Homosexual “marriages” are just another attack upon our traditional institutions

Contributed article

Australia is soon to have a non-binding plebiscite on the issue of homosexual marriages. There are several aspects of this matter that should be considered.

Are politicians really seeking the will of the people?
How odd that the Government is asking our opinion in a plebiscite, considering that the major parties don’t normally give a brass razoo for what the public think.

However, the reason for this plebiscite is actually one of political self-interest. On the issue of homosexual marriages, the Government will be “damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t”; if it opposes such marriages, it will then lose the support of the Politically Correct voter base; if it supports such marriages, it will then lose the support of the Socially Conservative (Traditionalist) voter base. But if the Government can claim that they are just acting in line with a popular vote, then they stand a fair chance of being let off the hook.

Hundreds of millions of our taxpayer dollars are being spent so that the Government can try to minimise any loss of support on this issue. It’s not about seeking our opinion, it’s all about retaining votes.

By the way, it should be remembered that this vote is a “non-binding plebiscite”, i.e. the Government does not want to be bound by the will of the people. This vote is not actually an effort to discover the opinion of the people, it is in fact a cynical exercise in political pragmatism and voter manipulation. For approximately the same amount of money, the vote could have been made into a binding referendum, but politicians hate being bound by the will of the people.

On most major issues the main political parties will usually pass laws in favour of their own agenda, or their own interests, without a care for the opinions of the people. In fact, on issues such as immigration, the Liberal and Labor parties have known about opinion polls which have showed the public being against aspects of immigration, but have instead carried on with their own social-political agenda with a “bi-partisan agreement” (in effect, an anti-democratic “open conspiracy” against the Australian people).

Thin edge of the wedge
To any astute observer of politics, it should be obvious that homosexual marriages are just the thin edge of the wedge.

The anti-traditionalists tell us it’s just about this one issue, but as soon as the door is opened a tiny crack, they chock in a wedge to keep it open, and then start on the next part of their agenda (and then wedge the door open a bit wider, and so on it goes). They’re asking for one slice of the cultural pie, but if we allow them to do that, they then intend to consume another slice, and then another, and then another, until they have put into effect their entire political-social agenda, until our society is no longer recognisable.

It used to be that homosexuality was against the law. Many people thought it was reasonable that homosexuals should be able to do what they wanted behind closed doors, and the campaign for legalisation was sold on that basis. However, there were some Social Conservatives who warned that the legalisation of homosexuality would lead to homosexuals being able to adopt children and to homosexual marriage.

“Ha ha, no, don’t be stupid,” said the advocates of homosexuality, “we just want homosexuality to be legalised. We don’t want any of that other stuff, and legalising homosexuality won’t bring it about. You’re just being crazy, paranoid, or ridiculous. No way will those other things happen!” But those things did happen; the Social Conservatives were right. At the very least, some safeguards should have been put into place.

Similarly, when laws were being advocated to stop any discrimination against homosexuals, the narrative being pushed was that these laws were just to protect homosexuals who were being persecuted; therefore, many people thought that those laws were reasonable. Again, some Social Conservatives warned that there was another agenda at work, and that there would be far-reaching consequences, with homosexuality being taught in schools, anti-homosexuals being persecuted for their beliefs, and Christians being legally attacked. The pro-homosexual activists told us that such warnings were ridiculous. But, once again, the Social Conservatives were right.

We are now being warned about what will happen if we allow homosexual marriages to be legalised, and we should therefore heed those warnings very seriously.

These “thin edge of the wedge” tactics have been used for years by anti-traditionalists, Cultural Marxists, and haters of Western Civilisation. Hey, c’mon, it’s 2017 — we should all be aware by now that the homosexual marriage agenda is just an entry point for other attacks upon our society and upon our freedoms; to think otherwise would be politically naive.

There are various consequences that are likely to arise from legalising homosexual marriages. We need only look at what has happened in other countries where the homosexual agenda has been advanced:

* Criticism of homosexuality becomes classified as “hate speech” (any opinions which are critical of the sacred cows of Political Correctness tend to become labelled as “hate speech” — this sort of demonisation of the opinions of social-political opponents is a tactic of psychological manipulation, but it is one which has been very effective for the Cultural Marxists).

* Publicly quoting Bible passages against homosexuality can lead to arrests, fines, and jail. Freedom of speech is vehemently opposed by the advocates of Cultural Marxism.

* Business people will not be allowed to decline to provide goods and/or services that promote homosexuality or homosexual marriages, without fear of fines and bankruptcy. Bakers and cooks will be forced to cater for homosexual marriages, reception venues will be forced to host homosexual marriages and receptions, and even churches and priests may be forced to conduct homosexual marriages — or face the life-destroying consequences of holding steadfast to their deep-seated morality when they are legally and financially crushed by the forces of the State.

* Religion-based child adoption agencies are forced to assist homosexuals to adopt children, or else face fines and closure. Rather than engage in such coerced behaviour, which they regard as sinful, or even evil, some adoption agencies have closed down.

* School children will be taught that homosexuality is a positive lifestyle that should be favourably considered. Such propaganda is already being taught in kindergartens, primary schools, and high schools.

* An indirectly-related consequence would be the teaching in schools that transgenderism is a positive lifestyle that should be favourably considered. On top of which there would be various laws to stop “discrimination” against transgender people, as well as the deeming of opinions against transgenderism as “hate speech”.

* Another indirectly-related consequence could be the lowering of the age of consent. Already there are various leftists, Cultural Marxists, and so-called “do-gooders” who believe that the age of consent should be lowered (paedophiles also support any lowering of the age of consent).

The legalisation of homosexual marriages is not just some benign occurrence that will only affect homosexuals, it will also negatively impact society as a whole. It will especially damage our rights to free speech, even more than the anti-Westerners have damaged our rights already.

Examples abound of how enshrining homosexuality in law has led to restrictions on freedom of speech, fines, and jailing for people. Some pro-homosexual activists try to pretend that what has happened in Canada, England, Sweden, the USA, etc., won’t happen in Australia, but that clearly isn’t the case; the right to speak one’s opinion on issues regarding homosexuality are already being restricted in Australia by the Thought Police (the so-called Human Rights Commission, as well as various courts). It is far better that we learn from the mistakes of other countries, than make the same mistakes ourselves.

As Brian Camenker has stated, regarding homosexual marriages, “It’s become a hammer to force the acceptance and normalization of homosexuality on everyone. The slippery slope is real. New radical demands never cease.” Bill Muehlenberg put the problem in a nutshell: “Wherever homosexualists have been granted special status and extra rights, huge repercussions for the rest of the community have been experienced”.

Homosexual activists and Cultural Marxists love to portray homosexuals as “victims”, but if homosexual marriages are legalised, and homosexuality is further enshrined as an inviolate concept, then anyone who opposes homosexuality and who publicly voices their opinion (which should be their right in a democratic society) will become the victim of the Thought Police, liable to be arrested, fined, and/or thrown in jail.

Further widening of marriage laws
It is quite possible, or even likely, that the marriage laws will be even further widened if homosexual marriages are legalised.

There are those who advocate that polygamous marriages should be legalised. Currently, Australian law does not allow the conducting of polygamous marriages in this country. However, polygamous marriages are informally recognised within Australia, insofar as polygamous Islamic marriages are treated as “informal religious unions”.

Therefore, as we have already taken one step in favour of polygamous marriages, it would not be too hard for Cultural Marxists to promote the issue. In fact, there have already been calls for polygamous marriages to be legalised in Australia.

Since most polygamous marriages in Australia are of those belonging to the Islamic religion, and are mostly Asians, Arabs, and Africans (as well as some Aborigines), it would be quite easy for the anti-Westerners to claim that non-legalisation of polygamous marriages is “racist”. One favourite Cultural Marxist tactic seems to be “When in doubt, use the race card”; after all, it usually works.

Whilst far less numerous than those engaged in polygamous marriages, there are those who are involved in adult incestuous relationships, and who would like to have “marriage equality”. These incestuous relationships are usually between brothers and sisters, but mother-son, father-daughter, and even grandparent relationships could also be included. Cousin marriages are already quite common in some Middle Eastern cultures.

The “marriage equality” activists may say that there is an increased risk of medical problems with children from incestuous relationships; however, isn’t that also the case with hemophiliacs as well? Or any other hereditary disease? Unless the “marriage equality” activists are going to ban marriage for all couples with hereditary diseases, then it is obvious that they are just discriminating against people on the basis of lifestyle choice; they would be discriminating against people just because they love each other!

If those who advocate “marriage equality” actually really want “marriage equality”, then adult incestuous marriages should be totally fine with them. They tell us that there is absolutely nothing wrong with any adult relationship, so long as the people involved voluntarily enter into the partnership, so supporting adult incestuous marriages will be a great way for the advocates of “marriage equality” to show us that they’re not “bigots”.

However, those of us with a sense of decent morality (the dreaded “Social Conservatives”), believe that neither polygamy nor adult incestuous marriages should be made legal. Luckily we’re used to being called “bigots” by Social Justice Warriors, just because we support common sense and moral decency. But will the SJWs now call themselves “bigots” for opposing other non-traditional marriages? Probably not. Oh hypocrisy, thy name is Social Justice Warrior.

The intention of marriage
As far as origins go, it appears that the word “marry” is derived from the Old French word “marier”, which itself derives from the Latin word “maritare”, from “maritus” (married man, husband), possibly from the phrase “provided with a mari” (a “mari” being a young woman), and may ultimately stem from the Proto-Indo-European base word “meri” (young wife).

The word “marriage” itself (in its English form, with regards to human relationships) was certainly created in reference to a male and a female, and so it is not applicable regarding a homosexual coupling.

The attempts by pro-homosexual activists to have the heterosexual institution of marriage extended to homosexuals is a debasement of the institution, which would undermine the dignity, meaning, and intent of marriage. Legalising homosexual “marriages” demeans this important institution of our traditional civilisation.

Marriage is for men and women only.

Non-traditional marriages
What about those humans who have “married” animals — are they to be considered legitimate marriages as well? After all, surely we cannot discriminate against the man who married his goat, the boy who married a cow, or the woman who married a snake?

If the human involved loved the object of his/her affections, then who are we to object? Indeed, love may be somewhat irrelevant in an overall historical context; after all, historically, there have been many arranged marriages which have not included love as an element (the aim of marriage is a union between a male and a female, even though in Western countries most of us now prefer now to have love as an essential part of the equation).

This raises the question: How can “marriage equality” activists object to human-animal marriages, which are non-traditional, if they are going to support non-traditional homosexual marriages? If they oppose human-animal marriages because they are not “normal” marriages, then — using their own tactics of social demonisation — should they be called “nasty, prejudiced, hate-filled bigots”? And denounced as zoophobic?

Also, what about those humans who have “married” objects? What about the woman who married the Berlin Wall? How can the “marriage equality” activists object to that? Are they all “wall haters” or wallophobes? Or what about the Japanese man who married the Nintendo video game character Nene Anegasaki? Well, at least he was marrying a female Nintendo character — if he married a male Nintendo character, then that would have just been weird (note to Social Justice Warriors: the last comment was a joke; don’t get your knickers in a twist over it).

As well as the Berlin Wall and a Nintendo game character, the list of object “significant others” involved in a marriage includes a Barbie Doll, body pillow, laptop computer, phone, photo, radio, roller coaster, sex doll, stone, and a train. There was also a woman who married the Eiffel Tower — maybe that couple could double-date with the Berlin Wall twosome? To traditionalists, the idea of marrying objects sounds a bit mad; but, in Political Correctness Land, maybe that wouldn’t be considered as an objective opinion (pun intended).

The common thread of all these non-traditional marriages (homosexuals, animals, objects) is that they are all a debasement of the heterosexual institution of marriage; they undermine the value of the institution. Accepting such a demeaning change to the institution of marriage pushes it in the direction of making it meaningless or worthless; it’s like marriage is an Australian dollar which some foolish meddler is trying to equate to one of those nearly-worthless Zimbabwean dollars (remember the “one hundred trillion dollars” Zimbabwean note?); marriage should mean something, and not be debased by those with their own social-political agendas.

Whilst these odd “marriages” are rare, they reinforce the point that the institution of marriage should not be corrupted or contorted just to suit the whims of a vocal minority or their political cheer squads.

Traditional marriage in our country should be left as it should be, as the union of a man and a woman.

Part of the Cultural War
The push for homosexual marriages is just another part of the ongoing Cultural War against the traditional values of Western Civilisation.

This Cultural War has been waged against the West for some decades, at least since the 1960s. The chief culprits in this treacherous war of cultural undermining are those who hate Western Civilisation with a passion: Cultural Marxists, Anarchists, Communists, and extremist Socialists. To those numbers can be added their fellow travellers, mostly being the numerous thousands of university students who have gone through the brainwashing mill of our modern universities, which are overwhelmingly dominated by Leftists — especially in Bachelor of Arts courses, where they love to spout propaganda in their classes on Communism, Marxist economics, feminism, (black armband) history, (leftist) politics, and so on. However, with Leftist and Anti-Traditional teachers now also dominating primary and high schools, the net for anti-Western propaganda and psychological manipulation (political-social brainwashing) has been cast much wider.

The Cultural War encompasses many aspects, and homosexuality is just one of them. To acquiesce to the desires and tactics of the Cultural Marxists is madness, as it will only further undermine Australian society in particular and Western Civilisation in general.

The legalisation of homosexual marriages is just the thin edge of the wedge in the Cultural War. It should be opposed on cultural, social, and moral grounds.

What same-sex “marriage’ has done to Massachusetts”, MassResistance, June 2012 (Brian Camenker)
What ‘gay marriage’ did to Massachusetts — Update!”, MassResistance (YouTube)
Same-Sex Marriage: Who Says Nothing Will Change?”, CultureWatch, 10 December 2010 (Bill Muehlenberg)

Gay marriage plebiscite estimated to cost Australia $525 million: PwC”, News.com.au, 8 August 2017
Same-sex marriage plebiscite to cost $525m, PwC modelling shows”, ABC, 14 March 2016 (Francis Keany)

Lesbian teacher: How I convince kids to accept gay ‘marriage’, starting at 4 years old”, LifeSiteNews, 20 April 2015 (Pete Baklinski)
Schools Teach Elementary Kids about Homosexuality, Bisexuality and Other Sexual Orientations”, Christian Newswire
Public schools beginning to teach homosexuality: It is high time for Christian parents to pull their precious children out!”, The Cutting Edge
Coercive Indoctrination or Sex Education?”, Know Thy Facts Not Thy Neighbors, 27 April 2006

Children Must Be Taught Transgenderism, Homosexuality Starting in Nursery School, Teachers Say”, Christian Post Reporter, 19 April 2017 (Stoyan Zaimov)
Activists push taxpayer-funded gay manual in schools”, The Australian, 10 February 2016 (Natasha Bita)
Safe Schools Coalition: sexual politics in the classroom”, The Australian, 13 February 2016 (Natasha Bita)
Toddlers to be taught about cross-dressing in controversial sex ed program”, Herald Sun, 5 March 2016 (Susie O’Brien)
Call to study gay issues at preschool”, The Australian, 30 April 2016 (Rebecca Urban)

Freedom of speech is fine … as long as you don’t do it in public”, Destiny magazine, 12 March 2010
‘Sorry’ seems to be the hardest word for gay slur councillor”, The Gympie Times, 10 January 2015
Freedom of Religion on Trial in Sweden”, Ake Green [“Pastor Ake Green was sentenced to one month in jail for showing “disrespect” against homosexuals in the sermon he delivered from his pulpit”]
Criminalizing Christianity: Sweden’s Hate Speech Law”, Albert Mohler, 5 August 2004 [“Pastors in Sweden are now on notice–if you preach what the Bible teaches about homosexuality, you will go to jail. … We are now witnesses to the criminalizing of Christianity.”]
Supreme Court muzzles free speech in Canada, rules against Christian pro-family activist”, LifeSiteNews, 27 February, 2013 (Peter Baklinski) [“The court ordered the defendant, a Christian pro-family activist with a reputation for intense activism, not only to pay a fine, but also to pay court costs which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. … While the flyers used vehement language against homosexual practices and the homosexual agenda, they did not directly attack homosexual persons. … the Supreme Court found that with regards to hate speech, the distinction between ‘sin and sinner’ no longer applies.”]
Canadian Supreme Court ruling has implications for Christian Witness”, The Gospel Coalition, 6 March 2013 (Joe Carter) [“Canada’s Supreme Court upheld a ban on “hate speech” contested by a Christian activist, ruling that the country’s hate speech ban “is a reasonable limit on freedom of religion and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.””]
The Bible as Hate Speech? Gays Win Big in Canada”, Christian Headlines (Albert Mohler) [“a Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission board of inquiry fined a Christian businessman $4,500 for running an advertisement in The Star Phoenix newspaper that simply listed four biblical passages that condemn homosexual behavior [Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26 and 1 Corinthians 6:9]. The ad did not even provide the actual text of the verses. Two stickmen holding hands were pictured in the advertisement, with the international negative symbol [a red circle bisected by a slash] over the figures. The board ruled that the symbols, when combined with the biblical citations, “would expose or tend to expose homosexuals to hatred or ridicule.” According to this Canadian agency, the Bible is now hate speech.”]
Embattled LGBT Czar Calls for Hate Speech Laws and Web Censorship”, Center for Family and Human Rights, 8 June 2017 (Stefano Gennarini) [“UN independent expert on LGBT issues Vitit Muntarbhorn … called for censorship of dissenting views by internet service providers through “take down policies” for “homophobic and transphobic messages” and for hate speech laws, industry codes of conduct, and co-regulation between the government and private sector”]
Why you will not be free under same-sex marriage law”, Australian Christian Lobby, 22 August 2017 (Lyle Shelton)

Banned in Boston”, Weekly Standard, 15 May 2006 (Maggie Gallagher) [Catholic Charities of Boston close down their adoption work]
Ruling forces last Catholic adoption agency in England and Wales to cease adoptions”, Catholic News Agency, 20 August 2010
Catholic adoption agency loses gay adoption fight”, The Guardian, 27 April 2011 (Riazat Butt)
Catholic Care loses gay adoption fight”, BBC, 2 November 2012
Catholic Church cuts links with adoption service over same-sex ruling”, BBC, 5 December 2014

Massachusetts man says he was fired for telling colleague her gay marriage is wrong”, Fox News, 9 November 2009 (Joshua Rhett Miller)

Why Do I Have Two Mums? Asks Byron”, Booktopia [“For Ages: 4 – 6 years old”]
I Have Two Mums”, Gay-Themed Picture Books for Children, 5 July 2015
Gay-Themed Picture Books for Children
The Two Daddy Frogs, a story for children about adoption by same-sex couples, Facebook
Father jailed for trying to protect his children”, Just a Man: Warwick Marsh, 12 August 2017

Polygamy, multiple relationships and welfare”, Parliament of Australia, 14 December 2016
Probing polygamy”, The Australian, 26 June 2008 (Natalie O’Brien)
It’s women who suffer from a lack of recognition of polygamous marriage”, The Conversation, 11 May 2016
Polygamy”, SBS, 29 May 2012
Potentially polygamous marriages recognised under Australian legislation”, Armstrong Legal Family Law Blog, 19 April 2016 (Karen Devey)
Polygamous marriages recognised under Australian law – but not gay marriages”, Wolters Kluwer Central: Law Chat Blog, 17 March 2016 (Jacky Campbell)
The Recognition of Traditional Marriages: General Approach”, Australian Law Reform Commission

German man who had four children with his sister loses European Court fight claiming incest conviction breached his human rights”, Daily Mail (UK), 12 April 2012
German Brother, Sister Who’ve Had 4 Children Together Fighting Incest Laws”, Fox News, 27 February 2007
Switzerland considers repealing incest laws”, The Telegraph (UK), 13 December 2010
‘I’ve married my sister – now we’re having our second baby’: Siblings who defied law plan to start new life abroad”, Daily Mail (UK), 26 September 2010
Brother and sister who had child together to get married… despite knowing incestuous wedding is illegal”, Daily Mail (UK), 12 September 2010
Shock for the married couple who discovered they are twins separated at birth”, Daily Mail (UK), 11 January 2008

Charmed woman marries snake!”, Hindustan Times, 3 June 2006 [“A woman who fell in love with a snake has married the reptile at a traditional Hindu wedding celebrated by 2,000 guests in Orissa.”]
[Also published at Breitbart]
‘Man marries goat’ captivates millions”, The Telegraph, 3 May 2007
Bali teenager passes out marrying cow he had sex with”, Jakarta Globe
[Also published at Business Insider Australia, 26 July 2012]

Woman ‘married’ to Berlin Wall for 29 years”, The Telegraph, 27 May 2008 (Richard Alleyne)
Japanese gamer ‘marries’ Nintendo DS character”, The Telegraph, 25 Nov 2009 (Matthew Moore)
15 people who married inanimate objects”, Ranker (Jude Newsome)

Further reading:
The six ways homosexual activists manipulate public opinion”, LifeSiteNews, 31 May 2012 (Brian Clowes)
Marxism & Marriage”, Church And State With Dave Pellowe, 14 August 2017 (Julie Robinson)
Medical Critique of the Australian Medical Association’s Position Statement on Marriage Equality: Misleading the public, Neglecting the child”, Why the AMA should retract its statement on ‘marriage equality’, July 2017 (Dr. Chris Middleton, Dr. Rob Pollnitz, Dr. Lachlan Dunjey, Dr. GeorgiosLiangas, Dr. David van Gend, Dr. Con Kafataris)
Bait and switch – what we’re really voting for”, Australian Marriage Forum
14 Reasons that Same-Sex Marriage is not about Equality”, XYZ, 12 August 2017

Leave a Reply