Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Gender Issues » Gay issues » Extracting teeth the truth on Gay Marriage

Extracting teeth the truth on Gay Marriage

(by Ray Dixon – possessor of own teeth)

This is what I learnt @ the Dentist in Wodonga yesterday:

1. My teeth are still in pretty good nick for someone my age

2. But a check-up, scale and X-rays costs what ?!!!!?

3. Thank f*ck I have Medibank Private ‘Dental extras’ (it only cost me $40)

4. There are a lot of fat people in that town

5. And violent people (there was a bullet hole in the plate-glass window!)

But the biggest thing I learnt (from reading a magazine while in the waiting room) was this:

6. There doesn’t seem to be a big need for gay marriage

(Fact sheet from the 2011 ABS census)

couples-abs-1

So let’s get this straight (no pun intended).

As of the 2011 census there were a total of 4,684,700 couples in Australia, of which heterosexual couples made up 4,650,986 – i.e. 99.3%.

While the total number of same-sex couples is only 33,714 (a mere 0.7%).

So that means only about 67,000 gays & lesbians are living together.

Yet there are how many gays & lesbians in OZ?

Who knows, but if we go conservative and say that only about 5% of people are homosexual, that would mean there are over 1,100,000 of them.

Yet only 67,000 are living with a partner?

While the other 1,033,000+ – the other 94% – are doing what for sex, playing the field?

No doubt. It’s the gay lifestyle ain’t it?

Let’s face it, monogamy is not exactly high up on the agenda for most gays.

So where then is this great push for ‘Gay Marriage Now!’ coming from?

Who or what is driving this meme – or this political agendaif only a tiny percentage of gays are cohabiting?

The ABS figures look pretty black & white to me.

But I think another ‘colour’ might be running interference here:

Advertisements

12 Comments

  1. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    Nice Post
    Its not about Gay marriage per se its about homosexuals wanting their sexuality affirmed as something that is entirely natural and the SAME as Heterosexuality when its nothing of the sort. The Only thing that it has in common with being straight is the shared pleasure of coitus other than that it is at odds with the biological purpose of being an animal that has both a female and a male iteration. The thing is in a modern society we can have no problem with making allowances for those who express this sort of biologically aberrant sexuality and its even no big deal to recognize same sex pair bonds for economic purposes as the Rudd government did a few years back.
    My Main objection to Gay marriage though boils down to concerns about the fate of any children they make in the pretense that Gay is the new straight

  2. Ray Dixon says:

    The census results sure puts the issue in another light, Iain. I’ve heard/read some people saying that maybe not all gay couples wanted to tick that box but, thinking about it, I reckon very few would decline to do so. Why? Well, wasn’t that census heralded by the gay community as ‘recognition at last’ and a possible step towards marriage equality? Why then would any gay couple not want to add to the numbers to show unity & strength in a common cause? So I reckon the number of 33,000 approx gay couples is about right. And that hardly seems grounds to change the existing Act.

    Btw: “The Only thing that it has in common with being straight is the shared pleasure of coitus other than that it is at odds with the biological purpose… ”

    That might read better if you said “it is at sodds with the biological purpose”.

  3. Iain Hall says:

    Oh Ray You are awful, But I like it!
    check your email BTW

  4. SockPuppet says:

    This blogg has developed an unhealthy obeseshen with gay sex. It is just as well you have me here to keep the topics on the straight Iain

    pun indented.

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    Got your email, Iain. Yes, he should have heeded the ‘I’m coming to get you’ warning.

  6. Matt Patchon says:

    Gee, you guys are such bigots, and homophobes to point out facts like this. Facts lie, didn’t you know.

    Kidding, I couldn’t agree more. Ray, you have been generous with the 5% of the population. Elsewhere on the ABS site it puts the ratio of homosexuals (gay and lesbian combined) at 1.4 or 1.6% of the overall population, from memory.

    Even if Australia’s population was 22m back in 2011 that would make the gay population numbers 330 000. If my figures are correct, that would mean: where are the other 80% of the gay community who are not in relationships? Your answer to that question still remains the same, however. It would just be the percentages I would debate with you 🙂

    What really annoyed me was when Senator Wong was on Insight last year and said to a young Liberal rank and file member: “how dare you bring children into this…” I was livid.

    One of the primary functions, but not only, of marriage is to create a stable environment in which to raise children. In UNICEF’s Convention of Children’s Rights, several Articles refer to a children and parents – biology implied, as no one other than mum and dad can be a parent. Articles 7, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19 an others specifically mention PARENTS.

    In a gay marriage only one of the couple, at most, is a parent while the other is a partner.

    Gay marriage (oxymoron as it is), where there are children in the picture, is clearly outside of UNICEF’s Convention.

    How dare Senator Wong deny the rights of the children in the SSM debate!

    Ray, thanks for the post!

    And Iain, I agree with you reference to the Rudd government economic changes. Based on those changes, Civil Unions grant gay couples every legal and economic right they need to be “equal before the law” as they are want to scream. Marriage, as a legal entity, will grant them nothing more than what Civil Unions already do.

    How many gay couples raced to Canberra last year while the opportunity permitted? It wasn’t many.

  7. Matt Patchon says:

    On one side you get characters like Dan Savage who argue that homosexuality will be good for marriage, that it will make them more open relationships. Then there are the gay advocates who push for SSM from the angle that it will afford them monogamy, and how dare they be denied this opportunity.

    I will always argue that monogamy is not exclusively a characteristic of marriage; that is marriage does not OWN monogamy. Any person of any age of any sex of any configuration of relationship, official or otherwise can practice monogamy. It is dependent on “will” not on “relationship”. Just because you are not married, does not mean you cannot practice monogamy.

    There are even those who argue that marriage should be deconstructed from our cultural and social frameworks all together.

    Gee, what a confused collection of incoherent and angry advocacy rantings.

  8. Ray Dixon says:

    Thanks Matt. I agree with a lot of what you’ve said (which I’ll get to) but firstly on the figures you quote:

    Elsewhere on the ABS site it puts the ratio of homosexuals (gay and lesbian combined) at 1.4 or 1.6% of the overall population, from memory

    Your memory fails you on that one. There were no such questions (ie “are you gay”) included in the census, only the one(s) related to same sex couples. So we still don’t know precisely what percent of the population is gay. Gays will (often) put it at Kinsey’s 10%. I think that’s exaggerated and that’s why I’ve opted for the guess at 5%. Small point, but a pertinent one, I think.

    Otherwise, I agree with this:

    Marriage, as a legal entity, will grant them nothing more than what Civil Unions already do.

    And this:

    monogamy is not exclusively a characteristic of marriage; that is marriage does not OWN monogamy. Any person of any age of any sex of any configuration of relationship, official or otherwise can practice monogamy. It is dependent on “will” not on “relationship”. Just because you are not married, does not mean you cannot practice monogamy.

    And especially this:

    There are even those who argue that marriage should be deconstructed from our cultural and social frameworks all together

    Yes, that’s how marriage has been heading. Defacto relationships work just as well, especially when there are no children involved. Which (ironically) is what a gay relationship essentially entails. So it stands to reason that without children, there is no real point to being married, quite frankly.

  9. Rossini says:

    Well researched Ray. Congratulations!

  10. GD says:

    Yes, great post Ray! Along with excellent comments. Thanks for the info and link.

  11. Matt Patchon says:

    Hi Ray, that stat I tried to recall was the one from ABS 4102.0 which states that: “According to the 2011 Census, there were around 33,700 same-sex couples in Australia, with 17,600 male same-sex couples and 16,100 female same-sex couples. Same-sex couples represented about 1% of all couples in Australia.”

    So yeah, it wasn’t overall numbers, so happy to run with your figures. I need to clean those cobwebs out more often.

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    Another interesting stat from that chart, Matt, is that even in the ‘Gay Mardi Gras’ State the number of same-sex couples is quite small. It kind of kills off any plans there might have been to put ‘NSW – The Gay State’ on their number plates. Then again, plenty of single ones there.

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: