Wednesday, 17 November 2010

The Gay Marriage Agenda

News Polls, Talk-Back Radio, Parliaments, lunch rooms, and school class rooms are all being used to promote a push for "Gay" (Same-Gendered) 'Marriage'. The basic argument in favour of this push is that Marriage is discriminatory against same-gendered couples. Supporting this claim are words like: inclusion, tolerance, anti-discriminatory, compassionate, and progressive. These are all positive words (an important point to note). Those opposing Same-Gender 'Marriage' are portrayed as: bigots, intolerant, discriminatory, religious fundamentalists, homophobic, and mean. These are all negative words (again, an important point to note). One SMSer on Tim Cox's TasMornings Radio program asserted, "I have not heard any good reasons why  Gay Marriage should not be allowed..." And that comment sums up the frustration that compassionate, fair, reforming, inclusive Conservatives like myself feel when it comes to this issue.

In public relations words are powerful. Every good PR consultant knows that the right words can make a weak case sound strong. What then is this particular case actually about? Try this quiz-
    The push to legislate for Same-Gender Marriage is about: 
    (a) the definition of marriage 
    (b) social acceptance of morally unacceptable lifestyle 
    (c) removal of discrimination against same-sex couples
The Gay Lobby is pitching (c) 'removal of discrimination against same-sex couples' as the motive for the push for "Gay Marriage". Many who have been involved in this debate have discovered that main agenda is actually something related to (b) because many practicing homosexuals are extremely unhappy and deal with a sense of shame and guilt, they feel that if society's attitudes towards them could be changed to validation they would feel psychologically better. But the actual issue is: (a) 'the definition of marriage'.

Strip away that positive and negative language and consider the issue: What is marriage? It is the union of one man with one woman for life to the exclusion of all others with the potential of having and raising a family. Marriage, therefore is a privilege, not a right. Because it is a privilege it must be discriminating. But this discrimination is on the basis of fairness for all- that is, everyone is treated equally within the standards of discrimination. In the case of marriage, society recognises that those standards should encompass eligibility to marry on the basis of -
    1. Age - must have obtained the age of 18 
    2. Existing marital status - must not be already married 
    3. Gender difference - must marry a person of the opposite gender 
    4. Unrelatedness - must not marry a close relative (brother, sister, father or mother)
    5. Humanity - you can't marry your pet, or your car, or your football club.

There are certainly strong religious reasons for defending marriage as the union of one man with one woman for life to the exclusion of all others for the potential purpose of starting and raising a family. But there are equally good reasons for society to continue to uphold marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. I have outlined these reasons previously and have provided some links to those articles at the end of this piece. However, if it can be shown that the existing Marriage Act is not unfairly discriminatory then there is no case to be sustained for "Gay" Marriage.

If the Gay Lobby succeeds in removing one of the standards for maintaining the definition of marriage ("3. Gender difference"), then it must logically follow that none of the other standards should be maintained either. This would open the way for legalised pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and bestiality.

Marriage has not always lived up to its ideal. Adultery, bigamy, divorce, polygamy, have all damaged it. To a lesser extent, abuse in its various forms has also tainted it. But even with all of these challenges, the average marriage in Australia is still around 45 years! And the majority of those who marry in Australia stay married for life. And the vast majority of those do so happily. Marriage is worth defending. The main argument of the Gay Lobby is a logical absurdity. But woe betide anyone who publicly says so. They can expect abusive insults from those who can not tolerate such intolerance.

Andrew Corbett


  1. Divorce should be illegal. And we should not allow the elderly to marry. They had their chance to procreate. You snooze, you loose.

  2. "Divorce should be illegal." It is true that when "No-Fault" Divorce laws were introduced the divorce rate skyrocketed. This highlights the principle: Whatever you legislate for you encourage.
    "We should not allow the elderly to marry. The had their chance to procreate." Abraham was 99 when he had his first child to Sarah. Rupert Murdoch was 72 when his daughter Chloe was born.