Those who argue passionately for homosexual marriages, say we should not discriminate against homosexuals who should be allowed the same rights to "marry" as anyone else in society. But that is not the whole story.

Once you change the underlying basis that marriage is between one man and one woman for life it allows for all manner of unhealthy relationships to be  legalised as "marriage".  For instance researchers in the United States, Europe and Australia have independently found, homosexual couples tend to be more promiscuous. Americans David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison, themselves homosexual, found just that in a survey for their book The Male Couple. They interviewed 156 gay couples and found that although most had intended to be faithful, only seven still were. Every one of the couples who had been together for at least five years had made arrangements for affairs on the side.

 

The authors concluded, "Many couples learn very early in their relationship that ownership of each other sexually can become the greatest threat to their staying together." Most heterosexual marriages are wrecked by affairs. But homosexual partnerships are wrecked by monogamy.

 

Despite the rhetoric of activists who seek "equality for all in marriage", such is not the case when laws are drafted. As an example the law recently proposed in the ACT, said civil unions were to be "treated . . in the same way as a marriage".  Yet under that proposed law homosexuals could have obtained a divorce any time just by sending the Registrar-General a note deregistering the relationship.  How long before pressure would arise for those in heterosexual marriages to be allowed "equal rights" in divorce as homosexual couples demand in marriage.  

Some activists are already questioning the boundaries of Western marriage. Talk of group marriages are now being heard in some quarters. Once you scrap the law insisting "marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others", how can anyone object to the marriage of any consenting adults at all no matter what the nature of the relationship? If we say yes to homosexuals, how can we say no to someone who wants to marry two or more women, a half brother or sister, or a few people they met in some commune?  The next argument then becomes, don't polygamists and the incestuous also deserve "equal rights" in being allowed to marry whomever they wish? 

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle is already pushing for changes in the law so that  "marriage will be open to all people regardless of their sexuality or gender identity".  This notion destroys the fundamentals of heterosexual marriage as we know it today. It seeks to replace the idea that marriage is a permanent and exclusive bond of love that unites a man and woman, and gives children their best chance of growing up well adjusted, happy, and thus fitting into society in a meaningful way, by replacing it with the notion that marriage is just an expression of sexual identity, or an exercise in human rights.

 

Already some of our "progressive" laws, like the Victorian Government's Relationships Act is already going down that path. That law defines a "domestic partner" -- once known as a husband or wife -- as someone who simply "provides personal or financial commitment and support of a domestic nature for the material benefit of the other, irrespective of their genders and whether or not they are living under the same roof".

We have already allowed the true marriage ideal to be undermined so badly that nearly a million children now live without mum or dad at home. Surely our first priority must be to mend what is broken, not destroy it all together.  After all traditional marriage has proven itself time and time again down through the ages to be the best and most viable option for the human expression of love and commitment and for the protection of children.   

 

Just five countries allow homosexual marriage: Canada, Holland, Belgium, South Africa and Spain. And these trailblazers are finding it hard to stop there. Holland, for instance, last year registered its first official civil union between a man and his two wives.

 

South Africa in 1998 recognised polygamy and although Canada still bans it, it is so timid in enforcing this ban that it's become a haven for polygamous American Mormons.  What's more, Canada now even allows Muslims to register polygamous marriages.

We take away the traditional notion that a marriage is between a man and a woman for life at our own risk.  To do so will only weaken further a tradition that creates the kind of families that are best at caring for and raising functional and well adjusted children for the benefit of all society?

The TEN Network has decided to end Big Brother - Adults Only, a single, one-hour-a-week show, and cease further production of it.  This decision does not however affect the continuation of other programs within the Big Brother franchise.

Network Ten provided extensive undertakings as to how they would produce Big Brother - Adults Only this year, and whilst the Network claims the show has complied with the Television Industry Code of Practice and they met all undertakings, complaints and questions have continued to be raised as to whether the show should be allowed to remain on air.

As they did not see that situation changing, regardless of how they treated the program, they claim that surrounding uncertainty was putting unfair pressure on their production team.  They therefore decided the responsible and practical thing to do was conclude the show a few weeks early.

 

Editors note:  This is a great victory for those who have fought long and hard to have this unsavoury program removed from our screens and shows what can be achieved if we are prepared to take and maintain a stand on issues of concern to us.  

 

STOP PRESS: At the time of compiling this article a new controversy has erupted with further sexual activity between two male and one female participant in the Big Brother show appearing on the programs website.

 

In response to the new controversy Prime Minister, John Howard has labelled the show stupid and called for Ten to axe it.

 

The Labor leader, Kim Beazley, has also stepped up his calls for the show to be axed. "As a dad, I don't like seeing young women treated that way."

 

Network Ten executives, whilst expelling the two males from the show, have stated it will not yield to the pressure to axe the program completely.

The Federal Government has announced a National Filter Scheme to ensure Australian families can better protect their children from internet pornography.

The National Filter Scheme was announced by Communications Minister, Helen Coonan, as part of the Coalition's Protecting Families Online package to address problems associated with internet pornography. Under the plan, every parent will have access to a free filter for their home computer, the Government will

also encourage child-safe terminals in libraries and the internet safety agency will get more resources to help families to avoid pornographic content appearing on their computer screens.  "This method of screening out pornography is simple, safe, effective and free and I would urge Australian families to take advantage of what is on offer." Senator Coonan said.

Those interested in accessing filter software should contact NetAlert, Australia's internet safety advisory board, on 1800 880 176.

Not everyone however was happy that the announcement went far enough in addressing the problem of Internet Porn.

Warwick Marsh, the convenor of the Sexual Integrity Forum said "The Fatherhood Foundation and the Integrity Alliance team applaud the Government's initiative as a step in the right direction, but the Government has not got to the core of the issue."

"Last August at the Sexual Integrity Forum people came from all over Australia to Parliament House to talk about the problem of pornography.  All the groups were unanimous in their call for mandatory internet filtering at the ISP level.

"Children and teenagers can easily get around Net Nannies.  State and Council Libraries will not accept filtering without a clear directive from the Government.  The best way to protect the women and children of Australia and turn the tide of sexual exploitation in Australia today is to introduce mandatory internet filtering at an ISP level.

"We congratulate Senator Guy Barnett's trial of filtering porn at the ISP level in Tasmania, and the many coalition backbenchers that have asked for the introduction of Internet filtering at the ISP level. We congratulate both the Labor Party and Family First on their clean feed policy for Internet filtering. We ask the Minister for Communications, Senator the Hon Helen Coonan, to take decisive action to protect the women and children of Australia and introduce mandatory filtering of Internet porn at an ISP level immediately."