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.