Why I oppose gay marriage.

Australian parliament is consumed with the agonizing decision of whether or not they should hold a national plebiscite on gay marriage. The left is resoundingly against a plebiscite because it will cost money to do so, which is somewhat surprising when you consider that they normally spend other people’s money like a drunken sailor in a bar with hookers. The real reason they are against a plebiscite is because they are unsure of the result, particularly as the dirt people have been making surprising moves this year such as voting for things like Brexit.

I am also against a plebiscite but not for the same reasons as the progressive leftie luvvies. I am against a plebiscite because gay marriage should never be under consideration in the first place.

One of the other luvvie protestations against the very idea of a plebiscite is the fanciful notion that gay people will commit suicide in utter despair at the dirt people being allowed to have their say. (Although quite frankly, if you’re that mentally unbalanced then you shouldn’t be considering tying yourself legally to someone else for life, just sayin.)

This ties into the basic premise for the provision of gay marriage, namely the feelings of the gay people involved who are so upset and traumatized that they cannot marry the love of their life, (or at least the love of their next five minutes if you have any notion of how promiscuous and unfaithful the general gay population is).

In other words, this is about the rights of the individual. It’s the usual me-me-me displays of infantile narcissism that characterize just about every platform that the left stands for. Problem is, marriage has nothing to do with individuals, rights or not. It is about the family and the sanctity of the family unit. This precious sanctity has been under attack from the left for over forty years. Gay marriage is one of the final nails in the coffin. It is actually not about gay people at all. They are merely the convenient tool that is being used to further the progressive aims. Destroy the family and make individuals beholden to the new sanctity of the state.

The collateral damage in this sorry business will be the children of these new gay “family units”. Unfortunately this is not the first time that this has happened. Back in the 1970s there was much public agitation for and against the passage of fault-free divorce laws. The left wailed about the sanctity of the abused wife and how she needed to have “rights”. In other words they were focused as always on the rights of the individual. The argument by conservatives against fault-free divorce was the potential impact it would have on children. If you marry and then have children then you have additional responsibilities beyond your “individual rights” to care for those children in a whole and unbroken unit to the best of your abilities.

The left’s response was that divorce would not affect children at all. They shouted down any contrarian arguments. They waved completely invented facts from obscure “studies” which they had themselves engineered so as to get the results that they needed.

But even more despicable was what came next. In order to propagate the lie that divorce did not affect children they had to actively demonstrate their belief in their own deception. The end result was that for over a decade after the passage of the fault-free divorce law, no support at all was given to the children of divorced parents during or after the divorce process. To do so would have contradicted the myth that divorce did not affect children. After all, if you gave the children any form of support that would mean that they were affected by the process of their family breaking down around them.

Incredibly, support was provided for the parents in the event of a divorce. It was not until the early 1990s that things began to change and children were provided for, but that was a safe enough distance that fault-free divorce was safely embedded in the public domain.

And now we have gay marriage, and once again the left is shouting from the rooftops that having two gay parents will not affect children in any way. Which is why I read this article yesterday with interest – Kids recruited to same-sex marriage plebiscite battle.

Ms Fontana, an atheist, grew up with two mothers but struggled with her identity and said the only time she felt stable as a child was when she was able to meet her biological father at age 11.

She said some children of same-sex couples experienced self-harm, suicidal thoughts and depression, like some in the LGBTI community.

“We (children of same-sex ­couples) want our mothers and ­fathers; I don’t understand why ­society is so fiercely rejecting such a natural concept that is acceptable in every other family structure,” she said.

“There are often serious consequences for children who are ­denied access to their biological parents — the cultural attitude needs to change for this reason. We don’t want to be in the closet either.”

Unfortunately these children will once again be the collateral damage at the heart of the issue. Which is why the leaders of the left have to say things like this:

The Opposition Leader will recommend Labor block the plebiscite and said it was perceived as a waste of time because Coalition MPs could vote against legalising gay marriage even if the poll was carried.

“I’m very concerned Mr Turnbull has no idea the harm that it will cause to thousands of LGBTI Australians,” Mr Shorten said.

“Australia has never held a ­national opinion poll to judge anyone else’s relationship.

“So people are legitimately asking why this should be inflicted on LGBTI Australians and their families?”

Shorten’s ploy here is a bait and switch. He turns the issue back to the rights of the individual and their feelings. He is concerned at the “harm” that holding a one-off vote could cause to homosexuals. Of course, the steady and ongoing harm over decades caused to the future children of such unnatural family units is not even mentioned. It is the elephant in the room which must be ignored.

There is actually a very simple way of negating this whole issue. Get government out of marriage altogether. Marriage is a religious institution that has been subverted by government. Amend the marriage act entirely so as to give the power of performing a marriage only to established and recognized religious denominations from whence it came. Government appointed celebrants will only be able to perform state sponsored “civil unions” for want of a better term, whether you are male and female or any other combination. The terms “married” and “husband” and “wife” will only be allowed to be directly associated with a couple who are married, ie joined together in a union before God.

Then end all state welfare of families and put the responsibility back on the individual families, communities, and church groups.

Oh dear, this isn’t simple at all. Now do you begin to see why the left have been at this for over forty years?

4 thoughts on “Why I oppose gay marriage.

  1. Allen

    Come on now we’re all secretly waiting to watch “Gay Divorce Court” the latest in reality TV. I have always just said no to the whole idea. It’s not incumbent upon me, or society to satisfy someone’s individual desires so I don’t even argue the issue.

    Throughout all the brouhaha in California not a single proponent of gay marriage ever made the only cogent argument for it, at least to my mind. That is: why should the state deny one group of people the license?

    Like

    1. richard hall

      They aren’t being denied. They’re allowed to marry women just like any other dude.

      The left wanted to change the definition to being between same sex. That’s the point

      Like

  2. Take The Red Pill

    I could care less about gay marriage. The feminists and their “Useful Idiots” of the female population did all that they could to kill marriage — which they did.
    And now that they have hit The Wall, listen to the “Useful Idiots” wail about ‘the lack of ‘Good Men’ (which they didn’t want) and how they ‘can’t find a man who wants to marry’ (that is, the rich Hollywood actor that they ‘deserve’, of course).
    Too funny for words…

    Like

  3. Pingback: News of the News (October 16th, 2016) | The Political Hat

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s