Gays Against “Gay Marriage” (The Remix)

Ben-Peter Terpstra returns to the Menzies House fold with his appraisal of  marriage redefined.

To paraphrase Ann Coulter: Our (right-wing) gays are smarter and more stylish than their (left-wing) gays. Indeed, we had more proof of this last week when the openly gay Liberal Senator Dean Smith helped to defeat same-sex marriage.

Or as he stressed: “By not agreeing to same sex marriage, I’m not choosing to endorse discrimination against my fellow gay and lesbian Australians, or to be disrespectful to their domestic relationships... instead for me, it’s an honest acknowledgement of the special and unique characteristics of the union described as marriage.”

I think he was wearing Armani. But of more historical interest, Labor’s patronising bill was defeated in the House of Representatives 98 votes to 42.

Perhaps defending traditional marriage is inevitable. As, for example, Doug Mainwaring wrote in The Washington Post, “Same-sex relationships are different from heterosexual relationships, and gay men and lesbians need to accept that and design their own tradition.”

The self-identified homosexual writer is a co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots and not one for beating around the bush. Earlier he wrote, “Let’s face it: We should not attempt to force into an old construct something that was never meant for same-sex partnerships” (a position shared by many Australian conservatives).

As well, right-of-center gays in the U.K. are challenging their Politically Correct prime minister, David Cameron. Or as the Mail Online writer Andrew Pierce wonders: “Well, Mr Cameron, I am a Conservative and a homosexual, and I oppose gay marriage. Am I a bigot? And what about Alan Duncan, the first Conservative MP to come out as gay? Mr Duncan, the International Aid Minister who is in a civil partnership, is implacably opposed to gay marriage. So is Dr David Starkey, the celebrated historian, who is openly gay.”

In The Irish Times, Richard Waghorne, a self-identified gay commentator and researcher, argues that “marriage equality” is driven by an intolerant liberal faction. Moreover, it undermines our time-honoured traditions. “The reason,” he argues “for opposing the unnecessary elevation of civil partnerships to the notional status of marriage is that marriage then loses its nature as the one institution supported by society because it is the family form which on average gives a child the most advantageous upbringing.”

There are other reasons to oppose redefining marriage. But as Ann Coulter also likes to say, “Gays are the least politically correct people in the world.”

Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant. His blog:  Weekend Libertarian.

Comments

[Nona Florat]

1.

Well said! Thank you for pointing out that many homosexuals are opposed to SSM. The radical promoters of this legislation refuse to debate on logical grounds, but repeat an aggressive mantra accusing those who disagree of "bigotry", "hatred", etc. Part of the strategy is to claim that SSM is inevitable.

Same sex couples are already free to conduct a commitment ceremony on a social level. Australia is a free country. We will be free no longer if every citizen is compelled to participate in violation of conscience rights, and all children are indoctrinated with homosexual propaganda in violation of parental rights. That is an undeniable outcome in places where SSM is LAW.

Other legislation such as Civil Unions, has proved to be merely a stepping stone to SSM, and no less dangerous for democracy. In the UK adoption agencies have been forced to close because they could not in conscience place children with a same-sex couple.

Thank goodness that our Australian freedom has been preserved at least for now. But the activists will never cease their activities. The radical agenda is unjust, not because they are homosexual, but because they are a radical minority determined to impose their will and turn all nations into dictatorships.

Much use is made of the fabricated term "homophobe". This does not mean someone who activly seeks to wage war on homosexuals, but anyone who who has a consciencious objection (religious or otherwise)to the practice.

In a democracy we agree to disagree, and all have a right to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and a belief that parents have a prior right to the education of their own children.

No one is more intolerant than those who claim to oppose intolerance.

[no to the gay lobby]

2.

a well written and informative article here- well done

no matter which way it is viewed, gays are intent on homosexualising the world through politically correct and "hate crime laws".

why are homosexuals so disproportionately represented in our house of parliament?

[Ben]

3.

Thanks Nona.

[Jimmy]

4.

Gays against gay marriage;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom

[John Mc]

5.

People who need other people's ceremonies and customs to express their own validity are weak. It begs the question: if you need the sanction of other people to feel 'validated' then you've got serious issues and probably need more than a public ceremony.

[Boiling Frog]

6.

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
As Kevin Andrews book "I Do" will no doubt illustrate, there will be plenty of references to peer-reviewed articles on the personal and society's benefits of traditional heterosexual marriage. Why don't the politicians insist on this approach when debating the same-sex marriage issue in parliament.
Surely the promoters need to show through peer-reviewed research over generational time-spans that same-sex marriages is not detrimental toe personal and society's well being. The Greens especially need to be consistent in the application of this principal to social as well as environmental issues,

[Chris]

7.

You know I didn't agree with you before this article, but after your astute observation that Armani > Not Armani, I'm pretty much a changed man.