(CREDIT: Evan Forester via Flickr)

One of the most powerful arguments used by those who wish to change the definition of marriage is that it is morally wrong to deny someone the opportunity to marry the person they love.

And yet, changing the definition of marriage is not the most loving thing to do for the children of our society.

The ‘What has God joined together?’ booklet by our Anglican Diocese makes the important point that “man-woman marriage is actually at the heart of United Nations documents about the family.”

It goes on to quote Article 23 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which declares that “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

It is most loving to the children of Australia to maintain the definition of marriage that says that the normal group unit of our society consists of the biological father and mother of the child.

Even though there are some exceptions such as adoption, foster care, and donor-assisted reproduction, it is still best to have children living in a stable, recognised, relationship with their own biological mother and father.

God created marriage for the benefit of all people, and the move to distort this is unloving to all children of Australia.

For, we should embrace the gift that God has given us all, as we read about in the first chapter of the Bible:

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it’” (Genesis 1:27-28).

I encourage you to join with me in voting ‘no’ in the upcoming marriage plebiscite, as an act of love.

Jodie.

CREDIT: Ray Wewerka via Flickr

Let’s be honest: the debate about same-sex marriage is very personal.

This discussion directly impacts people in same-sex relationships, and it will ultimately determine whether their union should be recognised as a ‘marriage.’

That is why this debate feels personal, even when people try and only address the issues.

Every ethical discussion will directly affect some people, yet we must not walk away from these important conversations.

For example, a discussion about euthanasia or abortion may cause some people to be upset, especially if they are caring for someone who is terminally ill or carrying an unborn child with a serious illness.

Yet, for the sake of good order it is vital that we have a mature discussion about these issues that affect the very fabric of our society.

But remember that people will often pay more attention to how we’re speaking instead of what we’re saying.

That is why we need to do all we can to show love to those we disagree with, even when they might prefer we didn’t speak at all.

When Jesus encountered people with a different viewpoint, he spoke his mind, even though it caused some people to be upset with him.

And the Apostle Paul felt obliged to defend his viewpoint, even though he knew it would cause people to be unhappy.

As Paul says in Galatians:

Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ. (Galatians 1:10)

This is the difficult challenge we face: speaking the truth in love.

And above all, we want to keep pointing people to Jesus, who “loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood…” (Revelation 1:5)

Jodie McNeill