage I have ever heard!

  74. Kye
    June 11, 2015 at 9:49 pm #

    I’m pretty sure that you have to be separated for a year to divorce. Exception of anannulment early on, if that is the case this story is irrelevant.

  75. Bryonia
    June 11, 2015 at 9:34 pm #

    Love one another as I have loved you. Where’s the love? Jesus dined with prostitutes and tax collectors. Would he dine with you Nick and Sarah? Judge not lest you be judged. Etc Etc.

    • Andy Falcon
      June 12, 2015 at 4:07 am #

      They are not judging gay people, they are judging the actions of the state which they consider contrary to their beliefs. Same way gay folks were before. Gays had their right to protest, why can’t they?

      • keiren
        June 12, 2015 at 6:13 pm #

        You can protest but the idea of having a protest is to void your view and perhaps achieve something at the end which clearly has not been the case. Frankly, I think he could not wait to divorce the poor girl now that Gay marriage is on the table. I would hire a lawyer if I was her.

  76. Nat
    June 11, 2015 at 8:19 pm #

    What a pity two people like this are wasting their lives worrying about what other people do with their lives. This is by far the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I can’t believe these two have gone to the media!!!

    I married my husband in a catholic ceremony. My husband is catholic but I certainly never label myself. So the church has allowed me to marry by a catholic priest when I do not follow catholic beliefs, yet this couple thinks it is all about religion. I married my husband for love.

    Times have changed, and thank god! I am so glad religion does not rule how people live anymore, it only seems to result in war and ridiculous concepts.

    This couple need to learn empathy and put themselves in the shoes of others. Homosexual people don’t choose to be homosexual, they are born that way. I would much prefer people to be honest with who they are. This is difficult when discrimination still exists. I have friends who are gay and I can’t wait to see them marry their sole mate and celebrate their love just as I did with my husband 🙂

  77. Trevor Mobbs
    June 11, 2015 at 8:15 pm #

    It takes a special kind of hypocrisy to spend your life fighting against the civil recognition of same-sex relationships, and then turn around and declare that actually, the civil recognition of your own relationship is of no value to you.

  78. boo22
    June 11, 2015 at 8:04 pm #

    Henny and his wife, Penny.

  79. Gillian
    June 11, 2015 at 6:15 pm #

    If Sarah and Nick Jenson ARE true Christians then when they divorce then they will NOT be able to live together as that is AGAINST Christianity to live in sin!!! So maybe its just an excuse to get divorced!!!

    • Fiona
      June 11, 2015 at 7:18 pm #

      i understand that they are simply getting divorced by the state, not their church. Therefore they are still married under the Christian definition of marriage.

  80. Travis Morien
    June 11, 2015 at 5:44 pm #

    America’s Best Christian, Mrs Betty Bowers, gives an excellent explanation of biblical marriage, citing chapter and verse. If you would like to see what the bible has to say about the topic, watch her lecture on YouTube. See “Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else”. You’ll be glad you did.

  81. Kate
    June 11, 2015 at 5:41 pm #

    To the most delusional and uneducated couple in Australia,

    It’s people like you that make all patient, kind hearted and understanding people want to turn against their beliefs and start a full blown civil war. You are a complete and utter embarrassment to Australians and our way of thinking. You should be ashamed that you think this is an acceptable thing to think this, let along go to the media about in 2015.

    Gay marriage has NOTHING to do with you! Get that into your head. It’s not about your religion. It’s simply not about YOU.

    It’s about those who want to express their love and live a happy life with the one they choose.

    Get an absolute grip of your lives Jensen’s and welcome to 2015 where no one give a shit about what people like you think.

    Regards,

    Everybody who is normal

  82. T. Johnson
    June 11, 2015 at 4:09 pm #

    Dear Couple: Since you two are being so deliberate the choices you are making to fulfill your beliefs, then you should follow this tenet through to its logical conclusion…

    You had better quit attending church–because there are some churches that are inclusive and welcoming to all people. You MUST take your stand against them by leaving…

    You had also better quit your jobs. There are any number of government and private employers who extend benefits to homosexuals and sometimes, even to their same-sex partners. It would only be prudent to register your dissatisfaction with this state of affairs by leaving your employment…

    Ultimately–although I would never encourage anyone to kill themselves–you might need to do just that…as there MANY towns, cities, municipalities, counties, states, and yes, countries that recognize the inherent civil and human rights of their gay citizenry. Intentionally ending your connection to the lifeforce which has been extended to include homosexuals would be pretty convincing proof of your undying faith, wouldn’t it?…

    Whether or not you decide to carry through on any of these faithful acts, however, please *do* get divorced. It’s your right.

    And, while I’m not a “gay baker,” I am gay and I do bake sometimes. Even though you’re straight, I will be happy to make your divorce cake–just as I would for any couple that wants to get divorced. I don’t discriminate.

  83. Bree
    June 11, 2015 at 3:18 pm #

    Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your own face! What a cynical, ill informed and uneducated pair these two are. Please do get divorced (good luck trying to get through the courts with that reason for one) because I would quite happy of hundreds of gays marry than have one toxic couple stay together. People should love who they want to love, be with there partner for life and have that piece of paper if they want it. Why are you allowed to judge them?! So glad I’m not religious and don’t have my life my obscured by such idiotic beliefs.

  84. Go to Hell
    June 11, 2015 at 2:21 pm #

    Yeah I hope you do divorce and never breed again, it’s a shame you have children now.

  85. Liam
    June 11, 2015 at 2:20 pm #

    Good on the CityNews for publishing this article. If nothing else it’s a wonderfully cynical exercise in self-promotion for the title and in keeping with the author’s apparent motives.

    As for commenting on the content of the article, Trev and Margaret have highlighted the two most glaring holes in this piece of Swiss cheese. That is, the argument for state involvement in marriage happened long ago and the couple in question won’t meet the legal requirements for divorce.

    Well, unless the penny finally drops for Mrs Jensen and she walks out. Although, she’s presumably as wrapped up in this cynical stunt as Mr Jensen. Of course, I’m making the foolish assumption that Mr Jensen allows Mrs Jensen to form her own opinions.

    I respect Jensen’s right to hold what can only be described as bigoted and ignorant views, but I hold no respect at all for his proposed actions or intolerance.

    Community standards and expectations change, and have done so for all of time, egotistical fools remain constant.

  86. George
    June 11, 2015 at 2:17 pm #

    Aww, such loving couple… I wonder what Jesus himself would do if he could see what people have made of his teachings of love and compassion. Just like the Catholic Church pointing its big finger against gay rights yet playing a blind eye on its absurd hierarchy of wealth (while others die of hunger) and all their scandals with pedofilia. Jesus would be proud!!!

  87. Ellie Abbott-Grasso
    June 11, 2015 at 2:07 pm #

    By this bizarre logic, since we aren’t following the bible and stoning gay people to death, Nick and Sarah here should have jumped off a bridge in protest ages ago.

  88. Lozza
    June 11, 2015 at 1:47 pm #

    I don’t understand your logic or you belief system here. Does not the bible say,” Judge not, that ye be not judged”? Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)
    It continues I believe with “ For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. … And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”
    To my eye, it seems that you have chosen to use a religious belief to justify & broadcast your own bigoted righteousness (certainly not the Bible’s teachings).
    I question too, your intention to go back to “living in sin” by not being married. So you are turning to sin to object to another sin.
    If there is a god may he have mercy on your souls…

  89. Cranston
    June 11, 2015 at 12:48 pm #

    Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Just like Abraham – oops!, Isaac – darn!, Jacob – shoot!, Moses – nope!, David – not quite!, Solomon – missed by that much!
    Moreover, does this muppet actually discuss his marital status at Saturday sport? Must make for some exciting conversations. He probably notices lots of people who just remembered they’ve left something in their car.

    • Cris
      June 11, 2015 at 10:24 pm #

      Good points. “Biblical marriage” includes forced marriage to slaves, polygamy, concubines & wives, forced marriage of girls to their rapists,etc.

  90. Sean O'Neill (@CInclusiveWorld)
    June 11, 2015 at 12:04 pm #

    Obviously he doesn’t love her, its just another good result of marriage equality. As for the Jensen’s attitude to this, haters are gonna hate.

  91. PWyns
    June 11, 2015 at 11:52 am #

    Hello,
    Great article. Recently Elton John wanted his gay lover recorded on the birth certificate as the “mother”. I suppose Kim Kardashian will have to change her birth certificate as she now has two mothers. When I now tell someone that I am married I will henceforth stress that my wife (not “partner”) is actually a woman! What a brave new world. What a lovely social experiment. Let us overturn the wisdom and traditions of the ages. Judgement day is coming and it will not be the terminator sequel.

    • sk
      June 11, 2015 at 2:03 pm #

      I know you’re trying to be clever, but Kim Kardashian is not Caitlyn Jenner’s kid. Hence the name Kardashian. Because he father’s last name was Kardashian. You know, the famous American lawyer. But don’t worry about it, hold tight for judgment, I’m sure that God will be super proud that you spent your time casting judgment on others and presuming to know what right and wrong were based on your tiny little mind.

      • Keith
        June 29, 2015 at 1:47 pm #

        That old story “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is becoming a reality with people like you cheering from the front. At least you can hide in the crowd and never have to be ‘singled out’ to be laughed at and ridiculed for stating the umpopular truth. We’ll see who has the last laugh!

  92. Chareen
    June 11, 2015 at 11:17 am #

    Also, I understand that some people are annoyed at this “paper” for publishing this story but the sad fact is there are a lot of people who share this ignorant view about homosexuality. Isn’t it better to expose these beliefs through such forms of media so that these discussions can take place?

    Maybe enough alienation for such views will help these mindless muppets to re-evaluate their beliefs – I hope so.

  93. Chareen
    June 11, 2015 at 11:13 am #

    While the bible does mention marriage, Abrahamic religion is not responsible for the origin of marriage which is evident in other cultures preceding it (such as the Pagan Egyptians from at least 500BC). Marriage – just like religion – is entirely contrived by men, and continues to change at the whim of man. You are not married now as ancient Christian tradition would advise, yet use that tradition like a shield behind which you hide and hurl bigotry and your own simple-minded hang-ups.

    Homosexuality is natural, found extensively throughout nature. Homophobia is a human (and largely religious) invention. That you are so offended by what other people do in their bedrooms (let alone think that a god would care) speaks volumes about your inability to think critically. Egocentrics at their finest. No intelligent person cares if you get a divorce – you are insignificant.

  94. Alison
    June 11, 2015 at 10:02 am #

    I am so glad that you are getting a divorce so you will fully understand what it is like to be in a “relationship” rather than a “marriage” by law, which gay and lesbian people face every day. Say goodbye to joint health insurance or a joint retirement plan and even a house in both your names. But I’m just wondering, when you get divorced (in the eyes of God) is God just like a third party and will be expecting a third of all their worldly possessions? Like any other divorce?

  95. Sway
    June 11, 2015 at 9:42 am #

    The fact that this article exists at the same time scientists are slamming particles together in the large hadron collider is hilarious.

    • Shea Mikkelsen
      June 11, 2015 at 3:23 pm #

      This is the greatest comment for this topic. It’s depressing that this is even still a debate. We have come so far in science, but when you look at the whole picture, we are still so very primitive as a species.

  96. Patrick
    June 11, 2015 at 9:35 am #

    why don’t we go the way of other countries where you can get married in a church/temple/mosque or other holy place before your own god, whoever that may be OR you can get married at a Registry Office OR you can do both. When we were married the Church acted as ex officio Government employees and completed the Civil requirements after the Church requirements. Separate the two and then people can have the choice of one, the other or both. The hang up would then be only about the word “Marriage”.

    • Eric Glare
      June 12, 2015 at 2:44 am #

      Patrick all that is available here and there are thousands of churches registered to marry, plus celebrants who can go anywhere. Marriage has been diverse for a very long time.

  97. Milan J
    June 10, 2015 at 9:49 pm #

    I am absolutely disgusted that you placed these two morons on your cover. I cannot believe that such ugly and selfish individuals exist in our society.

  98. BFH
    June 10, 2015 at 9:15 pm #

    This article is riddled with inaccuracies and internal inconsistencies. The Lachlan Macquarie Internship (not ‘institute’, which doesn’t appear to exist) has no place in public policy if this is the kind of poorly researched material you produce.

  99. Elise
    June 10, 2015 at 8:47 pm #

    Haha get divorced then losers. Bring on the gay weddings!

    • R. Russ
      June 12, 2015 at 2:20 am #

      HOWLING!!!!!

  100. Cherelyn
    June 10, 2015 at 7:52 pm #

    This is seriously the dumbest thing I’ve read in quite some time.

    Or possible the funniest. I really hope this was a satirical piece of writing.

    If not then your recruitment team should take a hard look in the mirror.

  101. John
    June 10, 2015 at 6:50 pm #

    Hey CityNews which side of history do you want to be on?

    It’s called equality maybe you could do a story on it someday. Rather than reporting some stupid one sided story about people supporting inequality and oppression.

  102. Lauren
    June 10, 2015 at 6:05 pm #

    Disgusted that this article was printed. People are saying, “Shouldn’t they have their opinion expressed, too?” Well, no. Nothing hateful should be printed. Why can’t “christians” make an argument for traditional marriage without resorting to these petty stunts and invalid points??

    • TJay75
      June 24, 2016 at 4:26 pm #

      I beg your pardon, but extolling one form of hate for another is not loving——-contrary to the “so-called” loving mantra so pompously touted by the LGBT community——-they are just as culpable if not more so for perpetuating further hate and violence toward Christians.

      You can call it an impasse if you want to but I honestly don’t think it’s that simple. The history of this world doesn’t lie as it actually consists of many archeological discoveries which have corroborated the ancient scrolls that collectively form the Bible——-which is what those whom claim to be Christian are expected to live by——-for doing that shows respect and love for God’s because we choose to honor His laws——-principles of which he established since the beginning of his creation of the universe itself.

      If anyone misrepresents what it means to be a Christian——-that is on them and they will still have to answer for that, but in no way should that be used as reason to hate God and put everyone into the same class distinction all the time. Again——–it’s just advocating one form of hate over another…

  103. Candace Jade Sabrina Garside
    June 10, 2015 at 5:44 pm #

    Divorce then. You have just proved ” The Sanctity Of Marriage ” means absolutely NOTHING except a ploy by religious Zealots to deny people their human rights….

    Talk about Ignorant white trash attempting to guilt others….

    If you read between the lines,

    They are Divorcing so they can both pursue relationships previously denied to them…. They just don’t want to come out of the closet and openly say that.

    Maybe they should remember that ONLY God has the right to judge anyone! And ONLY God can PASS JUDGEMENT. They have just proved that they are sinners, and doing the work of the devil…. If anyone actually believes that toilet paper called the bible.

    When you are perfect, and without SIN, then you can pass judgement on others. Until then, shut up and let others live how they want. After all, you don’t really have ANY clue what is right or wrong. And this story proves that these 2 crack pots don’t even have morals….

  104. Trev
    June 10, 2015 at 5:24 pm #

    “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman before a community in the sight of God”
    “Any attempt to change the definition of marriage by law is not something in which we are able to partake.”

    The government has already changed the definition in 2004 to be “Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” which omits any mention of God and already allows Civil unions to be considered marriage.

    If your issue is with you belief Governments shouldn’t be allowed to change the meaning of words surely you should already be filing for divorce? Don’t be a hypocrite on us Nick.

  105. Kate
    June 10, 2015 at 5:07 pm #

    Why has Christianity become so much about hatred and exclusion? I’m pretty sure that isn’t what Jesus intended. For the record, this guy used to throw parties when he was a teenager whenever his parents were away and let hundreds of people destroy his parent’s house, furniture, and swimming pool, he’s a complete scumbag. Now he tries to twist the words of a prophet of love and peace to spread bigotry and hatred. Christians need to rewind and think ‘what would Jesus do?’ instead of spreading this venom.
    Children kill themselves rather than deal with being gay because of the stigma that nasty people like this so fervently seek to perpetuate. They make me sick.
    I’m an atheist and I’m more in touch with a life in the image of Christ than these homophobic hate-mongers.

  106. Tim
    June 10, 2015 at 5:00 pm #

    Should Change the Tag line to Well Stupid, Well done. You would thing better from a paper in the nations capital. Bad Grammar and reporting. Christians have become the Nazi’s of the 21st century.

  107. Margaret
    June 10, 2015 at 4:58 pm #

    How will they meet the legislative requirements for divorce???

    • Richard
      June 10, 2015 at 5:57 pm #

      Margaret, you raise a very valid point because to make an application for divorce they need to swear that they have lived separately and apart for greater than one year and cite irreconcilable differences. This is a silly publicity stunt because my question to this ‘rightous couple’ is how do your ethics stand with lying which is what you would have to do to carry out this silly protest. At the end of the day, you will have gone to the expense of attempting to divorce and failing, or lying and succeeding and who on earth actually cares. You have the right to your beliefs, but what you propose is simply hateful and I would have though in conflict with basic christian ethics.

    • Bron
      June 11, 2015 at 4:10 pm #

      It would be great when they change these outdated laws and allow anyone to marry, and then this idiot (Mr Jensen) will apply for a divorce and be denied. Now he will understand the heartache people have been suffering for decades.
      Wouldn’t that be karma at its best.

  108. John Moulis
    June 10, 2015 at 4:20 pm #

    There is no mention of marriage in the Bible. It began as a secular institution by Man but was hijacked by the churches who injected religion into the marriage vows. Christians and others involved with religion have no right to claim that marriage is a holy union owned by the churches and have no right to force their opinions on the subject onto anybody else.

    • Isaac
      June 10, 2015 at 5:13 pm #

      I think you need to read the bible a bit more, refer to Hebrews 13:4 instead of ignorantly talking.

      • giverson
        June 11, 2015 at 11:56 am #

        I think the point that John was trying to make was that marriage existed in one form or another before Christianity was around – and he is correct. Even your example is from the Old Testament – way before the Christ supposedly walked this earth. And if you are going to follow the Old Testament, then you also need to follow the requirements contained in chapters such as Leviticus – which i can be almost 100% sure that you don’t. And further, within the Old Testament polygamy, incest and other distasteful forms of marriage are allowed – is this the definition of the institution that you wish to revert to?
        Next time, instead of a knee jerked, cherry picked reaction – actually think about what you say before you put the post online.

        • Eric Glare
          June 12, 2015 at 3:01 pm #

          Whichever way you look at it, correcting John’s mistakes and even maximising the religious aspect for benefit of doubt, it still remains the Biblical lineage plus that of several mainstream churches that have been bullies on religious freedom. None of these lineages map direct or completely to Australian society which has many other strands of heritage including Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism and Indigenous Dreaming – Judeo-Christianity just over-dominates the law.

          Jensen is all about continuing colonial religious dispossession insisting on their religious supremacy. Harking after our shameful past of discrimination.

          We really live with lies and hypocrisy on religious freedom:
          “Section 116 states that “The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

          I just want the same religious freedom as the Jensens have. Unfortunately the marriage equality lobby is too gutless and immoral to make a stand on religious freedom and are content for our biology to be pitched against their religion only.

      • Amanda Kendal
        June 11, 2015 at 11:59 pm #

        I think we should still be able to kill our neighbour if they work on the Sabbath too. And, as the great sky pixie ordained, if you’re not prepared to rape your newly-widowed sister-in-law when the same sky pixie orders it, you should die.

        Oh, and don’t forget that the sky pixie doesn’t mind rape at all: quite apart from not telling Mary before getting her pregnant – rape, in most people’s book – he also didn’t think that Lot being prepared to offer his teenage daughters to be gang raped in order to distract some men from other men was a bad thing. Lot remained the one good man worth saving – although his wife was killed by the sky pixie just for looking back (which is far, far worse that rape. Obviously).

        These two probably don’t think that these things would be acceptable today – they’d squirm and wriggle to try to claim that their sky pixies wasn’t a bit of a sh*t in carrying on like this – but it illustrates their pix ‘n’ mix nature of their religious beliefs (as with every other religious person) and thus their hypocrisy.

        And possibly yours too.

        • Stanza Matic
          June 12, 2015 at 9:38 pm #

          I am a Christian who supports gay marriage, and I think the people in the article are horribly misguided.

