George Orwell’s novel, describes life in a one-party police-state presided over by an all powerful figure known as Big Brother.  The police state used a systematic manipulation of language to control and direct the masses.  By redefining words and endlessly repeating them, the Ministry of Truth, using the ‘thought police’, was able to control what people thought and through that, their actions.

Do we have an active ‘thought police’ in 2016 Australia?  We live in a society in which the ordinary meaning of words are being systematically manipulated as a means of changing the way we think and the way we act on many issues.  For example, words such as sodomy and homosexuality have been replaced with ‘gay’ and ‘progressive’ and  ‘marriage equality’.   Reasonable concerns and debate is howled down with labels such as homophobic, intolerant, hateful, hate speech, bigoted, religious bigot or even backward and dinosaur.  How do we react to the ‘thought police’ tactics of intimidation through the manipulation of words and name calling?  We often react with fear, becoming defensive or compliant or even shut down all together.

Debate over so called ‘marriage equality’ has effectively been shut down despite the UN’s Human Rights Council resolution calling for the ‘Protection of the Family’ (traditional definition) and the Declaration of Human Rights acknowledgment of the family as the ‘natural and fundamental unit of society’ and ‘natural environment’ for the education and development of children’.   Traditional marriage brings children into the world in a way that best protects their right to know and be raised by their biological mum and dad.  Same –sex marriage should not be a conscience vote any more than the arbitrary removal of children from their biological family should be a conscience vote.

 It is biologically impossible for two women or two men to create children. Surely we do not want another ‘stolen generation’; that is, children removed from their biological mother and father, their brothers and sisters, grandparents, uncles and aunts and indeed, in some cases, even their medical history.  Surely the most vulnerable members of our society deserve priority consideration in the marriage ‘debate’.   Surely love is not about getting your needs met or demanding your rights; love is about living for the highest good of another.  Surely love does not seek to undermine the very fabric of our society for self gratification.

P Morgan describes mind control as, “It’s too dangerous for us to tell the truth or to say what we really believe or to express how we really feel.”  Studies show children brought up by both their mother and their father in the traditional nuclear family environment do far better in all areas of their life.  That is a fact; this is not to say there are no exceptions, but it is a fact never the less.  The happiness of children conceived in a test tube, bought or adopted and raised by same sex couples is not an established fact; statistics show otherwise.  There are a growing number of children raised in same sex households who are ‘coming out’ and describing their childhoods as anything but happy and functional’.

Other negative consequences to arise from ‘Marriage equality’ are a shut down of freedom of speech,  freedom of religious and freedom of conscience by the ‘thought police’.   The following it taken from, ‘Don’t mess with Marriage’.   It is all referenced.

The Law Society in England revoked permission for a group called ‘Christian
Concern’ to use its premises because the group supported traditional marriage
which the Law Society said was contrary to its ‘diversity policy’
The City of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, ordered Christian ministers to perform same-sex weddings under pain of 180 days’ imprisonment for each day the ceremony is not performed and fines of $1000 per day; some British MPs have threatened to remove the marriage licences from clergy who fail to conduct ‘same-sex  marriages’
Clergy in Holland, France, Spain, the US and Australia have been threatened with prosecution for ‘hate speech’ for upholding their faith tradition’s position on marriage; the City of Houston, Texas, has even subpoenaed pastors, compelling
them to submit sermons to legal scrutiny when discussing sexuality.
A doctor in San Diego County was prosecuted after refusing personally to participate in the reproduction of a fatherless child through artificial insemination
Parents in Canada and several European countries have been required to leave
their children in sex-education classes that teach the goodness of homosexual activity and its equality with heterosexual marital activity; for example, David and Tanya Parker objected to their kindergarten son being taught about same-sex marriage after it was legalised by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, leading to David being handcuffed and arrested for trying to pull his son out of class for that lesson. They were told they had no right to do so


In the US, Canada and Denmark pastors or religious organisations have been
forced to allow same-sex marriages in their churches or halls: Ocean Grove
Methodist Camp in New Jersey (US) had part of its tax-exempt status rescinded
because they do not allow same-sex civil union ceremonies on their grounds
British MPs have threatened to stop churches holding weddings if they do not
agree to conduct same-sex ones
The Chief Rabbi of Amsterdam and a Bishop in Spain have been threatened with prosecution for ‘hate speech’ merely for restating the position of their religious
The Deputy Chief Psychiatrist of the state of Victoria was pressured to resign his
position on the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission after
joining 150 doctors who told a Senate inquiry that children do better with a mum and dad; in several US states and in England psychologists have also lost positions for stating that they favour traditional marriage or families based thereon
Having allowed ‘same-sex marriages’, polygamous marriages have been permitted in Brazil and pressure for their legalisation is strong in Canada and
Businessmen, athletes, commentators, teachers, doctors and nurses, religious
leaders and others in several countries who have spoken in support of traditional
marriage have been vilified in the media, denied employment or business  contracts, and threatened with prosecution. Thus a view of marriage –as between a man and a woman – which was previously common to believers and non-

believers alike, across a whole variety of cultures and times,is increasingly becoming a truth which cannot be spoken.

Thus a view of marriage –as between a man and a woman – which was previously common to believers and non- believers alike, across a whole
variety of cultures and times, is increasingly becoming a truth which cannot be spoken.  Redefining marriage will have consequences for everyone.