Are you still undecided or uninterested in the same-sex marriage postal vote?

To all those who are undecided or uninterested in the same-sex marriage postal vote,

I encourage you to consider arguments on both sides, make your own independent decision and not to give up your vote. Not long ago, I was in your position as well. For many years, I was sympathetic to the YES vote, primarily due to my association with people, such as colleagues and friends, who were themselves or were related to homosexual people. They are just like us – they have the same God-given human dignity as the rest of us. Over the years, I gradually believed that homosexuality is a private matter, and that it does not affect anyone outside the couple. It seemed fair to agree with their cause, and I took pride in siding with what I believed was progression, equality, and inclusivity.

I was aware that the Bible does not approve of homosexual relationships; I had secretly given the matter the benefit of the doubt. I thought that churches might have interpreted the Bible too literally. Whilst I was not sure homosexual relationships are entirely natural, I did not want to dismiss the Yes vote because of this conventional view. I wanted to be compassionate. I believe in a loving, generous, and forgiving God, and also believed that voting for same-sex marriage would be my act of love in the same vein.

Deep down, however, I was unsure as to whether respecting homosexuality meant agreeing to same-sex marriage. The proposed legislation is not an anti-discrimination act, nor is it about decriminalising homosexuality. Most of us would agree with those decisions. This proposed legislation is about changing the intrinsic characteristics of marriage. Marriage has, historically and naturally, been between a man and a woman. This dynamic forms the familial foundation that is the fabric of our social society. The underlying worry is that the legalisation of same-sex marriage will cause unintended damage to families, and therefore society. I believe any new marriage policy must be balanced against other considerations.

The NO campaign has talked of consequences, and the YES campaign has said that there are no consequences and therefore should be ignored. The YES arguments appealed to my sympathetic mindset based in the principles of equality. However, the more dismissive the YES campaign became, the more interested I became in learning about the consequences. Politicians debate for years about the consequences of bills, and I was shocked to hear many seasoned politicians refuse to discuss the consequences.

The consequences are alarming but I was skeptical about these claims when I first heard of them. Being on the Yes side for so long, I was tempted to close off my ears because my emotional support for gay people is still strong, and I didn't want to find out I was wrong either.

Same-sex marriage and sexual radicalisation are linked. Why? Once marriage is recognised irrespective of the sex of the partners, all genders types will have to be allowed to marry by law. When homosexuality become normalised, the concept of LGBTIQwill gain further ground to be normalised as part of the mainstream.

The definitions of gender in Australia have already been widened under the pressure of the LGBTIQ advocate groups in recent years that argue for acceptance of the LGBTIQ community. The acceptance of LGBTIQ community has been turned into the acceptance of LGBTIQ ideology by its activists. Under the guise of the 'Safe Schools' program in schools, children are not just taught the universally accepted message of tolerance of all differences, but also to explore if they are in any way gender non-conforming or homosexual.

This proposed legislation is strongly pushed for by the same activist groups that have been pushing for the introduction of the 'Safe Schools' program. It is feared that once the marriage legislation is introduced, sex education program will be further radicalised. This is where the problem lies: once legalised, same-sex marriage will be used as a precedent to further justify the teaching of the radical gender identity and sexualisation program to our underage children.

For me, there is a clear difference between supporting homosexual people AND encouraging or pushing homosexuality on others.

Other consequences that could arise are losing parental control over sex education, losing freedom of religion, or even simply losing freedom of speech.

This has been seen in California, as stated by my US friend whom I sought evidence from, 'The whole issue is not only legalizing same-sex marriage. It is about opening doors for all sorts of sexual relationships for the LGBTIQ community. Bathrooms in schools are open to all sexes. Those who claim to be of a particular sex other than that on their IDs have the right to enter bathrooms of their choice. There are an increasing number of sex predators getting into female bathrooms… Some churches were sued to bankruptcy as they don't allow LGBTIQ individuals in their ministry teams. Some Christian businesses were sued as they declined to provide services such as wedding cakes and photography for homosexual weddings. Teachers/professors who do not adopt new curriculums from publishers in favour of homosexuality had been dismissed or condemned. Homosexual celebration parties are organised in elementary schools and parents are fighting to take their kids out of those activities. The Bible is considered bigotry. These changes are irreversible.... Kids in public schools are taught how to role play in a same sex-relationship even before learning about the opposite sex. The movement to equalize same-sex marriage with traditional marriage is only the beginning. Ultimately it might end up removing all rules on sex and sexual relationships.'

To many observers,'the sexual revolution did not start with same-sex marriage, and it will not end there'.

There are children of same-sex couples who are against the legislation of same sex marriages. Children who were raised without a mother or father report that their natural right to both a father and mother (with the deliberate intention of not having one of the parents there) has been violated. There are also homosexual people themselves who do not support same-sex marriage.

These consequences, after they became evident to me, have convinced me to vote 'No' on the postal vote. In retrospect, the arguments I once believed rational are flawed. I can now see that same-sex marriage is not about privacy, freedom, or equality. It is not a private matter, for it has repercussions for so many people, such as children in the 'Safe Schools' program. It is not a complete matter of freedom, because it lets freedom between two adults be disengaged from their natural responsibility of providing a father and a mother to their children if they are going to have a family. It is not a matter of freedom, because it deprives others of their freedom, such as those wishing to quietly follow their conscience in their way of life, in their own business and religious communities. It is not a matter of equality, for whilst we must treat people fairly, we should be allowed to acknowledge and respect differences in doing so. Just like everybody has an equal right to use a public bathroom, but it doesn't mean I have a right to use a female bathroom, nor a female has a right to use mine. Equality does not necessarily always mean the same. In fact, there are times it should not. This is called appropriateness, in accordance with intrinsic differences. As Pope Francis says, 'A marriage - made up of man and woman - is not the same as the union of two people of the same sex. To distinguish is not to discriminate but to respect differences. A father is never the same as a mother'. To say that a "marriage" between two men, or between two women, is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman is like saying that potatoes are the same as oranges.

I reckoned my compassion had been misplaced previously. I'd like to think I have been correct in my thinking all the time but I accepted I was not. I still accept and respect gay individuals and couples but it does not mean I have to support gay marriage. As a community we still support the 1975 decision to decriminalise homosexuality, and support any effort towards anti-discrimination. In fact, legally, homosexual couples have very similar rights as de-facto heterosexual couples. I think as the way forward we should revisit the idea of a national civil registration of same sex union, which should aim to remove any remnant of discriminatory legal or administrative practices.

I am finally at peace with my faith, and in voting 'No' I believe I can show my Christian love more appropriately. I am glad my decision – even it didn't come from biblical authority – does not go against the Bible and my church's teaching, and my fear of going against the Creator has gone. There is a natural law in His creation, and I feel I should respect that. In fact, I started to feel the wisdom of the words of God again.

If you are unsure, do not be afraid to find out more from both sides of the campaign. Filter it, discern it and reflect on it. It is okay to say no, but we cannot afford to say yes. We cannot afford not to vote either. These changes are irreversible.

I leave you with the words of Archbishop Mark Coleridge, 'It's true that all human beings are equal. But that doesn't mean they are the same... Marriage policy has almost always "discriminated" against certain people: parents can't marry their children, brother and sister can't marry, and those under age can't marry. Nor can people of the same sex. That doesn't make them any less equal'; and the words of Pope Francis, 'every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his or her dignity and treated with consideration, while every sign of unjust discrimination is to be carefully avoided, (however) there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.'

God bless,
An anonymous father.