          Just to correct you though, Mary consents to become pregnant: Luke 1:26-38. And the Old Testament needs to be *interpreted* in the light of Christ’s example. He put aside many traditional beliefs, not least in regard to women.

          I think that these two are a little too fond of certain parts of Leviticus. Their views are both sad and bigoted.

          • TJay75
            June 24, 2016 at 4:46 pm #

            Being Christian and supporting gay marriage is a misnomer to say the least, but more than that it shows how little is really understood by those who claim to know Christ but then decide for themselves which teachings of his they will follow.

            Christ never condoned gay marriage and also did not admonish his true followers to break any of God’s commandments but instead to keep living by all of them. That’s what it really means to be a Christian.

            When establishing marriage, God did so not only to provide a close companion who together, would physically complement each other, but also to make a provision for producing more offspring, doing so within a family arrangement.

            “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.”–1 Cor 7:2 (KJV) [ There is no allowance stated here for plurality of mates on either side. ]

            Also, God is not the originator of polygamy. He gave Adam just one wife. Later, Lamech, a descendant of Cain, took two wives for himself. (Gen 4:19) In time others imitated his example, and some took slave girls as concubines. God tolerated the practice, and under the Mosaic law he even instituted measures to assure proper treatment of women whom had such a relationship. He did this until the Christian congregation was established, but then required that his servants return to the standard that he himself instituted in Eden.

            As for Abraham, he took Sarah as his wife. When she was about 75 years of age and thought she would never bear a child, she requested her husband to have relations with her maidservant so that Sarah could have a legal child by means of her. Abraham did so, but it led to serious friction in his household. (Gen 16:1-4)

            God fulfilled his promise to Abraham regarding a “seed” by later miraculously causing Sarah herself to become pregnant. (Gen 18:9-14) It was not until after Sarah’s death that Abraham took another wife.—Gen 23:2; 25:1.

            Jacob became a polygamist because of deception on the part of his father-in-law. It was not what Jacob had in mind when he went to seek a wife in Paddanaram. The Bible record tells in considerable detail about the unhappy rivalry between his wives.—Gen 29:18 – 30:24.

            It is a well known part of ancient Biblical history Solomon had many wives as well as concubines. But not everyone is aware that, in doing so, he was violating God’s clearly stated commandment that the king “should also not multiply wives for himself, that his heart may not turn aside.” (Deut 17:17)

            It should also be noted that, because of the influence of his foreign wives, Solomon turned to the worship of false gods and “began to do what was bad in the eyes of God…And God came to be incensed at Solomon.”—1 Kings 11:1-9.

  109. Bill McAllister
    June 10, 2015 at 4:11 pm #

    Yep, You are an ill informed tosser. READ YOUR NEW TESTAMENT !!!!!!!! …. See what Jesus had to say about homosexuality !!! … absolutely nothing.

    Idiot

    • TJay75
      June 24, 2016 at 5:07 pm #

      Just another bully fostering even more hate instead of the love you say you stand for. Why should anyone be surprised by such a foolish statement. Like people aren’t going to be able to see that your simply glazing over the fact that Jesus taught his followers to listen to his heavenly fathers commandment’s and to honor him by living up to them.

      When Jesus openly condemned fornication, he did so because that is how his heavenly father feels about every form of fornication (whether homosexual or not).

      You can deride God’s commandments all you want but that isn’t going to change the fact that God made it clear what is acceptable to Him——-even proving so by destroying the two ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for the depraved sexual misconduct taking place there——-conduct of which clearly contradicts the true nature of human life as God intends it to be. God created us with the abilities we have——-not to be abused——-but instead to be honored by following the universal laws he put in place.

      Just like Gravity is meant to keep us from spinning right off the Earth itself——-God also established certain natural laws for his human creation to live by so that we would also benefit if we followed those laws.

      While I didn’t agree with what you said, it was very kind of you to post your opinion. Thank you so much. I hope you have a nice day and may the peace of God that excels all thought guard your heart and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus.

  110. Justin
    June 10, 2015 at 4:06 pm #

    Would have been nice for Nick to outline the Institute’s / internship program’s links to the fundamentalist group the Australian Christian Lobby as part of his bio, or at least your responsibility to do so City News.

  111. Jacob Kelly
    June 10, 2015 at 4:06 pm #

    Well, you are brave to write an article and publish something like this

    …. this still doesn’t change the fact that your deluded bigots.

  112. Jess
    June 10, 2015 at 3:46 pm #

    This is the most bigoted load of bull I have ever read in my life. I am ashamed that people like this live in my generally progressive city. My aunt and her partner have been together for 24 years and have lovingly raised a smart, kind boy who is now 13 and is one of the happiest children I know. No one has the right to tell them that their love means any less than any one else’s love.
    As the saying goes, if you don’t like gay marriage. Don’t get gay married.

    • Anonymous
      June 19, 2015 at 2:34 pm #

      it says in God’s word that you are not allowed Gay marriage

  113. Nik
    June 10, 2015 at 3:14 pm #

    First, you yourself say that marriage is an organic institution, one recognised through culture (prior to religion), having evolved through time to what it is today. is that not what is occurring now? A simple evolution in the definition. Second, I disagree with your statement that if changed, in future, “It will not be about building and securing communities into the future.” That is precisely what a new definition seeks to do. There is a very large number of same sex couples who provide love, solidarity and model Christianity in their communities. Lastly, with high divorce rates (lower among same sex couples, btw) and “Married at First Sight” the sacredness of marriage is already diminished. Some may choose to discriminate. However, many celebrants, priests and reverends recognise that love is love is love. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.

  114. Ericka
    June 10, 2015 at 2:52 pm #

    I can’t believe that a pair of avowed Christians would want to go against their religion’s rules and live in sin rather than allow acceptance and equality for all ‘god’s’ children.
    I am very proud of myself for reading this article all the way through before confirming my face-value conclusion that it is ridiculous.

  115. Jim
    June 10, 2015 at 2:24 pm #

    The fundamental ‘order of creation’ was around before religion, laws, and even marriage. I’m pretty sure of this…unless I’m holding my timeline upside down?

    Come on CityNews…I didn’t think one small minded couples views were worth spreading?…kinda shock media to a point?

  116. Sara
    June 10, 2015 at 1:37 pm #

    I’m most concerned by this “Nick Jensen is the director of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute, which helps develop leaders in public policy (lmi.org.au).”

    What business does he have developing leaders when he can’t use proper grammar or logic? Note to self, do not engage with LMI folks.

  117. Sam
    June 10, 2015 at 1:23 pm #

    Why the Citynews thought one couple’s narrow-minded hate-filled opinion piece is a news item in 2015 is beyond me. Who cares if they get divorced what two people do in their own relationship is their own business.. So go about yours quietly Nick and Sarah because those of us living in 2015 don’t care for your bigotry.

    • Ross Beale
      June 17, 2015 at 5:00 pm #

      Where do you get the idea of HATE from, it is not a matter of hate just principle, different view, so you must “hate” every single person who disagree with your idea of normal I guess! The self righteous Left in our society love to use the word Hate.

  118. Tim
    June 10, 2015 at 12:18 pm #

    YOU can’t get married because MY religion says so.

    What a nasty and heartless approach.

    • Keith
      June 29, 2015 at 1:29 pm #

      Yea it’s just like those other religions that won’t let me eat meat, or eat pork or drink alcohol, go to all night parties and then make me wear funny clothes. What a bunch of hateful, heartless, nasty and bigotted a-holes are they!! Dont just give it Christians get stuck into others while you’re at it.
      That is your ridiculous line of thinking!
      The difference is that people may CHOOSE to follow lifestyles of their particular religion and that does not affect you because they are not trying to make them LAW. But the gay lobby are trying to have their ideals be made LAW that everyone WILL have to follow whether they agree or not. Worse still is the assertion that it won’affect anyone even though it will force everyone to comply with something that opposes their conscience without any say in the matter. That is the issue, not what individuals religious morals or lifestyles are per se.

  119. Kara
    June 10, 2015 at 12:08 pm #

    There is so much wrong with this article I don’t even know where to start.

    • FGC
      June 10, 2015 at 3:43 pm #

      Start with the grammar and work your way up.

      • Mikael Guggenheim
        June 14, 2015 at 1:05 pm #

        I want to +1 this but I can’t so I just leave this comment here. 🙂

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Germaine Greer takes out top GLORIA (dis)honour for comments about trans women | Star Observer - November 11, 2015

    […] out the religion category was Canberra couple Nick and Sarah Jensen who penned a letter in the Canberra City News declaring they would divorce if marriage equality was legislated in […]

  2. Christian Couple Married 10 Years Threatens To Divorce If Evil Gay Marriage Is Legalized|The Gaily Grind - November 4, 2015

    […] and Sarah Jensen, announced their threat to divorce in an opinion piece published by Canberra CityNews under the headline, “Gay law change may force us to […]

  3. Change In Ny Divorce Law | Quick 16 Bit Radio - September 14, 2015

    […] Gay law change may force us to divorce – Canberra … – Gay law change may force us to divorce. NICK JENSEN’s wife Sarah is the only woman he’s ever loved; but the couple is prepared to divorce in protest against any … […]

  4. Can A Divorce Ruling Be Appealed | Quick 16 Bit Radio - September 7, 2015

    […] Gay law change may force us to divorce – Canberra … – Gay law change may force us to divorce. NICK JENSEN’s wife Sarah is the only woman he’s ever loved; but the couple is prepared to divorce in protest against any … […]

  5. Us Divorce Laws Alimony | Simple Barbara A King - September 4, 2015

    […] Gay law change may force us to divorce – Canberra … – Gay law change may force us to divorce. NICK JENSEN’s wife Sarah is the only woman he’s ever loved; but the couple is prepared to divorce in protest against any … […]

  6. ‘This is absolutely disgusting’ | Perth Now - September 3, 2015

    […] Jensen, who posed with his wife Sarah on the cover of the latest issue of Canberra CityNews, writes of the Christian couple’s decision to end their marriage under the headline, […]

  7. Resistance to Marriage Equality Within Australia | muesliwithbananaandyogurt - September 2, 2015

    […] Jensen, N 2015, ‘Gay law change may force us to divorce’, CityNews, 10 June, viewed 1 September 2015, <http://citynews.com.au/2015/gay-law-change-may-force-us-to-divorce/&gt;. […]

  8. Article 55 Legal Separation | Great Simple Legal Advice - August 24, 2015

    […] Gay law change may force us to divorce – Canberra CityNews – Gay law change may force us to divorce. NICK JENSEN’s wife Sarah is the only woman he’s ever loved; but the couple is prepared to divorce in protest against any … […]

  9. Divorce Better Than Arguing Say Children | Cheap 16 Bit Radio - August 22, 2015

    […] Gay law change may force us to divorce – Canberra CityNews – Gay law change may force us to divorce. NICK JENSEN’s wife Sarah is the only woman he’s ever loved; but the couple is prepared to divorce in protest against any … […]

  10. Changes Divorce Law Australia | Quick 16 Bit Radio - August 10, 2015

    […] Gay law change may force us to divorce – Canberra CityNews – Gay law change may force us to divorce. NICK JENSEN’s wife Sarah is the only woman he’s ever loved; but the couple is prepared to divorce in protest against any … […]

  11. Divorce Without A Lawyer In Australia | Fast Avagyan - August 7, 2015

    […] Gay law change may force us to divorce – Canberra CityNews – Gay law change may force us to divorce. NICK JENSEN’s wife Sarah is the only woman he’s ever loved; but the couple is prepared to divorce in protest against any … […]

  12. If same-sex marriage is legalised, can you divorce? - Farrar Gesini Dunn - July 23, 2015

    […] from friends and family members from overseas and all over Australia who have heard about the “Canberra couple who vow to divorce if same-sex marriage is legalised”. The article and the announcement has indeed gone viral and in turn, prompted a range of […]

  13. 7 Ways Christians Lost The Gay Marriage Battle, And How We Should (Not) Fight The War | God Is My Constant - July 16, 2015

    […] things in countries where SSM has been legalised. But how does that compare, in reverse, with an Australian couple wanting to get a divorce to protest SSM? Personally, I would put them in the same […]

  14. Land of the Free, Home of the Offended | jasminevelez - July 11, 2015

    […] of America are outraged that the Supreme Court would allow such a law to be passed. One couple, Nick and Sarah Jensen, even threatened to get a divorce if they had to live in a world with same-sex marriage. This is […]

  15. Mark Thompson from Moore College (Sydney) Responds to Same Sex Controversy | Jimbasinger's Blog - July 8, 2015

    […] The story was published in the Canberra City News (http://citynews.com.au/2015/gay-law-change-may-force-us-to-divorce/ accessed 12 June […]

  16. TandemShock » WATCH: Joe Santagato Stands Up for the Gays - July 7, 2015

    […] were claiming they would get divorced, people exclaimed they were going to move to Canada… or even Mexico, and pastors made claims […]

  17. Rights For All! | adventuresbynina - July 7, 2015

    […] image source:Citynews […]

  18. Baby, meet bathwater | Strictly Temporary - July 5, 2015

    […] Sarah and Nick Jensen, residents of Canberra, are upset about the pending same-sex marriage legislation in Australia. They’re so upset that if Australia allows same-sex marriage, they’re going to divorce. Nick said to the Canberra City News, […]

  19. Nick Jensen responds to my response to his proposal to divorce his wife if the Marriage Act is amended | St. Eutychus - July 2, 2015

    […] why I wrote the piece declaring why my wife and I would no longer share the State definition of mar… was to deepen discussion, particularly for Christians. It wasn’t as some suggest a publicity […]

  20. My Dear Evangelicals: Realities and Myths After Marriage Ruling - July 1, 2015

    […] the past couple of weeks we’ve read of one straight couple in Australia who say they will divorce if gay marriage is approved by their government, we’ve read of a pastor who essentially offered […]

  21. LIKE if you agree. SHARE if you…uhh…I’m already confused. | thereturnofsuperman - June 29, 2015

    […] (like these people) who thinks any two people getting married or not getting married has any bearing on their marriage […]

  22. Oh the irony! This Christian couple vows to divorce if same-sex marriage is legalized - YNaija - June 27, 2015

    […] an op-ed for the Canberra CityNews, Nick Jensen wrote that he and his wife, Sarah, would, “as a matter of conscience, refuse to […]

  23. 175,000 Pledge To Party If Anti-Gay Australia Couple Divorces Over Same-Sex Marriage « CauseHub - June 20, 2015

    […] month, Nick Jensen wrote an op-ed for the Canberra CityNews in which he claimed that he and his wife Sarah would “as a matter of conscience, refuse to […]

  24. 175,000 Pledge To Party If Anti-Gay Australia Couple Divorces Over Same-Sex Marriage - Safe Schools | Desert Cities - June 20, 2015

    […] month, Nick Jensen wrote an op-ed for the Canberra CityNews in which he claimed that he and his wife Sarah would “as a matter of conscience, refuse to […]

  25. 175,000 Pledge To Party If Anti-Gay Australia Couple Divorces Over Same-Sex Marriage - GANGUPON - June 20, 2015

    […] month, Nick Jensen wrote an op-ed for the Canberra CityNews in which he claimed that he and his wife Sarah would “as a matter of conscience, refuse to […]

