Gay marriage obsession - losing momentum?

Beyond the euphoria of Gay Marriage supporters, inconvenient statistics remain - rarely reported. Ben-Peter Terpstra explains. GC.Ed.@L.

The media-approved seven per cent

Clearly, the world isn’t as pro-gay marriage as Australia’s establishment media. With only 14 of the world’s 195 nation states allowing same-sex partners to marry, your average “gay marriage” state belongs to an experimental minority. We’re talking eccentric social-engineering islands. Together, they make up the seven per cent.

So your average gay-marriage state looks like…? In short, the sociological answer is…very white.  Such nations tend to be relatively small, overwhelmingly Caucasian, and frighteningly bureaucratic. Think, legalistic Belgium for a good example. 

Nevertheless, media elites boast that gay-marriage nations are “ahead of history,” implying that white-majority nations are morally superior, even inherently enlightened (a curious position for self-styled multiculturalists to hold). 

So, are they? Are the Belgians more evolved than, say, the Japanese, even though Japan can boast of lower separation/divorce rates and fewer designer fatherless families?

For the record, there are no gay-marriage Asian states and only one in Africa (South Africa) where the sexist institution of polygamy is legal.  Therefore, this does point to a level of establishment media ignorance.

Curiously, same-sex marriage first became legal in the Netherlands on April Fools’ Day of 2001. At the time it was said that marriage-hungry gays would rush to organise massive weddings creating huge pink markets. Or as activist Henk Krol, the editor-in-chief of Gay Krant magazine enthusiastically predicted, “10-15 percent of all marriages in 2001 - more than 10,000 - will be by gay couples.”

Krol was wrong. In fact, around 2,500 gay couples married that year and gay-marriage declined in popularity soon after. 

A handful of cosmopolitan American states have also selectively redefined marriage. Yet, even in liberal New York, same-sex marriage isn’t proving popular. As Doug Mainwaring, a self-identified homosexual against gay-marriage, says, a “shoe sale at Macy’s would produce a bigger stampede” than gay-marriage applicants in NYC. 

Placing little value on freedom of speech and religious liberty, your typical gay-marriage nation is hardly compassionate either. Consider Canada. There, an intolerant secular fundamentalism is harshly applied. As Bradley W. Miller, an associate professor of law at the University of Western Ontario and a Visiting Fellow in the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University points out: religious groups have been fined for refusing to host post-wedding celebrations, poor and “uneducated” citizens with politically-incorrect views have been subjected to investigations by so-called human rights commissions, disobedient thinkers have been ordered to pay fines and even critical-thinking teachers can be punished for expressing pro-traditional marriage opinions outside of work. “Much speech that was permitted before same-sex marriage now carries risks,” warns Miller. 

As well, the seven per cent nations have lopsided priorities. For example, in the Netherlands, two men can legally marry but it’s still dangerous to hold hands in public where Islamist street gangs run wild. And, in South Africa, petrified lesbians live in legitimate fear of witchcraft-inspired “corrective rape” rapists. 

Incidentally, Mainwaring predicts a future backlash against same-sex marriage in the U.S., a backlash that has already taken off in France. As Mainwaring argues, gay-marriage fever will pass, and not without reason. Fevers often do. Indeed, in France, opposition to designer fatherless and motherless families is uniting Muslims, Christians, Orthodox Jews and anti-gay marriage gays against big government socialist politicians. 

Built on a weak foundation, today’s counterfeit marriage movement is often enabled by judicial activists, flip-flopping politicians, campaigning journalists and opinion polls with lead questions. Opposite-sex marriage, by way of contrast, has thousands of years of time-honoured wisdom behind it, not to mention Islam and Christianity (two massive world faiths).  

As critical thinkers, we need to ask ourselves: how sustainable is the genderless soul mate theory of marriage in the long-term? What happened to media equality is another important issue.

Postscript: In underreported news, a bid to redefine marriage in Northern Ireland has failed. In Colombia too, same-sex marriage was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 51-17.

Ben-Peter Terpstra contributes to many publications including MH and Quadrant.

 His blog: B.P. Terpstra.

 

Comments

[Oldman]

1.

