Home » Search results for 'gay marriage' (Page 2)
Search Results for: gay marriage
Life must be a barrel of laughs if you are a Green Gay activist because it looks to me that the Gay marriage push has just crashed into the reality that the people do not actaully support any change to the marriage act as so may proponents of Gay marriage have been insisting . If nothing else the greens parliamentary stunt of a making the members seek the mood of their electorates on the issue seems to have gone really bad for the Greens with nearly two thirds of the members reporting that the people do not support any change to the act:
I do note that there is a fair bit more support for civil unions for homosexual couples according to the Age piece that I cite above so It looks to me that As the Labor party makes a move to give its members a conscience vote the efforts to bring about Gay Marriage in this country will amount to nothing. Is anyone really surprised by this? I for one am not especially when you take into account that a homosexual couple are treated the same way as a heterosexual couple by Centerlink, the tax office and for the purposes of inheritance (a good reform from Labor on that* 😉 )
I must say that I thought that this quote from Graham Perrett is particularly stupid
But Queensland Labor MP Graham Perrett, a Catholic, pointing to bullying and suicides, said it was ”time for everybody, every adult in Australia to be given the same opportunity … to wake up with their own loved one”.
Its stupid because there is absolutely no legal reason that would prevent a gay person doing what Graham Perrett thinks is a problem for homosexual couples who don’t need to be married to sleep together as often as they please.
* I am praising Labor for something here 🙂
What is it about singers and actors – you know, celebrities like Bono – getting into political issues?
Okay, as a citizen of their own country they’ve got just as much right as Jo Bloggs or Jo Chandler to speak their mind and express their views on the topic de jeur, regardless of how much (or how little) authority they might speak from.
Using their high profile in a different game to push their pet causes can be bad enough at home, but doesn’t it just give you the shits when someone like USA-based Lady Gaga (a sort of cross between Cher & Madonna) blows into this country – for a one-night stand, mind you – and immediately starts lecturing us and our Prime Minister on the controversial and hotly debated topic of gay marriage?
Like she did last night on Nine’s A Current Affair (not a show I watch, btw):
LADY Gaga made a passionate plea for equal gay rights in Australia on Channel 9 last night, but there was confusion over exactly how close the issue was to Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s heart.
The controversial star was responding to a question from host Tracy Grimshaw, who asked the pro-gay-marriage singer if she thought Prime Minister Julia Gillard was hypocritical living with her partner in The Lodge but banning homosexual unions.
The ambiguous question led Gaga to deliver a strongly worded answer, believing Ms Gillard to be in a homosexual relationship.
But the question was clearly playing on the Born this Way star’s mind, and she double-checked with Grimshaw once the cameras were off whether the PM is gay.
Grimshaw chuckled at the mix-up and the question was re-shot, with Gaga giving a much more diplomatic answer.
But the confusion didn’t temper Gaga’s determination to make the PM change her mind on gay marriage rights, and urged her Australian fans to make politicians “hear their screams” against the government’s stance.
“It’s 2011, get on with it,” she said.
“I am so against the way certain laws and restrictions send messages that one person is better than another.
“I urge all of you to mobilise your voices so the Prime Minister can hear you scream that you want to be equal.”
Okay, I can forgive her for misinterpreting Grimshaw’s badly worded question but doesn’t it just demonstrate how she knows so little of Australia, our people, our way of thinking and our politics that she had no idea that Julia Gillard is shacked up with a bloke, not a woman? Well, they share the same digs, at least.
Maybe Gaga should have just said something like this:
“Look, I am pro gay-marriage and pro-equal rights but I don’t know enough about your political scene or Prime Minister to answer your question, Tracy, without sounding like a f*cking I-know-what’s-best female version of f*cking Bono from U2. I’m not here to save the world or enforce my views on Australians – I’m here to entertain you and make money. I mean, look at how I dress!”
Thanks for your advice LG but, FYI, gays & lesbians are “equal” in Australia and we don’t have half the problems you have over there in the USA with groups such as the despicable and hateful Westboro Baptist Church holding protests proclaiming ‘God hates faggots’.
And we have progressed the issues of discrimination against gays quite well (and calmly) and I reckon it’s only a matter of time before some kind of gay marriage law is passed uniformly throughout the country.
Please don’t come over here and urge people to “scream” at our PM – we’ve got Tony Abbott and people like Iain & Leon to do that for us.
And we’ve also got the Greens (and some Greens advocates on the Internet) to beat the gay marriage drum. And they are just jumping on the bandwagon like you are because, believe it or not, ALL important reforms relating to discrimination against gays were instigated and implemented by conservative ALP or Liberal governments long before the Greens started to get ahead of themselves and hijack the issue for political purposes.
Gotta love Gillard’s response though:
“Lady Gaga and Julia Gillard – different views. Who would have thought,” she said.
Gaga should stick to doing what she does best – imitating other imitators.
I found this piece over at Online Opinion and as they operate under a Creative Commons licence. I reproduce it here under the terms of that licence
Also this piece by Frank Brennan is worth a read for another argument from a similar perspective
Gay marriage – it’s all about the child
By David van Gend – posted Wednesday, 24 November 2010
The most serious objection to gay marriage is that it means gay parenting, and gay parenting means depriving a child of either his mother or his father. A child deserves at least the chance of a mum and a dad in her life, and same-sex marriage makes that impossible.
Marriage is a compound right, under article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, comprising both the exclusive union of husband and wife and the social license to form a family. The right to marry includes the right to obtain children – naturally, by adoption, or by assisted reproduction. The legalising of same-sex marriage means that gay couples would have equal standing with male-female couples for obtaining children. A baby boy in the household of two “married women” would be deprived of a father – his model for being a man – and the “marriage” of two men would deprive a growing girl of a mother to learn from and confide in.
The gay marriage debate, at its heart, is not about the rights and needs of the adults, but of the child. Gays are not second-class citizens (Syvret 9/11) but a gay man certainly makes a second-class mother. Two lesbian women may be model citizens, but neither of them can be a dad to a little boy. This violation of the fundamental right and profound emotional need of a child to have both a mother and father means – from the child’s perspective – that gay marriage is a deprivation, not liberation.
There are already tragic situations where a child is deprived of a mother or a father – such as the death or desertion of a parent. Some broken families reform as a homosexual household, and nothing can or should be done about that. But the tragedy and brokenness of a motherless or fatherless home should not be inflicted on a child by the law of the land.
David Blankenhorn, a card-carrying Democrat and supporter of gay rights in the US nevertheless draws the line at giving gay partnerships the legal right to obtain a child. He writes, in The Future of Marriage (2007):
Marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children … Redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples would eliminate entirely in law, and weaken still further in culture, the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child.
Margaret Somerville, an Australian Professor of Law and Medicine at McGill University, Canada, is a leading academic voice in defence of the child’s right to both a mother and father:
Giving same-sex couples the right to found a family unlinks parenthood from biology. In doing so, it unavoidably takes away all children’s right – not just those brought into same-sex marriages – to both a mother and a father and their right to know and be reared within their own biological family.
At this point the curious argument is always raised that it is better for a child to have two loving same-sex carers than a dysfunctional pair of biological parents. But neither of these scenarios is in the interests of a child – and only the same-sex scenario is preventable. It is a fallacy to argue that because a child in one household has abusive parents, we are therefore justified in placing another child in another household where there are two “married” men and no mother. No, we must reject both scenarios for the sake of the child, restraining and retraining those parents who would inflict abuse – or even removing the child from harm’s way – and also denying those adults who would wilfully deprive a child of a mother or father.
Another irrelevant argument is that children from same-sex households score equally well in outcomes such as maths, sport, and social skills. Even granting that highly dubious claim, such research would say precisely nothing about the primal harm we have done to the inner life of a developing child by depriving him of a mother.
Finally, the child-centred argument against gay marriage is mistaken for an argument against homosexual relationships per se. Not so, as the child-centred argument also opposes single men obtaining a baby by surrogacy, as allowed under Queensland law, and it would oppose even a pair of celibate monks obtaining a baby “of their own”, since that still deprives the child of a mother.
The task is to defend natural marriage in order to defend the interests of children. Claude Levi-Strauss – recently eulogised as the father of modern anthropology – calls marriage “a social institution with a biological foundation”. He notes that throughout recorded history the human family is “based on a union, more or less durable, but socially approved, of two individuals of opposite sexes who establish a household and bear and raise children”. And as philosopher Bertrand Russell noted in Marriage and Morals, “It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.”
Homosexual relations do not give rise to children, so such relations are of no institutional importance to society. The institution of marriage exists only to buttress the biological pair-bonding of man and woman, binding them to each other and to the long task of nurturing the human child. Certainly, some married couples will not have children, just as some trees in an orchard will not bear fruit – but the cultural purpose of the institution, as with the orchard, is clear.
How anthropologically ignorant and inadequate, then, are today’s assertions that marriage is about any two adults with an “emotional commitment”, unrelated to mammalian biology and raising young. So the eloquent homosexual advocate, Andrew Sullivan, writes that the essence of marriage “is not breeding” but instead “a unique and profound friendship”. The Economist editorialises that “the real nature of marriage” is a commitment “between two people to take on special obligations to one another.” A Washington superior court judge in 2004, ruling on same-sex marriage, could only offer this limp definition: “To ‘marry’ means to join together in a close and permanent way”; that marriage is “a close personal commitment” which is “intended to be permanent” and which is “spiritually significant”.
This Oprah-esque waffle might apply to many adult relationships, but it says nothing distinctive about nature’s vocation of marriage-and-children. As Blankenhorn comments:
I have a number of profound friendships and some intense personal commitments, all of which seem to me to be emotional enterprises. I am involved in a number of mutually supportive relationships, many of which, I am sure, enhance social stability. But none of this information tells you to whom I am married or why.
Marriage is not a sentimental social construct, some sort of right to a romantic ceremony, but a social reinforcement of a timeless biological reality. The biological triple-bond of man and woman and child is nature’s foundation for human life – as with other mammals – not a social fad to be cut to shape according to political whim. It is beyond the power of any parliament to repeal nature and equate same-sex relationships with the inherently male-female project of family formation.
Yet inner-city Greens are so out of touch with nature that they think abolishing a mother will be of no consequence to the emotional development of the human cub. They are wrong, and any such legislation – including laws permitting gay adoption and surrogacy – is moral vandalism. Such laws deny a child his most elemental right and deepest need: to know the love of both a mother and a father.
Opposition to gay marriage is all about the child, and no parliament has the right to impose a motherless life on a little child.
While there have been great strides forward for our Gay citizens under the regime of Brother Number One* with the removal of many practical impediments for couples functioning well in our society is just not enough for some of the more vociferous activists they want to bang on about changing the marriage act as well. To this end they have been Chiding The Anointed One for not supporting any change to the status quo.
Labor policy on gay marriage will remain the same under her prime ministership, Ms Gillard told Austereo show this morning.
“We believe the Marriage Act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples,” Ms Gillard said.
Asked if that was also her personal view, Ms Gillard said it was
When are activists going to learn that there is just no appetite for change on this issue among the voters of this country? In fact The Anointed One would be handing Tony Abbott the Keys to the Lodge (which would be fine by me, the lodge keys part, not Gay marriage) but I think that she is far to canny to do such a thing.
Pete Burns dresses as a geisha girl on his wedding day with Michael Simpson. But he says that gay marriages do not work because men are too predatory
He also claimed there were too much “promiscuity” in the gay community for civil partnerships to thrive.
Burns followed in the footsteps of Sir Elton John and Little Britain star Matt Lucas in using the new civil partnership laws to announce his public devotion to his lover.
He dressed as a geisha girl in a kimono for the ceremony in London on July 7 last year.
He told The Mail on Sunday he had been “optimistic” about his civil partnership, but now he says: “I learned the hard way. It’s a total joke.”
Burns accused Simpson, 40, of being unfaithful and admitted he felt disillusioned. Burns added that some gay couples had “open marriages” where the partners could be unfaithful.
He said: “There’s a lot of promiscuity in the gay community. I don’t understand why they take that union. How low is their self-esteem?
“One’s on Hampstead Heath meeting men, the other one’s hiring rent boys. “Surely marriage is throwing anchor and saying, ‘This is where I’m staying, I’ve made my choice and this is all I want because I’ve been on the up and down escalator, through the revolving door and I want to stand still.’ That’s what I expected.”
I find it to be rather interesting that as we in this country come to remove all of the discrimination against homosexual unions as you can with out taking that final step of allowing the use of the term marriage that a report like the one I quote above should appear. Although this is really the perspective of just one chap you could not find a better example of just why formalising gay unions as “marriage” is a course fraught with problems. That Burns singles out the promiscuity in the gay community is significant and it highlights the same problems that critics of Gay marriage ,like myself have been saying for sometime.
The concept of monogamy is actually central to heterosexual marriage because it is the only way that a man could be sure that the children he helped to raise would be his biological progeny. Once you make children a lifestyle accessory or exclude them entirely from the equation then the reasons for monogamy become so much more ephemeral,as Burns says:
“It’s as though there’s some kind of emotional inadequacy or narcissism, where they feel emotionally inadequate and need more validation, from either a father figure or a mirror image of themselves. “I’m not condemning it, I think it needs researching and help
So perhaps by not going as far as countries like Britain we here in Australia are actually offering our homosexual citizens a better outcome than those who are in denial that there is a fundamental difference between heterosexual unions and Homosexual relationships. The former are instigated with the primary purpose of procreation and that is what inspires fidelity , but there is no similar foundation for fidelity in a homosexual unions and we should not be surprised that hedonism or co-dependency do not make for long faithful relationships.
It will be interesting to see if the experience of Pete Burns is as unusual as I am sure that Gay marriage advocates will undoubtedly claim or if his experience proves to be rather common well only time will tell.
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:
- legalising gay marriage is like legalising polygamy
- 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)
- 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
In response to MK’s terrific recent post, addressing this insane ruling by a Canadian court, the champions of gay marriage rights completely ignore the reality of what this ruling implies. The core issue, of course, has nothing to do with gay rights, or gay marriage rights, for that matter. The core issue is what the pea-brained left is prepared to do to elevate their pet causes: anything it takes. . .
In Canada, with this ruling, gay partners (and on that basis alone) now have the same parental rights over the children of their biological parent partners. The key, of course, is ‘on that basis alone’.
The question is a simple one, though, when framed slightly differently (removing the ‘gay rights’ issue from the equation): should a partner (defacto, married, or otherwise, and for however long) be automatically granted the same parental rights (including custodial rights) over their partner’s child, merely because they are the partner?
The answer is obvious, and is precisely why the laws governing the granting of guardianship (in all its forms) are so stringent, and why would-be guardians are so closely scrutinised by same.
In Canada, though, this just went out the window. Here’s an excerpt from the article that illustrates the issue:
. . .The ruling will have “strong precedential value” for existing or future families in similar circumstances – although. . .
for the moment they will have to go to court to obtain such legal status.As it always should be – but potentially no longer in Canada (and certainly not, if you happen to be gay). Here’s the rub:
From allowing non-biological parents to travel internationally with their children, authorize medical care or remain the guardian should the birth parents die, he said it has myriad practical applications from emergency to mundane.
And all of this without so much as a court directed question regarding the fitness of that guardian, and merely because the partner is the partner.
This is a potentially deadly precedent, set by an activist court, and purely for the purposes of furthering a political cause; stuff the consequences (assuming they even thought that far).
The danger these activists present, as so starkly illustrated by this lunatic ruling, is manifest.
posted by James Ozark originally at AWH reproduced with permission of the author.
Portions of any work that are quoted are reproduced on the basis of the “fair dealing for purpose of criticism or review” section 41 of the Copyright Act 1968.