Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Ethical questions » On The Gay marriage issue again

On The Gay marriage issue again

Andy’s written a fairly glowing column in today’s Hun about Peter Hitchener’s recent quiet revelation regarding his private sexuality. It’s one that Andy feels deserves commendation – because of the way Hitchener’s done it:

Yet I’m glad he feels able to announce it at last, briefly and unemotionally, in this no-fuss way. As I said: it’s actually a gift…

Hitchener, after all, is a decent man. What’s more, like Jones, he is not out to proselytise for gay sex, mount mardi gras floats or wear leather pants.

He is not demanding support as the gay newsreader, but as a newsreader who you might have incidentally heard is gay, and I doubt you’ll hear him discuss his sexuality again, just as I don’t mine as a straight.

You have to wonder why it is that our learned friend pushes the Gay barrow so consistently. Could it be that he has a more personal reason for doing so? Rather than his oft stated claim that his enthusiasm for “gay marriage” is all about “social Justice”. But while he is pushing the gay agenda he can’t resist attacking what is an almost entirely innocuous post from Andrew that basically says that who we choose to have sex with is a private matter and not the be all and end all of our existence.

Andy doesn’t mind if you’re gay, so long as you don’t rock the boat. If Peter Hitchener had come out and advocated for equal rights for gays – such as the state recognising their marriages in the same way as it recognises those of the rest of us – then he would, apparently, no longer be so “decent”. He’d be “proselytising for gay sex”. (I presume that’s what Andy means by the term; I’ve never heard an advocate for gay rights actually trying to convert heterosexuals to personally engaging in the specifics! “Hey, have you considered the sensation of… seriously, I’ll bet you a million dollars you’ll love it…”)

One of things that quickly becomes boring is people who think with their genitals 25 hours a day and sadly this is the case with many homosexuals and some heterosexuals as well. As for his hypothetical above; News flash such suggestions are made everyday somewhere on the planet if a “gay advocate” picks up the vibe that such a suggestion could possibly be welcomed.

Because of course Andy is on record as opposing the push for equal rights for gays, going so far as to run the silly argument that:

  1. legalising gay marriage is like legalising polygamy
  2. polygamy is bad in a way that gay marriage isn’t (otherwise I could just raise the bad point directly about gay marriage without even having to mention polygamy)
  3. If we legalise gay marriage, we’ll have to legalise polygamy because there’s no difference between them, even though in point 2 I said there was.

Now being self referential when writing our blogs is quite reasonable when we want to refer to an argument that we have made in the past but on this occasion our learned friend should actually be linking to examples where where Andrew has actually made the argument that Sear claims he has above. Instead we are sent off to the bowels of Boltwatch to inspect the same excrement that he offered in his last post. I will say though that he has at least begun to link to the Andrew Bolt piece he is attacking on this blog so we can read what Andrew is actually saying rather than having to rely on Sear’s distorted perceptions of Andrew’s position.

In other words, in deeds if not words, Andy does think gay people are second-class citizens worthy of lesser rights than the rest of us. He’ll talk about how it shouldn’t matter, but when it comes to discrimination by government against gay people, he is either silent or a spoiler. He does not see the fact that the government will let us get married but not gay people as discrimination: or, at least, he sees it as justifiable discrimination.

WTF? how on Gods good earth does Sear get this from Andrew’s piece praising Peter Hitchener’s quiet revelation of his sexual orientation? The assumptions that underlie this cavort are many and none of them are spelt out here. Central to this question is “What is the purpose of marriage?” What those of us who make a go of it tend to think is that the primary purpose of marriage it is to provide a secure framework for the raising of the next generation, but on planet leftard marriage is about anything but that primary purpose it is more about pretending that homosexuality is an entirely natural and healthy expression of sexuality. It is an aberration that we in a liberal secular democracy are willing to tolerate and accommodate, but it is an aberration none the less.

You can’t have it both ways, Andrew. Either gays are equal citizens to the rest of us, in which case they deserve equal rights – or you don’t think they do, in which case you don’t really think they are.

Herein we see the classic leftard error of assuming that reserving the institution of marriage for heterosexuals constitutes a violation of equality. I have long advocated that homosexual unions should be recognised by a relationship register along the lines of the Tasmanian model, thus meeting the needs of monogamous homosexuals to protect their joint assets and interests without impinging on the social institution of marriage or its primary Raison Detré.

Source for all quotes here

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: