Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Marriage rights for GAY dogs NOW!!! WOOF!!!!!

Marriage rights for GAY dogs NOW!!! WOOF!!!!!

Click for source

Now I’ve been writing about the reasons that I object to the notion of gay marriage for quite a long time, and I have been rather struck by the way that the minions on the other side of the argument are very keen to characterise those who want to see marriage remain, as it always has been, a heterosexual institution as in some sense haters of homosexuals and homosexuality.Read any of the rants from our learned friend on the subject for a good example of the typical “those who oppose gay marriage are bigots” line of argument.Its patently false in the case of thsi country where we are generally rather sanguine about people being openly Gay, where there was bi-partisan agreement to reforms of our laws to acknowledge homosexual pairings in law as being essentially equal, for matters financial or administrative to heterosexual partnerships. There really is no material need to change the nature of marriage to suit the homosexual agenda:

While warm, fuzzy writers such as Valentine can imagine no possible harm to society from Gay marriage, the serious minds behind the movement occasionally let us glimpse their wider purpose. US activist Michelangelo Signorile urges gays to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely. He sees same-sex marriage as the final tool with which to get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools.

Sure enough, we now have empirical evidence that normalising gay marriage means normalising homosexual behaviour for public school children.

Following the November 2003 court decision in Massachusetts to legalise gay marriage, school libraries were required to stock same-sex literature; primary school children were given homosexual fairy stories such as King & King; some high school students were even given an explicit manual of homosexual advocacy entitled The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century, which the Massachusetts Department of Health helped develop. Education had to comply with the new normal.

Beyond the confusion and corruption of schoolchildren, the cultural consequences of legalising same-sex marriage include the stifling of conscientious freedom. Again in Massachusetts, when adoption agency Catholic Charities was told it would have to place children equally with married homosexuals, it had to close. As Canadian QC and lesbian activist Barbara Findlay said, “The legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a showdown between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation”. Blankenhorn warned, “Once this proposed reform became law, even to say the words out loud in public — every child needs a father and a mother — would probably be viewed as explicitly divisive and discriminatory, possibly even as hate speech.”

Our parliament must say these words out loud, because they are bedrock sanity, and must accept that the deep things of human nature are beyond the authority of any political party to tamper with.

Marriage is not a fad to be cut to shape according to social whim. The father of modern anthropology, Claude Levi-Strauss, called marriage a social institution with a biological foundation. Marriage throughout history is society’s effort to reinforce this biological reality: male, female, offspring. All our ceremonies and laws exist to buttress nature helping bind a man to his mate for the sake of the child they might create.

Not all marriages do create children but typically they do, and the institution exists for the typical case of marriage. Homosexual relations cannot create children or provide a child with natural role models; such relations are important to the individuals involved, and demand neighbourly civility, but they do not meet nature’s job description for marriage.

As van Onselen notes, homosexual couples now enjoy equality with male-female couples in every way short of marriage. It must stop short of marriage, because the demands of adults must end where the birthright of a child begins. Marriage and family formation are about about something much deeper than civil equality; they are about a natural reality which society did not create and which only a decadent party such as the Greens, so out of touch with nature, would seek to destroy.

Now while it may be the case that most of those who are advocating for Gay marriage believe that achieving the changes that they desire to the marriage act will not lead to even more extreme changes to the foundational institution of our society but the real world rather destroys that notion when we have already seen Canada’s   Gay marriage cited as a reason to remove the prohibitions against polygamy, and as Ted Lapkin suggests how long would it be before there is a push to allow other previously forbidden pairings to be acknowledged and endorsed as legitimate forms of marriage?

There is no impediment in our law for anyone to enter into any sort of  personal or sexual  relationship with any other consenting adult, which is a very good thing in my opinion and it is this pertinent  fact that the Gay marriage crowd ignore. No one really cares any more who they chose to sleep with but we do care about changes to the definition of marriage and the subsequent effect that it may have for children and society as a whole.

Cheers Comrades



  1. Craigy says:

    “What’s the problem? When will we realise that allowing marriage between same-sex couples will not lead to an increase in child abuse, a breakdown of traditional relationships or compulsory homosexuality?

    It’s not even about protecting kids by providing two parents. One third of heterosexual marriages end in divorce and half of those involve children under 18 who are then required to be brought up with one absent role model.

    By all means change the word “marriage” if anybody can find a better one, but this is about fairness and decency and a person’s right to live as they wish, provided they harm nobody else.

    It seems obvious.”

    Neil Mitchell, Herald-Sun


    Couldn’t have said it better if he was named Jeremy, nice to hear this from a conservative in the Hun.

  2. Luzu says:

    You really need to look into how children fare when raised by two people of the same sex. I’m not being smart. I just think some honest research might give you a different perspective.

    Our ideal is for a man and a woman to marry, reproduce and spend their lives together. We don’t always live up to that ideal. But it doesn’t mean that the ideal is therefore wrong or unimportant.

    On a personal note, I feel for the many boys in Australia growing up without their fathers, for whatever reason. It is a very deep wound that they suffer, largely ineffable and therefore unexpressed.

  3. Iain Hall says:

    I have no problem with some form of civil union but I see no reason why everyone has to change to assuage the sensibilities a very noisy minority. And Neil Mitchell is making the same error of fact as our learned friend does repeatedly, namely he wrongly assumes that there is any legal impediment to a homosexual couple setting up home together and to live entirely as they please. So there is just NO reason that such unions have to come under the remit of the marriage act.

    I agree that children need good role models of both genders and that is is not a good thing for children when they don’t have good fathers either.

  4. Craigy says:

    “But it doesn’t mean that the ideal is therefore wrong or unimportant.”

    Having same sex couples get married in no way makes anyone else’s marriage wrong or any less important, in fact it will strengthen the idea of marriage and make it important to a greater number of people.

    How would same sex marriage do what you claim luzu?

    Iain, why can’t they call it marriage, how will it make any other marriage less valuable?

    You guys can’t explain why you don’t like gay marriage other than it’s between gay people. You have yet to make one reasonable argument that isn’t just transparently a call for discrimination against people you don’t really like.

    Marriage is not exclusively a religious tradition, it is just something we made-up, the only rules about marriage are the ones we choose, and most people have different ones depending on their background. There is simply no universal form of marriage on any level except when it comes to the sex of the people involved. Why we discriminate on this issue only, seems weird and no one seems to want to explain why, with anything like a logical answer.

    So in your view, it is fine to get married naked on top of Mount Everest riding a donkey and commit in your vows to never eat ice-cream in front of your wife but we can’t marry a gay couple?

    As Mitchell said, the stupidity of this is obvious, just grow up and get over it please.

  5. Luzu says:

    I see this argument over and over from proponents of gay marriage. “You just don’t like gays”. Sorry, but that’s too superficial to be respected. You have no idea about my attitudes towards homosexuals or any other people. Your intellectual prowess stops at the point where deep thinking is needed. One single slogan “You just don’t like gays” and the debate’s over. There is no thought about the implications of such a step, particularly for the lives of children. I bet you have never done any research of your own, or sought out viewpoints that differ from your own. And you know why I think this? Because all of your posts reek of a supposed moral superiority. “I am good because I am tolerant and non-discriminatory (except to far-right Christian extremists, towards whom I feel nothing but righteous loathing).

    I’ll leave you with a quote:“[F]ull recognition for same-sex marriages will encourage all those shallow promiscuous gay men to settle down in Box hill with Mr Right and breed shitzus. Speaking as a shallow promiscuous gay man, I remain sceptical about this.”

    Another:”He went on to say, “it does seem clear that among gay men a long-lasting monogamous relationship is almost unknown. Indeed both gay women and gay men tend to be involved in what might be called multiple relationships, though of somewhat different kinds.” Dennis Altman, Australian homosexual activist.

    In the same article, he boasts that his relationship with his partner has been fulfilling in every area of life, mostly because he has had other sexual partners. Sound like marriage to you?

    Why is there still a scandal when a spouse is caught cheating? (Look at the palaver over Arnie). Because marriage implies at least an attempt an faithfulness. But here we have a gay man proclaiming from his own experience that fidelity is not part of the homosexual makeup. So why get married then if you are not willing to accept its strictures?

    And before I get the “Yeah, well, heterosexuals get divorced and/or cheat on their spouses”, consider this: Oppenheimer cites a study from the University of Chicago undertaken last year which showed that 86 per cent of women and 80 per cent of men remained faithful in their marriages. (The Oppenheimer referred to is a Mark Oppenheimer writing for the NY Times).

    The above quotes are from an article called “Fidelity, or the lack thereof” by Bill Muehlenberg.

  6. Luzu says:

    If you feel I’ve been harsh on Craigy, please delete.
    As to fatherlessness in Australia, I live in a pretty poor area in this city. I live across the road from the local school and volunteered there when my children attended it. I have seen first hand the boys who have no significant, trustworthy male presence in their lives. I’ve helped them with their reading and been ‘mummy help’ on the excursions. I’ve spoken with the chaplain about what I’ve seen. These boys are definitely hurting. And their pain is considered of no consequence when weighed against the desires of the adults who ‘parent’ them.
    As a mother of boys who have a very good dad, I just feel for these future young men. My own husband was poorly fathered but has come through, mostly since becoming a Christian and receiving the love and support of his Christian brothers. He’s still got a way to go (haven’t we all?) but I’m so deeply glad when I see them together that my boys know they are loved by their father.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    No your comment is fine Luzu 😉
    I’m glad that someone gets my pet peeve with Gay marriage enthusiasts who can’t accept the notion that you can be all for Gay people living as they please, and fucking any consenting adult they chose but still think that calling their unions marriage is going a step too far.

  8. Craigy says:

    Thanks luzu, no I’m not offended by your reply, in fact I think the points you made are quite fair, even though you have got your opinions about me a little wrong. I am an atheist but have no problem with people believing in what ever book or ideas they like. I do however have a problem with any organisation using it ‘moral superiority’ to excuse child abuse or the support of child abusers. I also don’t see why a religious group should be exempt from calls to end Government handouts to them if they don’t behave in a way that is beneficial to the broader society and abide by our laws. So my views are not as simple as hating Christian extremists, you can be as Christian and extreme as you like as long as you don’t abuse people or get violent. I think religion can be a positive influence on man people, like your husband, and I wish you both well.

    Read this from today’s paper:


    “One single slogan “You just don’t like gays” and the debate’s over.”

    Not at all, I only think that is the underlying view you have by the opinions’ you express. For example, in your reply above, you selectively quote some gay people to make a point. The only point you seem to make is that gays are not good partners are promiscuous and shallow and unable to be happy in a monogamous relationship. These are your views as expressed above. You just don’t like gay people or you wouldn’t try and make such a disingenuous point. If I quote half a dozen straight people who like to have sex in public places does that mean all straight people are exhibitionists and weird and shouldn’t marry?

    As for studies, there are many that show same sex couples make very good parents (at least as good as hetro couples) and the children show no signs of any problems other than from the stigma they may be given by those who oppose their parents loving relationship. Of course you are going to have break-ups and breakdowns, even abuse, but there is no evidence that this is any worse in same sex couples.

    Can you answer a question or two for me, does your religious belief or teachings tell you that Gays shouldn’t marry?

    Do you have any evidence you can link to, that shows that children are more at risk with Gay parents compared to straight?

Comments are closed.

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: