QED

Gender Fluidity Oils a Slippery Slope

Having examined the fetid entrails of the same-sex marriage ‘debate’, let me hazard a prediction: since gay people pay taxes like everyone else, it is only a matter of time before we see a campaign to end the taxation privileges of churches that refuse to conduct gay weddings. Don’t think it won’t succeed

male bride IIThis same-sex marriage business is a slippery slope. Before we know it, sparsely dressed grown men will be flaunting themselves suggestively down Main Street and, although it is impossible to believe, uniformed police and defence force personnel will not be shepherding them into cells for the night, with a “what’s going on here me-lad,” but will join in the frolicking.

Children will be taught confronting techniques for disguising themselves as the opposite sex. Boys will be in dresses and girls in, well, boys’ clobber. Or maybe girls and boys will share the same clobber and, in fact, the same gender-neutral ablution facilities.

In fact, however unlikely it seems, boys and girls might be taught their gender is simply a state of mind and little to do with their bodily parts. Whether a boy today or a girl tomorrow will become a matter of how you really, really feel. Is fluidity for you? That could well become a morning assembly question to focus kids’ fertile and inquisitive minds on the appropriateness of their genitalia. Maths and English Literature be damned.

Pretty soon using an inappropriate gender-specific appellation will earn you a stern reprimand from the various hate-speech authorities. Brave Christian clergies (the few remaining) might be hauled before these same authorities for daring to cite Biblical passages supporting conventional marriage.

Jack might join the navy and become Jill at taxpayers’ expense. And I suppose Jill might become Jack. Who is Arthur and who is Martha will take on a whole new complexion. Having a mummy and mummy or daddy and daddy will become de rigueur, and woe betide anyone who dares suggest children might do better with that old-fashioned construction of a mummy and daddy.

You might spot the flaw in the slippery-slope argument: all of the feared consequences have all already happened — are happening — without same-sex marriage (SSM). Will SSM give it a kick along? Sure, whole new areas of territory for the Left to conquer will open up.

For example, gay people pay taxes. Thus, it will only be a matter of time before a campaign to remove taxation privileges for churches refusing to solemnise SSMs is undertaken and succeeds. Why should churches receive tax benefits from all taxpayers while “discriminating” against some in providing their services? The logic of the argument will prove to be compelling. Activists will not let up. They are single-minded and have nothing else to do.

Fortunately, I don’t work for Qantas or other oppressive group-think organisations, so I am free to say that I intend voting ‘No’ in any plebiscite simply because SSM is a definitional absurdity. Two men or two women shacking up together is fine by me – not my business – but it cannot be made into marriage. Nor is it an issue capable of being resolved by debate.

Arguments in support of SSM are beside the point. None amounts to a hill of beans. Take the argument from some conservatives that supporting SSM is quintessentially conservative because marriage itself is a conservative institution. What a non-sequitur!

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Inviting in other combinations of gender is not a conservative position. It is one intent on undermining the intrinsic structure of a time-honoured institution. It represents the very opposite of a conservative position.

But, of course, activists supporting SSM don’t care about making the case in any rigorous way. They simply want to see ratified their sexual preferences, which seem to preoccupy them to an extraordinary extent. There is no higher ratification than to be accorded the status of being married. The effect that this has on the institution of marriage is, for them, a remote side issue, if it is an issue at all.

Get used to it. Whether this year or in the next year or two, Australian law will make an ass of itself by redefining marriage. But, make no mistake, with or without SSM, the established moral order of society will continue to be picked apart. Stopping SSM will not stop that. Children will be especially targeted.

The agenda is to remake society: Teaching boys that they may in fact be girls (and vice versa) to sow confusion and moral ambiguity into young minds; feminising the defence forces to weaken our resolve; disparaging our historical past (e.g., Shorten’s invented “infected blankets and poisoned waterholes”) in order to manipulate the future; and shutting down free speech to constrain and mould debates. Vandalising and pulling down statues (read heroical figures) is but the latest manifestation of this insidious insurrection. Where it will end is hard to know.

For some reason, there are large swathes of people, particularly among the elites, who despise who and what we are and have been. They want to tear down our society. They favour anyone (e.g., Islamists) and anything (e.g., SSM) which serves that purpose. If they get their way those who defend what they oppose will probably end up being strung up on lampposts. But I doubt they have thought that far ahead.