MH love loons don't they?

A more idiotic arguments I have not seen in years. By the same logic and before 1940, half the countries in the world would have been justified in using the same arguments against the introduction of Women's suffrage.

[Arthur Dent]

2.

Indeed, in France, opposition to designer fatherless and motherless families is uniting Muslims, Christians, Orthodox Jews

Really? Well, anything that unites the 3 monotheisms HAS to be good. Makes a refreshing change. They're usually at each other's throats.

[Nona Florat]

3.

False analogy, Oldman. Women's suffrage is not at variance with biological science. Nor did it threaten our democratic freedom.

If you think that Menzies House loves loons, why do you identify with us by participating?

Well said, Ben-Peter Terpstra.

Just as radical feminists claim to represent all women, radical SSM proponents claim to represent all homosexual persons. Both claims are false.
Many of the latter oppose redefining marriage. Same-sex couples now receive the same welfare benefits as heterosexual couples, and they are free to celebrate commitment ceremonies in which no one is harassed into participation. Every citizen (religious and non-religious alike) has a right to freedom of conscience.

Marriage has nothing to do with desires of adults, but upholds an inalienable right of every child to know and be loved by his or her own natural parents. It is a recognition of the responsibility of parents to care for the children whom they coparent. Why did our government apologise to the Aboriginal people for a stolen generation?

[kraka]

4.

Ben- I hope Gillard falls for the slavishly over exaggerated support that gay marriage has in Australia that the MSM tells her there is and calls a referendum.
Even though the gay lobby and their apologists would not accept the verdict it would shut them up for a little while at least

[John Mc]

5.

MH love loons don't they?

Well, you do tend to spend a fair bit of time here, I suppose.

[oldskool]

6.

well stated Ben

Abortion is no longer trendy

so the next indignation of the left wing socialists is gay marriage

gay marriage is a front to attack Christianity

In France, millions have taken to the streets in opposition

Locally

NZ and Tassie are leading the charge- Why is it that the two biggest backwaters and economic basket cases are leading the charge for gay marriage?

Promiscuity and marriage are a toxic mix

[oldskool]

7.

"MH love loons don't they?"

yes I note that you oldman and your mate Arthur Dent are the first two comments

yes the "loon" tag is very applicable for you both

also the "not too smart" tag come to mind

[Arthur Dent]

8.

That was a bit below the belt oldskool. I thought our last exchange was quite, what.....cordial?
May I ask, when was abortion "trendy"?

[kraka]

9.

When Gillard, the Greens, the MSM, Their ABC and the rest of the "intelligentsia" thought they could bash Abbott over the head with it.

I'm guessing the Gosnell's case in the USA might slow down the government assisted pro abortion mob.

For the record, I believe abortion should be legal but I needs to be justified. Changing your mind about being pregnant at 20 weeks is not justified. Finding out it is a girl and not a boy is not justifiable etc.

I think in the main most people agree with Abbott-safe, legal and rare. It's the rosmary's off our ovaries crowd that thinks abortion is a womens choice only to make with no justification that think its trendy

[Roger]

10.

Considering that there is a wide range of scientific data that clearly states homosexuality is a permanent condition, and that even some of the most researched conservatives agree with this hypothesis, as seen here:
http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=2818

Why shouldn't there be a legal recognition for same sex couples if their condition is permanent?

[Arthur Dent]

11.

Agree with most of what you say there kraka.
Yes, the Gosnell case is quite disturbing. It would become the norm if abortion wasn't legal.
Re Abbott criticism - he does have a history of standing in the way in this area. His previous stand on RU-486 when he was health minister for instance.
(pssst...it's rosaries. You know-beads to help one keep track of prayers )

[Ben]

12.

Hi Roger: Sorry. Not sure if I understand your point. In any case,there is no “gay marriage” gene.

[kraka]

13.

At the time there was insufficient evidence to support the safe use of RU486 so Abbott;s stance was justified.

Obviously his position has changed after 8 years due to more information though you do know the RU486 thing was bought up again as political wedge and has nothing to do with the handbag hit squads convictions yes?

Also-the introduction of RU486 will definitely bring with it an increase in unsafe sex and the STD's that come with it though I doubt unintended consequences has ever stopped the political left from trying to impose their morals .

Got me on the rosaries-must have been thinking about the lamb roast tonight :)

[Ben]

14.

Thanks for the thumbs up Nona.

[oldskool]

15.

yes my apologies arthur- we do appear to be almost making some kind of friendship- which I appreciate.

Abortion was all the rage 10-20 years ago

it even got a new trendy, super cool name of "family planning" and got itself a catch cry of "a woman's rights to choose" but as the facts come to light it all of the sudden is a bit on the nose

EMILY'S LIST members are not so trendy these days, as they push for full term abortions (case in point, demotion on tickets of pratt and Mccrossin)

So the left wing were all for abortion and all jumped on the band wagon as "useful idiots" only to find out that it is not the great freedom it was claimed to be

Abortion has a problem- that is a photo of a aborted child

so not so trendy now

the same for SSM - Oh so 2008

NZ thinks itself trendy all "progressive" the fact is it is not so cool when freedoms are taken and indoctrination starts

SSM is a "not in my backyard" issue

its all trendy until it comes home in the form of an indoctrinated gay kid

PS. homosexuality is a choice, the evidence is in former recovered homosexuals

[John Mc]

16.

There should be legal recognition for same-sex couples, in the form of a civil contract on whatever terms they agree. It shouldn't be under the Marriage Act because that defines traditional marriage that much of our society holds in high esteem.

If anything, we should be repealing the Marriage Act - because government has no business in personal relationships - and letting everybody enter into a civil contract as they see fit, and then seek the blessing of a church if they wish.

[Anton]

17.

Paedophilia is also a permanent condition, so should we recognise that legally as well?

[fran]

18.

I'm with you, Nona. You have expressed my views exactly.

[fran]

19.

There is it's called a civil union and gays have protection. If they don't like the name they can make one up that they agree upon.

[Roger]

20.

@Ben, considering that those who are homosexual cannot find members of the opposite sex physically attractive, would it be fair not to offer the same level of recognition to whatever partnerships they choose?

@John Mc, I see where you're getting at and I would support repealing the Marriage Act too, but big government would not want to give that privilege away and I doubt it would happen any time soon.
Also, the Marriage Act would also prevent religious institutions from conducting same sex marriage ceremonies, as is practised by the Universalist Unitarians, Metropolitan Community Church and others.
So if scrapping the Marriage Act isn't an option, the next best thing would be to extend the Marriage Act to cover SSM, with exceptions to religious groups, so that there would be less government interference in the personal lives of Australians.

@Anton, paedophilia is completely different as one party cannot consent to intercourse. That is also a very nice straw man you pulled there.

[John Mc]

21.

That makes no sense at all. You can't fix bad policy by having more if it; two wrongs don't make a right.

[Roger]

22.

The option of repealing is a nice goal to have, but in the current big government political climate that we have, it probably won't happen for a while.
The best case scenario would actually be to have a referendum to remove the section that gives the federal government power to legislate in regards to marriage, but again, the motion would never come to fruition.

[John Mc]

23.

Sure, but this is an opportunity to pave the way for a more appropriate alternate to the Marriage Act with a 'Civil Unions' act which could apply to everybody who wanted to use it. In contrast to passing more bad legislation that in ten years we will be arguing we should repeal.

[pk]

24.

oldskool,

Abortions has always been with us. It is not a 'trend'. Just because you didn't want to see it doesn't mean it was happening in may private hospitals for the rich and many backyards for the poor.

As much as you'd like the state to control a woman's body and lives she wholly supports within it- it ain't gonna happen.

You are entitled to your opinion, but don't expect it to get legs among the masses. Even Abbott knows better these days.....You are and will always be fringe , even if you think your moral crusade is the right one, because not one woman of childbearing age wants to be another Savita Halappanavar or Michelle Harte.

[Roger]

25.

But why pass legislation in the form of a 'civil unions' act if you wanted to end the government involvement in marriage?
That's a little bit hypocritical, and it also raises the question of whether 'marriage' is exclusively religious.

[Nona Florat]

26.

Thank you, Ben and Fran for your response to my previous posting.

Civil Unions do not provide a solution. Wherever this legislation is in effect, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience are abolished, just as in the case of SSM. For example in the UK when Tony Blair was PM in 2007 Christian adoption agencies were forced to close for refusing to place children with same-sex couples.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/jan/07012904

Same-sex couples are already protected. They are free to live their lives as they wish, to hold commitment ceremonies and receive welfare benefits. Wherever support for same-sex unions by any name holds sway, however, married heterosexual couples are not free to live their lives in accordance with their values and to pass on these values to their children The same is true wherever "sexual diversity" as a category for "anti-discrimination" legislation is on the agenda. Already there are plans in Australia to introduce compulsory indoctrination in homosexuality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4kNqSzzHUBg

"Safe Schools Coalition" fighting "homophobia" and "transphobia" -- on a pretext of bullying, of course. Homosexuality is not even among the top ten causes of bullying.

The ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority) have already drafted a document to establish legislation to include "same sex attracted and gender diverse students"
http://consultation.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Static/docs/HPE/F-10Curriculum.pdf

In some schools "sex education" includes all manner of depravity unrelated to biology. Teenagers suffer the medical and psychological consequences. http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=5259 (Dr Miriam Grossman's article)

There have been moves internationally to decriminalise paedophilia -- "rights of minor attracted persons". "Sexual diversity" soon is revealed as "sexual perversity".

It is true that private relationships are no business of government. However marriage legislation (secular as well as religious) has existed throught millennia of history as a recognition the rights of children and parental rights. Moreover it is a means of recording family relationships throughout succeeding generations. A family tree becomes meaningless wherever SSM has been legalised.

On the subject of abortion: Gosnell's "house of horrors" was a legal abortuary. Health authorities ignored ongoing complaints because they did not want to "restrict a woman's right to abortion". There is growing evidence that this is not the only legal abortuary where infanticide is committed, or where women have suffered serious injury and some have lost their lives.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/why-gosnells-house-of-horrors-is-the-logical-result-of-legalized-abortion/

Dr Bernard Nathanson was an influential member of the pro-abortion lobby, being co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) in the US, and had overseen 75,000 abortions as director of an abortion clinic.The evidence provided by the ultrasound machine caused him to change his mind.

Following his conversion Nathanson exposed the fact that he and NARAL often lied about key facts and figures in the effort to push the legalization and acceptance of abortion, saying that they were “guilty of massive deception.”

In a radio program in 2008 he explained, “We claimed that between five and ten thousand women a year died of botched abortions. The actual figure was closer to 200 to 300.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-former-abortionist-top-pro-life-advocate-bernard-nathanson-dies-at/

So much for a claim that Gosnell's house of horrors would become the norm if abortion were again illegal.

I watched an interview of Tony Abbott some years ago, in which he was harassed by pro-abortion activists. What he said was "Actually my position is not very different from that of Bill Clinton that abortion should be safe, legal and rare". Under Obama abortion is neither safe nor rare -- far from it! -- witness Gosnell's abominations. Here is a warning for Australia also.

[oldskool]

27.

PK- great use of the Cliche'

You make this about me, why?

I was simply likening another left wing lie to Homosexual marriage- it not its all cracked up to be

the fact is that abortion is on the nose

just ask - I think your average citizen thinks their is enough contraceptive education around that abortion is no longer trendy

Oh so 1980's PK

keep up with fashion

just like homosexual marriage- people are fed up with hearing about it

just like this B grade basketballer last week- yawn- the media loved it but very few care

just like NZ - playing catch up to divert from their economic ineptitude and 5 years behind on tends- just too late to have anyone actually care about how "progressive"bthey are in NZ

[pk]

28.

the fact is that abortion is on the nose

And here i was thinking it was a picnic - a simple joyus skip down to the clinic.

BT - Every time to cite abortion as mainly carried out because a woman chose to not use birth control, it displays the clear distance you have between your beliefs and reality.

[oldskool]

29.

fact is abortion is on the nose

I don't really care to argue the left wing lies of abortion

as I said this is not about me

I was using abortion to point out the fact that left wing flavour of the month issues go out of fashion once people work out the damage it does

you PK are very out of date

[John Mc]

30.

A 'Civil Unions' act is just another form of voluntary contract. Enforcement of contract is a valid role for government.

Marriage is not exclusively religious in the general sense. You can have secular types of marriage relationships, both under the Marriage Act (between one man and one woman) or under 'Civil Unions' (for everyone who chooses). If you choose to get it endorsed by a religious institution, then it's religious marriage.

[kraka]

31.

Hey oldskool-she probably still has the ashes from the bra burning ceremonies back in the day. LOL
Seriously-she is out of date with the its my baby no-one else's I can do want I want schtick. That is sooooo nineties.

Abortion is a societal issue-pk still thinks its a womens issue.

[Roger]

32.

So why have two separate acts, or an entirely new act than just simply removing or amending the one that we have currently, which is the Marriage Act?

Is it the name? Is it that which is causing all this vitriol over the matter?

@Nona
What you were saying about freedom of speech and expression, that's not because of SSM, it's because of previously enacted anti-discrimination laws which have been expanded to cover those areas.
I don't believe in anti-discrimination legislation personally, and without it that argument would not hold water.
I would also like to see some citations as whether homosexuality is NOT in the top ten of bullying subject matters, and to which 'values' parents are unable to teach their children because, I haven't seen legislation enacted which prevents that at all.

[kraka]

33.

Oldskool-the link here to Miranda Devine's (a woman for the benefit of our resident militant feminist pk) column on abortion is a must read.

Pk-your views on abortion are abhorrent and no longer relevant in today's society. Technology and our ability to see the human foetus pre-birth has passed by your tragic feminist views. In other words-your views are emotive and based on man hating feminist views that belong in the 60's.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/the_reality_of_abortion_is_exposed/

[Phil]

34.

This article would serve as an excellent example of persuasive writing (of the worst kind) for final year school students. Unsubstantiated assertion, emotive hyperbole (e.g., frighteningly bureaucratic - spare us!), light on fact, heavy on bias: thank you; I'll use it for my class. It will be used in contrast with examples demonstrating scholarly, clear-headed, objective, and logically sound writing.

[kraka]

35.

"It will be used in contrast with examples demonstrating scholarly, clear-headed, objective, and logically sound writing."

The only thing lacking in scholarly, clear headed, objective and logical writing is your attempted rebuttal of the article Phil.

Pray tell-in objective, logical, scholarly and clear headed terms, please outline in detail what parts of the article you disagree with and why-perhaps then you can climb back on your moral high horse instead of just writing drivel like the pompous ideological asshole you so obviously are.

[Bob]

36.

USA - from Puritans to Impure-itans

Is there a connection between beautiful New England and entire American cities turned into smoking rubble? There is.
Take same-sex marriage. I would have guessed that a "sin" city (San Francisco? Las Vegas?) would have been the first to legalize it.
Oddly it's been the place where America started that's wanted to be the first place to help bring about the end of America and its values! It's been a Nor'easter of Perversion (helping to fulfill the end time "days of Lot" predicted in Luke 17) that began in (you guessed it) Boston in 2004.
New England has gone from the Mayflower Compact to the Gay Power Impact, from Providence to decadence, from Bible thumpers to God dumpers, from university to diversity to perversity, and from the land of the Great Awakening to God's Future Shakening that will make the Boston bombings look like Walden Pond ripples by comparison!
The same Nor'easter has been spreading south and as far west as Washington State where, after swelling up with pride, Mt. Rainier may wish to celebrate shame-sex marriage by having a blast that Seaddlepated folks can share in lava-land!
The same Luke 17 prediction is tied to the Book of Revelation which speaks of the cities that God will flatten because of same-sexism - including American cities - a scenario I'll have to accept since I can't create my own universe and decree rules for it.
I've just been analyzing the world's terminal "religion" that has its "god," its accessories, its "rites," and even a flag. It's an obsession that the infected converts are willing to live for, fight for - and even die for!
Want more facts? Google "God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up" and "Government-Approved Illegals."