Professor Dennis Altman – a gay rights pioneer – has likened the activists’ obsession with the marriage issue, as “self-indulgent crap.”
Gays questioning “gay marriage”
From the ABC’s Hungry Beast (2009): “If more than half of all Australians support same sex marriage, you’d at least assume that gay people would be in favour of it, right? Monique [Schafter] found out this isn’t always the case. She spoke to a selection of gay people opposed to same sex marriage to find out why they held this view.”
But Monique isn’t alone, and for the record, I sincerely doubt that most Australians believe in “gay marriage,” although I do accept that some polls are laughably unscientific.
Below are some don’t-hide-them questions:
Who is seeking approval?
Eve Tushnet, a self-identified lesbian, holds the position that “homosexual activists are merely picking up on a trend begun by and for opposite-sex couples.” In her view:
Same-sex marriage is just the next step in the divorce culture. The belief that marriage is merely the way that our culture expresses its approval of atomistic adults’ sexual and romantic partnerships isn’t new – it’s the same “me generation” worldview that produced “fatherless America.”
It is my contention that some leftwing homosexual activists are hungry for approval, and that they’re consciously or subconsciously trying to mirror traditions.
Approval-hungry homosexual activists who “speak” for the “gay community” like the feeling of dressing up, making vows, and pretending that redefining the “m” word will make them sanctified citizens. Though apparently astute in the art of public relations, many are easily tripped up when confronted with facts. And perhaps, some of them are trying to create “happy family” experiences because of their own wounded backgrounds.
Critical thinkers, like Tushnet, by way of contrast, see the dangers in trend-picking causes or romantic imagery traps. One can’t simply manufacture or “lawyer” in an institution that grew out of complex ancient heterosexual/religious customs, without inviting problems.
Who is for tolerance?
“Labor Senator and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong is openly gay and she also opposes same sex marriage,” reports SBS World News Australia. But – preach the gay activists – this is an unacceptable position.
Indeed, the fact that Wong’s sexuality and her opposition to same-sex marriage received a mention in the same sentence is most revealing. It would make more political sense to ask why the climate change guru travels on pollution-making planes and believes in “global warming,” than to highlight her sexual preferences.
Gay activists also feed negative stereotypes when they demand heterosexuals and homosexuals back their twisted version of marriage. But the characteristics of the persecutor are rarely challenged. The activist claims that she sees things in shades of grey (even when taking black and white positions), speaks boldly about intolerant behavior (even when involved in intolerant behavior) and deeply resents having people question her unquestionable opinions (hence the stacking of television shows or censorship demands).
The media for its part takes the role of the co-conspirator and/or enabler. Some campaigning journalists stack their papers with groupthink points, and probably enjoy being rewarded for parroting rainbow family slogans. After all, how can gays oppose “gay marriage”?
Who is playing politics?
“Same sex-attracted Australians are too easily co-opted as pro-gay marriage and therefore one-issue voters, easily snared by any Left-leaning, liberal candidate who puts in a word for gay marriage,” wrote James Heard in the Herald Sun (05/13/2008), Melbourne. “On the other hand, conservative politicians have too often taken the activists at face value, and assumed all gay and lesbian Australians adhere to the same system of beliefs, and want the same political outcomes.”
Heard, who identifies as a same-sex attracted man, has every right to be annoyed. The Melbourne-based writer reminds us that Professor Dennis Altman – a gay rights pioneer – has likened the activists’ obsession with the marriage issue, as “self-indulgent crap.” And in a “Gay Man’s Case Against Gay Marriage,” Michael Bronski stresses that, “It is about sentiment and the power of advertising” and that homosexuals “also live in a culture that has a multibillion-dollar wedding industry, which inundates us everyday with the message that we will only be happy when we are married.”
And is the “gay marriage” movement another activist distraction? Not long ago, a homosexual man shared with me his history of sex and drug abuse at the hands of influential gay men, a taboo topic, to be sure. Yet, pretend peacemakers, feel that talking about weddings and the like is more politically palatable, than discussing the many ways in which gay-on-gay bullying damages all Australians.
Meanwhile in England, so-called “gay divorces” are booming within only a short period of time, from an historical perspective. Notes Rex Wockner: “Dissolution of [marriage-like] civil partnerships in England, Scotland, and Wales almost doubled in 2009 compared with 2008, The Independent reported Aug. 20. The figure jumped from 180 to 351.”
As Monique found, homosexuals aren’t always on Bob Brown’s page, but reporters don’t always report.