  26. 175,000 Pledge To Party If Anti-Gay Australia Couple Divorces Over Same-Sex Marriage | Pride & Equality Post - June 20, 2015

    […] month, Nick Jensen wrote an op-ed for the Canberra CityNews in which he claimed that he and his wife Sarah would “as a matter of conscience, refuse to […]

  27. 175,000 Pledge To Party If Anti-Gay Australia Couple Divorces Over Same-Sex Marriage - AltoSky - AltoSky - June 20, 2015

    […] month, Nick Jensen wrote an op-ed for the Canberra CityNews in which he claimed that he and his wife Sarah would “as a matter of conscience, refuse to […]

  28. Daily News Checker » Blog Archive » 175,000 Pledge To Party If Anti-Gay Australia Couple Divorces Over Same-Sex Marriage - June 20, 2015

    […] month, Nick Jensen wrote an op-ed for the Canberra CityNews in which he claimed that he and his wife Sarah would “as a matter of conscience, refuse to […]

  29. Ambiente G / Australia: una pareja se divorciará si se legaliza el matrimonio gay - June 19, 2015

    […] Vía | City News […]

  30. This couple says they’ll split up if a gay marriage law passes, so thousands of people joined a Facebook event to celebrate their divorce - June 18, 2015

    […] “My wife and I, as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognize the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnization of same sex couples,” Nick told City News. […]

  31. Over 160K People RSVP To Homophobic Christian Couple’s Divorce If Gay Marriage Is Passed | PrideTV.com.au - June 18, 2015

    […] story for human history,” Nick Jensen wrote in a very poorly-received op-ed published by the Canberra CityNews. “By changing the definition of marriage, ‘marriage’ will, in years to come, have an […]

  32. I’m not getting on the see-saw if everyone isn’t allowed to play | leon wark - June 18, 2015

    […] just finished reading an article titled ‘gay law change may force us to divorce’, where a Canberra couple, Nick and Sarah Jensen, are threatening to divorce if marriage equality […]

  33. This couple says they’ll split up if a gay marriage law passes, so thousands of people joined a Facebook event to celebrate their divorce | Breaking News, Latest News and Current News from usastar.org Breaking news and video. Latest Current News: U. - June 18, 2015

    […] “My mother and I, as a matter of conscience, exclude to commend a government’s law of matrimony if a clarification includes a solemnization of same sex couples,” Nick told City News.  […]

  34. This couple says they will split up if a gay marriage law passes, so thousands of people joined a Facebook event to celebrate their divorce | Business Insider - June 18, 2015

    […] “My wife and I, as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnization of same sex couples,” Nick told City News. […]

  35. This couple says they’ll split up if a gay marriage law passes, so thousands of people joined a Facebook event to celebrate their divorce | Digital Wealth - June 18, 2015

    […] "My wife and I, as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognize the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnization of same sex couples," Nick told City News.  […]

  36. Over 160K People RSVP To Homophobic Christian Couple’s Divorce If Gay Marriage Is Passed / Queerty - June 18, 2015

    […] story for human history,” Nick Jensen wrote in a very poorly-received op-ed published by the Canberra CityNews. “By changing the definition of marriage, ‘marriage’ will, in years to come, have an […]

  37. Backlash for Aussie Couple Who Threaten to Divorce if Gay Marriage is Introduced - theoutmost.com - Gay Ireland News & Entertainmenttheoutmost.com - June 16, 2015

    […] “We believe marriage is not a human invention,” wrote Jensen. […]

  38. Pareja cristiana promete divorciarse si se aprueba el matrimonio homosexual » No Puedo Creer - June 16, 2015

    […] argumentos los explican aquí pero, la verdad, es una lectura complicada con demasiadas referencias a asuntos […]

  39. Canberra: First in Democracy, Last in Tolerance - The Big Smoke - June 15, 2015

    […] week the outstanding weekly glossy magazine Canberra CityNews ran a front page story about Nick and Sarah Jensen, a local Christian couple who have threatened to divorce each other if […]

  40. Gay Marriage - Let's Get It Straight | BIG FAMILY little income - June 14, 2015

    […] Gay Law Change May Force Us To Divorce […]

  41. Meet The Couple Who Will Get Divorced If Marriage Equality Becomes Legal - Ice Trend - June 14, 2015

    […] Writing for CityNews , Nick said marriage is part of Gods intimate story for human history. […]

  42. Meet The Couple Who Will Get Divorced If Marriage Equality Becomes Legal « CauseHub - June 13, 2015

    […] Writing for CityNews, Nick said marriage is “part of God's intimate story for human history.” […]

  43. Nick Jensen, Same-Sex Marriage, and Public Faith | Whispering Jack - June 12, 2015

    […] wasn’t going to say anything about the recent furore surrounding Canberra couple Nick and Sarah Jensen’s plans to divorce if same-sex marriage is introduced in Australia, but I think it’s worth noting a few points. (If you haven’t read the article yet, I […]

  44. State view won't change marriage in eyes of a man and woman's God | Em News - June 12, 2015

    […] latest “protest” against legalising same-sex marriage was publicised in an article by Nick Jensen, director of the Lachlan Macquarie Institute and former ACT director of the […]

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.
%d bloggers like this: