Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'Gay Marrige'

Tag Archives: Gay Marrige

Who are the real bigots in the St Pat’s spat? or the proper way to nurture social acceptance

As its a fine Saturday morning and I think that such days are perfect for a change of pace I offer a new topic that I have come across from my subscription to “Spiked”. It concerns the refusal of the St Patrick’s day marches in New York and Boston to allow Gay activists to march under Gay themed banners in their parades. Of course our friends of the pink persuasion are screaming “discrimination” with a great deal of vim and vigour so loudly that you would think that the march organisers were planning to burn a few homosexuals at the stake as part of the celebrations. What I find most worrying about the whole thing is the same “if you don’t support the Gay agenda 110% then you are a bigot” mindset from those homosexual activists who want to hijack the ostensibly Catholic festival to promote their own cause .


irish_gay_protestThere have also been reports of people losing employment after it was discovered that they do not agree with gay marriage. A common theme in these reports is that the individuals involved do not appear to dislike gay people, but they have nonetheless been labelled bigots due to their objections to same-sex marriage. Rather than encouraging a live-and-let-live attitude, it appears that some supporters of same-sex marriage seek to find and root out anyone who won’t publicly accept this relatively new institution.

When lawmakers in Arizona introduced a bill last month that sought to clarify whether small business owners like wedding photographers can refuse work on religious freedom grounds, there was little consideration in the media of the legal pros and cons. Few highlighted that the existing law allows private vendors to refuse work on the grounds of sexual orientation, and thus continues after the governor vetoed the bill. Instead, the proposed law was greeted with a hysterical campaign to label it ‘anti-gay’ and ‘Jim Crow’ (an historically illiterate comparison, beginning with the fact that Jim Crow was enforced by state law and businesses that refused to obey it could be prosecuted).

These tendencies to demonise dissent are visible in the campaign against the St Patrick Day parades. There is a rush to label any disagreement with gay marriage or gay culture as out-and-out ‘bigotry’. There is a desire to not simply state that certain views of gays are wrong, but to have those views silenced. And there is an operation to target and scare corporations that are associated with such views. Gay activists threatened a campaign against corporations in Arizona, including the National Football League for holding the Super Bowl in the state, if the recent bill passed. Similarly, they pressured St Patrick’s Day sponsors like Samuel Adams and Heineken to withdraw support. This is the top-down, elite-led politics of name and shame, rather than a properly liberal campaign that draw upon popular support.

What we are witnessing is an attack on those who don’t share today’s pro-gay outlook. Some may want to opt out of this Culture War, but the war increasingly won’t allow there to be any bystanders. Instead, there is pressure to conform. Even if it does not spill over into the political or legal world, such conformism is problematic for the free flow of ideas.

The sky will not fall if gays and lesbians are allowed to march in the Boston and New York St Patrick’s Day parades. But we will create a conformist, intolerant and unfree society if we do not allow space for the expression of different views, including traditional religious teachings about homosexuality and same-sex marriage.


The title of the article asks Who are the real bigots in the St Pat’s spat? and I can’t avoid concluding that its the very noisy Gay activists who are using every possible way to bully people into “endorsing” to their position. I can’t help thinking that this may well back fire on them and lead to a backlash that seriously damages the hard earned public good will towards homosexuality that has been steadily been accruing over the last few years. Social acceptance can be most fragile flower that needs nurture and careful cultivation and it can be oh so easily lost if you start tearing up the field with loud and noisy tractors instead of well directed hand tools.

Cheers Comrades


Will Gay Marriage be put to the people?

I have been saying for years that if the proponents of Gay marriage are so sure of the community’s support then they should be advocating for a plebiscite to truly measure the real amount of public support for the the concept of  same sex “marriage”. Well it seems that it might even happen  if the report in today’s Fairfax press is to be believed:

click for source

click for source

Personally I doubt that the plebiscite will get up or even be debated in the parliament because neither Labor nor the Coalition are that keen on the “gay marriage” , then again Labor might go for it on the basis that they may get some small amount of positive PR from suggesting that they are putting the question to the people.  Its no surprise to me that the Gay marriage advocates like Rodney Croome are less than enthusiastic about the idea because the experience of votes like the one held in California on proposition 8 showed a substantially lower level of public support for Gay marriage than the often claimed 80+% that he and his fellow travellers are so often citing on the issue.

It could be  bit more spice into the pot for September 14  but I suspect that when it comes down to it that we won’t be having a plebiscite and that the only reason that this idea is being floated now is that the bit players  want an issue to campaign on that will differentiate them from both Labor and the Coalition, the former  because Australia’s oldest party has such a stench of death all around them and the later because they have so much momentum that independents will otherwise  be consigned to the dustbin of history…

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Cheers Comrades

wedding rings animated

What “gays” really want…. and it ain’t marriage

Most of us would agree with gay rights pioneer Professor Dennis Altman, who recently criticised a few activists’ fixation on “gay marriage” and described the whole push as “self-indulgent crap”.

Certainly, the research findings, and these community attitudes align with the latest data out of Tasmania, and New Zealand, where the numbers of relationships registered under the various schemes available in those places are just over 100, and less than 1500 respectively.

The very people who are supposed to be clamouring for relationship recognition are literally staying away in droves.

As a same sex-attracted man, and a Catholic, I must say I read Muriel Porter’s comments about gay Christians apparently needing to keep their identity secret from church, family, and friends (The Australian, May 6, 2008), and wondered if she’d actually spoken to any committed gay Christians, or same sex-attracted Catholics.

Could it be that Porter, and others, while aiming for compassion and fellow-feeling, have instead fallen into shallow political correctness and adopted patronising attitudes that don’t conform with the lived experience and expressed desires of real same sex-attracted Australians?

John Heard in the Herald Sun


In the previous thread about gay marriage here at my blog some of my pro Gay marriage correspondents were getting very hot under the collar about the issue and most cited the notion that to not allow same sex couples the right to “marry” was a terrible “discrimination”. All were making the assumption that a “marriage” was what most homosexuals wanted out of life, John Heard’s article makes it clear that this is very far from being the case for most same sex attracted people.

As I said previously a marriage between a man and a woman has the purpose of creating and nurturing the next generation, It provides a recognition of a child’s linage, confers some innate rights of inheritance to those children and it is the foundation stone of our society. The fact that only a very small minority of practising homosexuals actually want to be in any sort of exclusive monogamous unions that are even vaguely analogous to heterosexual marriage suggests that the gay activists have grossly missread their own constituency and that the model offered by the government reforms is in fact a better fit for what gays actually want.

Cheers Comrades


Hat tip To Mark Richardson

“Gay marriages do not work”

pete burns and Michael SimpsonPete 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.”

Daily Mail

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.

Cheers Comrades


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

%d bloggers like this: