Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
August 07th 2017 print

Kevin Donnelly

Gay Liberals Cry, ‘Look at Us!’

A party languishing in the polls and seemingly unable to address the ruinous and rising cost of electricity, among other pressing matters, pours its energies into a pointless debate steeped in specious claims and statistical sleights of hand. A proper leader would never had let this happen

gay marriageThe Western Australian Liberal Senator Dean Smith supports gay and lesbian marriage on the basis that “there are so many wanting to get married”.  Another liberal politician, North Sydney’s Trent Zimmerman, also supportssame-sex marriage, arguing it’s wrong to “deny the right of all Australians to be married”.

Other supporters of this radical change to Australia’s social fabric, such as the Australian Labor Party’s Bill Shorten and Penny Wong, also want the public to believe that gays and lesbians are desperate to be married in the same way heterosexual couples are.

Wrong.  As they say, never let the facts get in the way of a good argument. The reality is that the majority of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) people are not committed to long-term, monogamous relationships symbolised by the institution of marriage.

Based on two national surveys, Private Lives: A report on the health and wellbeing of GLBTI Australians and Monopoly a Study of Gay Men’s Relationships, it’s obvious that a significant number of LGBTQI people prefer a more fluid and transient lifestyle. The first survey concludes, “Only a small percentage of men and women (between 5-10%) reported formalising the relationship with a marriage or commitment ceremony, while most others had no wish to do so.” That survey also notes, “It is of interest that the majority of respondents between (52% of men and 39% of women) indicated no intention or wish to formalise their current relationship”.

The second survey reaches a similar conclusion, stating “only a minority of men indicated they would like to marry their primary regular partner”.  For men with multiple partners, as might be expected, the percentage answering ‘yes’ to the question ‘Would you marry partner’ sits at 11%.

It’s ironic that while Smith, Zimmerman, Shorten and Wong argue in favour of same-sex marriage many in the LGBTQI community, apart from a few radicalised individuals, show no real interest and, in fact, prefer a more promiscuous lifestyle. In addition to same-sex marriage advocates mistakenly arguing that gays and lesbians want to embrace traditional marriage they argue that any public debate associated with a plebiscite will lead to public attacks against the LGBTQI community, causing anxiety and distress.

Labor leader Shorten goes so far as to imply any debate will lead to gays and lesbians committing suicide.  Penny Wong argues “I oppose a plebiscite because I don’t want my relationship – my family – to be subject of inquiry, of censure, of condemnation, by others”.

Ignored is that it has been the advocates of same-sex marriage that have been the most offensive.  Bill Shorten, for example, when arguing against a plebiscite, stated, “I don’t want to give haters a chance to come out from under the rock and make life harder for LGBTI people or their families”. Katherine Hudson the co-founder of the LGBTQI advocacy group Wear It Purple has compared advocates of heterosexual marriage to “dictators, despots and despicable leaders, including Putin, Kim Jong-un, Mugabe and ISIS terrorists”.

One only needs to remember the storm of protest against Australia’s tennis legend Margaret Court after she argued against same sex marriage to see where the real bias and prejudice reside.

Liberal politicians like Smith and Zimmerman also oppose a plebiscite on the basis that a public debate will lead to open displays of hostility.  Ignored is that Australia, with the odd exception, is a mature, civil society and that the majority of voters are able to debate issues sensibly and in a balanced way. The logic is specious, based on the assumption that straight Australians are maelstroms of suppressed homophobia – an appraisal for which the widespread acceptance of homosexuality offers not the slightest evidence.

Also ignored is that while we have a parliamentary democracy where our elected politicians decide policies on our behalf, sovereignty lies with the people. Voters are sick of politicians failing to keep their promises, and there can be no doubt the Turnbull government was elected on its promise that the citizenry would decide the marriage issue.

Read and listen to advocates of same-sex marriage and the impression is that a significant number of Australians are LGBTQI and that heterosexuality is no longer the norm. The infamous Safe Schools program being implemented in schools, for example, argues that about 15% of students are LGBTQI, also that gender is fluid, limitless and self-defined.  As a result, the thinking goes, marriage should no longer simply involve a man and a woman.

The truth is that approximately 98% of Australians identify as heterosexual and only a small percentage of the 2% that are LGBTQI express a desire to embrace the traditional view of marriage – one that by definition involves a male and a female for the purpose of procreation.

It is also true that same-sex couples already enjoy the same legal rights as heterosexuals couples , it’s just that relationships are called “civil unions”. As the Liberals in Canberra thrash this issue out behind closed doors let us that someone in the room points out that that the gay-marriage furore has everything to do with re-writing the dictionary definition of marriage and very little in regard to human rights.

Dr Kevin Donnelly is a Senior Research Fellow at the Australian Catholic University

 

Comments [17]

  1. Jody says:

    Those parliamentarians who are calling for this have effectively destroyed their own careers. The Coalition has a long memory and I predict none of these individuals will ever be promoted. Leeser will probably lose endorsement in Berowra, a very safe conservative seat which used to be my electorate. Philip Ruddock was threatened by Leeser and forced to leave that seat, according to Ross Cameron.

    • ianl says:

      > “Philip Ruddock was threatened by Leeser and forced to leave that seat …”

      How does that work ?

      • Jody says:

        That’s what Ross Cameron has said. Ruddock was past his use-by date and I guess Leeser just launched an all-out assault in the party electorate council to have him removed on the basis that he was too old or incompetent. Ruddock had been the party elder and respected member of the Liberal party up until that time. So, it must have been “leave or I’ll get you out”!! That type of thing.

        • ianl says:

          Thanks.

          Preselection is a truly fraught, corrupt practice – with all political parties. And entirely hidden from the public gaze if at all possible.

          Human nature and rational Enlightenment … I’m surprised they lasted together as long as they did.

  2. From the editorial of the AUSTRALIAN today on a different but related topic [Andrews 'Guidelines for the Doctors in Secondary Schools ] – “Destruction of the family, a driving ideology of Marx and Engels that was taken up with gusto in the Soviet Union, underpinned Victoria’s extremist Safe Schools Program.” That says what this whole farce is really all about.
    Why hasn’t/doesn’t the media [including the AUSTRALIAN] ever bring up this point about the whole SSM/Gay ‘Marriage’/'Marriage equality’ farce.
    As I have posted elsewhere, I am an atheist and I oppose Gay ‘marriage’/SSM/ ‘Marriage equality’ [or what ever new name/term is invented by the left and applied]. I oppose not because I am ‘homophobic’ or whatever new insult that leftists want to invent, but because I object to the English language being for ever subjected to Orwellian treatment to turn what was once accepted meaning into something that is the exact opposite- eg. ‘progressive’, ‘gay’ ‘safe’ etc.etc. .
    By all means let homosexual ‘couples’ have legal rights where they are needed but leave our bloody language ALONE!!

  3. Homer Sapien says:

    Abomination abounds.

  4. PT says:

    Homosexuals back SSM not because they want to do it (the take up rates, once the initial rush subsides, is tiny compared to heterosexual couples in areas where it’s legal). For them it’s something they’re “denied” or society saying their relationships are equal to heterosexual ones!

    I don’t go the legal rights issue either. The Civil Unions as enacted in Britain have the same legal rights to gay civil union couples as marriage did (of course civil unions were a purely secular affair and didn’t concern religious bodies). Yet that wasn’t enough.

    • Jody says:

      For a child, whatever an enabling parent gives, something is never enough. It’s the same for the Waffen SSM. My whole life has seen me kind and inclined towards homosexuals – I guess it started when I was at the ABC decades ago. My sister is gay. But the tantrums and sense of self-righteous entitlement has turned me absolutely off; to the extent that I have no patience and don’t want to know. I suspect that if there ARE any winners from this it is sure to be the family law practitioners in the legal profession. Once again. And “The Australian” is unlikely to oppose Waffen SSM because the ranks of journalism are filled with homosexuals!!

    • Lacebug says:

      I’m fighting for the rights of homosexual men to have a uterus implantation, so they can have babies.

  5. Jon R says:

    There is so much untruth and dissembling in this it is beyond belief. The UN has declared we are very nasty because we don’t allow a married homosexual couple to divorce. The star witness is someone married in Canada in 2004, who moved back to Australia without her partner and has lived here for thirteen years! It is also interesting to note same sex marriage didn’t become law in Canada until 2005, it was legal in certain provinces prior to this, but not nationally. Another couple complained to their rector, they were apparently married (more likely a civil partnership) in England, but Australian law doesn’t recognise it! Really, when under English law you both have to be UK resident! The term “sham marriage” springs to mind. I strongly doubt it was ever even a valid civil partnership.

    In Australia all is controlled by the Marriage Act and Regulations, every box must be ticked and every document signed and witnessed. Penalties can be up to six months jail and $5000 for a celebrant who gets it wrong. We have just had through the courts a civil celebrant prosecuted because the bride could not give assent as she was comatose, the excuse “I knew from meeting her before she wanted to get married” didn’t work.

  6. Jody says:

    The Waffen SSM jackboots are out in force again, this time aided and abetted by the New York Times. What a surprise!!!

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/arts/music/santa-monica-symphony-dennis-prager-conservative-guest-conductor.html

  7. Bill Martin says:

    There is no doubt whatsoever that if the SSM issues goes to a genuine plebiscite, as distinct from an easily manipulated postal version, it will fail miserably. Advocates are well aware of this, hence their desperate attempts at preventing it. Ironically, all the skullduggery they perpetrate only enhances the resolve of the electorate to defeat it, given a chance.

    • Jody says:

      Oh, by the way, the State of California voted “no” for SSM and this was overturned in the US Supreme Court by the Left in the judiciary. Some rights and freedoms!!! Again, that another reason it’s Waffen SSM.

  8. Richard H says:

    ‘Penny Wong argues “I oppose a plebiscite because I don’t want my relationship – my family – to be subject of inquiry, of censure, of condemnation, by others”.’

    Here’s some news for Senator Penny: you don’t have a family that can be the subject of inquiry. You have a girlfriend, and your girlfriend has a bastard child conceived only God knows how. That’s not a family.

  9. Keith Kennelly says:

    Why does Precious Penny need me to sanction her relationship, while at the same time she doesn’t want me to judge it? Surely sanctioning it is a judgement!

    Oh she only wants positive reenforcement for her choices.

    How p..s weak is that?