The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, has been quoted in a news story today about same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy, says Jensen
Leesha McKenny
ALLOWING same-sex couples to marry could lead to the acceptance of polygamy and incest, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, has warned.
Writing in the church’s newspaper, Southern Cross, Dr Jensen said the push for same-sex unions to be enshrined in the Marriage Act was not a drive for the extension of rights but the redefinition of ”one of the indispensable foundations of community”.
”Ensuring public honour of same-sex relationships by calling them marriages is an abuse of marriage itself,” he said.
”It imposes, through social engineering, a newly minted concept of marriage on a community that understands it in quite another way.”
Dr Jensen said the present law did not deny the rights of those in same-sex unions. ”This is not unjust – it is not even discrimination in the current sense of the word – but a refusal to call different things by the same name,” he said.
Some of the unwelcome consequences of same-sex marriage would be the undermining of the family unit and a demand for equal treatment in sex education, where ”the normalisation of homosexuality” would be assumed.
”This claim for a right to be married could open the way for other forms, such as polygamous marriages or perhaps even marriage between immediate family members,” he said.
Dr Jensen, who has been holding a series of lectures entitled ”In Praise of Marriage”, defined the institution as a public commitment by two people of the opposite sex for life, exclusive of all others.
The clergyman said he had supported legislation that extended the economic rights of married people to same-sex couples, but said religious leaders needed to defend marriage or risk losing the right to do so.
”Ministers of the Gospel will find it increasingly difficult to teach Christian sexual ethics… since what they say will be contrary to what the state says,” he said.
Federal MPs were asked in November to canvass views in their electorates on same-sex marriage, and it will be debated at the ALP national conference this year.
A Galaxy poll this week found three in four Australians believed it was inevitable that same-sex couples would be allowed to marry.
But Dr Jensen said same-sex marriage was far from inevitable, citing a conversation with a homosexual activist who told him that even if Christian leaders were silent, ”society at large would still not normalise homosexual behaviour”.
”I think he was right. Deep down, society will not honour same-sex relationships like real marriage,” Dr Jensen said.
Alex Greenwich, of the lobby group Australian Marriage Equality, one of the organisations that commissioned the poll, said it suggested society was increasingly ready to welcome gays and lesbians and accept their right to be treated equally by the law.
”The archbishop would acknowledge we live in a multi-faith society, and as such he must respect that his views should not be imposed on those religions that want to perform same-sex marriages, such as the Quakers and progressive synagogues, or the civil celebrants who perform 67 per cent of all marriages,” he said.
Mr Greenwich said Dr Jensen’s ”alarmist predictions” had not come to pass in countries that had allowed same-sex marriage.
I agree with Dr Jensen. From all recorded history marriage has been a joining of a man and wife for the purpose of procreation and the establishment of a family. Laying aside the issue of whether or not you agree with same – sex relationships to allow this issue to proceed as it is, forces us to redefine what marriage is. This is a far bigger issue than ensuring equal rights for a group of people.
Perhaps something else needs to be put in place where a legal commitment can be made by people who are in same – sex relationships but that does not undermine the sacred purpose and place of marriage within our society.
The legal definition of marriage refers to the legal union of a man and a woman- but its just this legal definition that the GAL lobby wish to change- make it gender neutral- which, I contend, it cannot be.?The term “homosexual marriage” is an oxymoron-?when marriage is not between a man and woman, it is not, by definition a marriage.
To the Catholic and Anglican Churches and other Christian Orthodox Churches, marriage and Holy Matrimony are synonymous.?Holy Matrimony is one of the Seven Sacraments of the Church.?The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the church, by which divine life is dispensed to us.
The primary purpose of marriage is to fulfill a vocation in the nature of man and woman, for the procreation and education of children, and to stand as a symbol of the mystical union between Christ and his Church.
It is therefore by definition a religious symbol and to most orthodox Christians, a sacred institution.?The current attempt by the Greens and other small “l” liberal groups to recognise same sex “marriages” is offensive to Christianity and should not be even contemplated in our legislature. It is akin to the desecration of a sacred site. These groups would not dare to interfere with, let alone destroy an Aboriginal Sacred Site. For example- imagine allowing construction of buildings on the top of Uluru . It wouldn’t be done out of respect for its sacred significance to the Aboriginal people- and rightly so.
Similarly, please have the same respect for Christiandom’s sacred institutions, respect our culture and traditions in a way you would respect other peoples cultures and religions – nothing more and nothing less.?Sure, if you need to, go ahead with your civil unions or whatever secular legal agreements you like,but leave marriage alone and keep it between a man and a woman.?To Christians, marriage stands as a symbol of the mystical union between Christ and his Church and,might i suggest, a homosexual marriage is tantamount to blasphemy.
I fail to see why our nation’s leading members of the clergy, such as Dr Jensen don’t bring this nexus between marriage and Christ’s relationship with His church into their arguments- I believe its the core of the argument.
Marriage is not a religious or cultural institution. Marriages have been taking place all over the world throughout history. Marriage is and has always been a world wide phernominon. Men and women joining together, with a life long commitment, for the purpose of having and raising children; forming a family unit. Community leaders down through history have realised that the family unit brings stability and a good social structure to their particular clan, tribe, religion, or nation. They have wrapped it up in laws and regulations to preserve its influence on society.
The Australian homosexual comunity must be delighted to take on the Christians as apparantly the single opponant in this debate. Christians are a great whipping post and it also implies the rest of Australia is not interested.
I pray that our politicians can see this request to change the legislation as a futher inroad into the break down of the family unit, and not simply a thrust against Chritian belief. Marriage as we know it, in a church or a civil registry office still holds sway in the Australia way of life and according to ABS is increasing each year