Monday, August 03, 2009

The Whole Gay Marriage Thing

A lot of noise was made yesterday around the country in the name of the fight for "the right" for same-sex couples to be legally married.

There are some mighty non sequiturs in the rhetoric of the gay lobby. Take the reported speach by Radical Women spokeswoman Alison Thorne, to the effect that

1) marriage is an oppressive institution designed to condemn women to lives of slavery, and hence:
2) same-sex couples should be equally entitled to it.

It makes one laugh out loud. Was she listening to herself?

The media is telling us that the ruling Australian Labor Party (ALP) has "voted against legalising same-sex marriage". That may be so, but what are we to make of the report on the front of The Age today which also says that "in a compromise backroom deal it [the ALP] expunged from its platform the words "between a man and a woman" when defining marriage"?

Apparently Senior minister Anthony Albanese "who helped broker the deal" said he believed "the momentum for change was "unstoppable... History is moving forward on these issues"."

"Australian Marriage Equality" spokesman Tim Wright seems to agree. He declared that "This is the civil rights movement of our decade. One day the forces of love will prove more powerful than the forces of fear."

Two things:

1) AME and their crowd appear not to be able to distinguish between demonstrating that a cause represents a "human/civil right" and demonstrating that an issue that has popular support (if you believe the figures they quote). Why is same-sex marriage a right? If it is, why isn't polygamy a right? We shouldn't discriminate against children, so why don't minors have a right to marriage? Does popular support for same-sex marriage (if such exists - I don't think it does, or the politically savvy ALP would be supporting it) make it a right, while these other forms of "marriage" do not constitute a right for the same reason, ie. that they do not enjoy popular support?

2) The AME and the ALP are dreaming if they think the "force of love" can overturn an institution as old as human society. One is reminded of the dialogue from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:

Mr Prosser: "Mr Dent, do you have any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if I were to let it roll right over you?"
Arthur: "How much?"
Mr Prosser: "None at all."

prosserdentbulldozer

4 Comments:

At Monday, August 03, 2009 9:02:00 am , Anonymous Matthias said...

Is this the same Alison Thorn who derryn Hinch discovered was a school teacher about 20 years ago ,and who was pedaling lowering the age of consent?

 
At Monday, August 03, 2009 10:09:00 pm , Anonymous Pax said...

Our poor old world is getting madder by the minute.

 
At Tuesday, August 04, 2009 1:19:00 am , Anonymous matthias said...

It is times as these that you get
Dispensationalists saying"THE RAPTURE ain't far off-these are the signs'
The Amillenialist says the above but knows that it will all be in God's time and not man's,especially proddy dispensationalists and the
postmillenialist says " The Gospel is not yet preached to all nations ' and when it is then will there be a time of spiritual and economic prosperity before the time of Apostasy prior to the Lord's return,therefore cheer up and be about God's work'
Which position should we take when faced with the above??

 
At Friday, August 07, 2009 4:19:00 am , Anonymous Paul said...

I haven't followed it in detail, but I think the ALP is tending to support civil unions which copy the legal arrangements of marriage (like tax, inheritance of superannuation benefits etc). The SS marriage lobby in the US say this is not as good as marriage because civil unions are not recognised in all states or between countries. However, I don't think this would be the case in Australia, so I struggle to understand why they want the piece of paper called marriage if they don't see it as a sacrament. I suspect the only reason is to gain acceptance of the gay lifestyle by mimicking traditional institutions.
Even without considering the religious foundations of marriage, there are logical problems with the SS marriage brigade:

- as you say, what reason could there be for allowing gay marriage and not multiple marriages. Who would decide the maximum number of husbands/wives in a multiple marriage and how would inheritance work? (think about the oppression in that, Alison Thorne!!)

- as surely as night follows day, the gay lobby's next demand will be for subsidised IVF for gay couples. That means manufacturing a family without a father or mother. What about the right of the child to a father and a mother? As usual, the rights of the children in these lifestyle frolics is callously ignored.

I think it is important to keep reinforcing the arguments against gay marriage, because the risk is that, although it is unpopular, people's apathy will just accept the "equality" argument without thinking clearly about the consequences.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home