“Gay marriage” fundamentalists

Adele Horin is a columnist and reporter for the Sydney Morning Herald – although it’s somewhat difficult to tell the difference. In her column, “Bigots drive gay marriage ban,” she portrays the defenders of traditional marriage as evil rednecks. Cheerleaders of “same-sex marriage” are presented as saints.

In Horin’s worldview too, even Labor types are driven by base motives. How to explain Kevin Rudd’s opposition? “The redneck and religious minority they seek to pacify is at heart motivated by a disgust of homosexuality,” lectures Horin. Thus, if Labor politicians oppose “gay marriage” then Christians and/or country folks must be pilloried, or used as scapegoats. Still, to be evenhanded, Fairfax’s campaigning writers often tread sensitively around Islam, “a religion of peace” and quaint stone-throwing customs.

I see Horin as a “gay marriage” fundamentalist – but she isn’t alone. For years, Fairfax editors have been stacking their newspapers with laugh-out-loud propaganda.

“Gay marriage: what would it really take?” thumped activist Tim Dick (real name) in The Age (August 18, 2010). “Fuss on gay marriage can’t last,” shouted Richard Ackland in The Age (August 13, 2010). Adults-only libertarian propaganda (not intellectual diversity) is sanctified by Fairfax, while Christianity and free-markets are treated like pariahs. “Church’s opposition to gay marriage a by-product of capitalism,” sermonized John Passant in The Age (November 26, 2009). His quaint piece included protest information for would-be protesters. “There will be demonstrations for same sex marriage around Australia this Saturday. For details in your city go to http://www.equallove.info/nov28"!

In the past, Christians have defended traditional marriage on all fronts. For years, Catholics held the position that expressive divorces would encourage marriage breakdowns and hurt more children. They were right. Yet, Horin’s fundamentalism demands that we flush history down the drain. Moreover, though, I fail to understand how two alleged wrongs make a right. Even using one negative to support an alleged positive isn’t the sharpest of arguments. But, as I maintain, Horin is a fundamentalist.

Fairfax’s trendy moralist also chooses to use a casualty of divorce and “gay marriage” fan, James Fiander. Argues Adele Horin: “He goes on to make the perfectly rational point that if marriage is a religious institution, why were his parents allowed to get divorced? And why were they allowed to get married a second, third and fourth time?”

Translation: so, because anti-conservative laws promoted a culture of expressive divorce, we must promote more anti-conservative laws to promote more fatherless/motherless families? Welcome to Alice-in-Wonderland theology.

Conservatives shouldn’t have to explain why men can’t produce milk, or how male “gay marriages” rob children, unless one believes in woman farms. Take breastfeeding: it promotes healthy infant development (saving taxpayers millions), provides protective components (we can’t purchase at Coles), reduces the incidence of numerous illnesses (according to science), enhances the immune system of the baby against infections (we’re mammals), and is said to protect newborns against respiratory illnesses and asthma attacks etc. Yet, back-to-nature greens also ignore the many ways in which breastfeeding promotes mother-and-child bonding, for politics.

Fatherless families come with price tags, and researchers have known for years that boys need a father and mother, not father-free families. To deliberately plan children’s lives around the needs of sexual minority groups isn’t a consequence-free choice.

How open-minded is Adele Horin? There are politically-incorrect homosexuals who reject “gay marriage,” Christians who use sound scientific arguments against experimental family units, and even Muslims – members of a “peaceful religion” – against “gay marriage.” We’re all rednecks now.