Let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that each generation faces the same unwanted developments. Something different is happening. Take a lesson from this commentary on life by Sheriff Bell in Cormac McCarthy’s No Country for Old Men:

Had this questionnaire [in the nineteen thirties] about what was the problem with teachin in the schools…the biggest problem they could name was things like talkin’ in class and runnin’ in the hallways, chewin’ gum. Forty years later… here come the answers back. Rape, arson, murder. Drugs. Suicide…when I say anything about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket people will just sort of smile and tell me I’m getting old…my feeling about that is that anyone that can’t tell the difference between rapin’ and murderin’ people and chewin gum has a whole lot bigger of a problem than what I’ve got.

21 comments
  • pgang

    Is that you in the dress Peter?

  • Lawrie Ayres

    Having spent 28 years in the defence of my country I can honestly say if it came to a choice between saving the people in a church and saving a bunch of greenies and antifa types the latter could go to hell. The latest dob in a digger request from our leftoid commanders is enough to dry up recruitment. Who would want to serve in an army where the command relies on rumour to start a court martial. The country is in ruins and burning and our leaders are stoking the flames.

  • pgang

    “Children will be especially targeted.” And inevitably, women will be targeted after that. Our modern version of marriage is built largely to protect women from exploitation.

  • Keith Kennelly

    Nope. Here is what’s coming.

    Marriage Equality. Impossible while one set of marriages have husbands, wives, mothers and fathers and the other set has only parents and partners.

    Watch for the campaign to ban the use of the terms mother and father and husband and wife.

    They’ll be deemed discrimarory.

    • martinbruce12

      A marriage had to be consummated . What now ? Change the act.
      Bruce Martin.

      • Salome

        If you mean ‘the act’ and not ‘the [Marriage] Act’, what do you propose it should be changed to?

        • martinbruce12

          I would not know, but will the new Marriage Act lay it down ?

      • [email protected]

        In the UK, lack of consummation as a reason for annulment does not apply to SSM.

        • martinbruce12

          That’s interesting. Then what about normal marriages now in U.K. ?

          • [email protected]

            I don’t know for sure but I assume that the specific exception for SSM means that consummation lives on in traditional marriages.

    • Keith Kennelly

      Jody

      The left is at home with DEBT. The prospect of increasing others debt encourages them. They feel at home with people with debt.

      Much better to wave real world real work job applications and offers at them.

      You’d not see them for the dust as they flee to their elitist sanctuaries with you elitists.

  • Salome

    I, too, intend to vote no on the basis that same sex marriage is a definitional absurdity. I find its proponents impossible to argue with, first because any argument I might seek to advance could offend someone, and also because they haven’t advanced any actual arguments to engage with.

    • pgang

      So far the only argument I’ve heard for it is fluffy emotionalising, as in ‘why shouldn’t they be allowed to get married, they’re all so wonderful and harmless and it would give me ten seconds of warm glow to know I was helping out such lovely and harmless people’.

      That’s what the No camp is really up against. Crass, feel-good-about-myself-in-the-moment melodrama. It’s a powerful force.

      • Jody

        When Get Up is behind anything you can be given an iron-clad guarantee the situation will be ANYTHING BUT benign.

      • ianl

        I expect the High Court will weasel Waffle out of both the postal SSM plebiscite (funding not agreed to by the Parliament) and S44 for Joyce and a few others. My expectation is based on long-time observation of the conflict between authority and justice when authority’s actual power is the core of the issue *and* is being closely gazed upon by the proles.

        Power, not justice, is sacred. That’s why the bureaucracy, judiciary, academies, politicos and the MSM self-describe as “elite”.

  • Jody

    I want to get my gold American Express card out and put it in front of the Left so that they are forced backwards into their coffins, much the say way that Dracula is with the hated cross and garlic!!! 🙂

  • Jody

    I ask this question sincerely; will the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge be forbidden to pose as a family for the media after the birth of their third child, or will the Left want to ban these images because they’re ‘political’?

  • Homer Sapien

    We already have the words “gay” and “marriage” mutilated, “decency” will be the next.

  • Keith Kennelly

    Jody

    The left is at home with DEBT. The prospect of increasing others debt encourages them. They feel at home with people with debt.

    Much better to wave real world real work job applications and offers at them.

    You’d not see them for the dust as they flee to their elitist sanctuaries with you elitists.

  • Jody

    Caption under the image accompanying this article:

    “Does my bum look big in this?”

Post a comment