by Michael Kennedy
The issue of gay marriage has once again been given a run through the media. The leftists who are pushing for gay marriage and using the issue for their own political purposes have seen fit to push the issue into the spotlight once again. White Western man, facing an economic crisis, the spiritual and racial destruction of his nation and ecological destruction of his habitat is supposed to put the interests of a small minority ahead of his own to appease leftists progressives.
The far left, such as the Communist groups which parade themselves as “Socialist” use gay rights in an attempt to force their corrupted and distorted interpretation of Marxism on us. Their interest lies more in the change to our social order and cultural norms that gay rights can bring. If only the gay community were aware of this! They seem to believe that these Communists and Trotskyites are dedicated to gay rights for the sake of gay rights, despite Socialism originally having little, if anything, to do with granting marriage rights to gays. To the far left, the promotion of gay rights is supposedly the natural extension of the transition to Communism. These so called progressives go so far as to also claim that somehow the fight for gay rights is a continuation of the enlightenment! Something that would come as a surprise to Immanuel Kant or Thomas Paine. It is indicative of the religious nature of Politically Correct progressivism, that they would try to argue that the current social struggles are the culmination of historical movements.
The issue is actually a very minor one, despite the fact that the left want to make it appear to be the biggest issue since Rosa Parks supposedly had trouble getting a seat on a bus. Homosexuals in Australia have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples in the eyes of the state. Marriage doesn’t convey any additional rights to a citizen, and in those instances where a state of marriage may matter, such as in a funeral parlour or hospital, the matter of who has what rights is determined by the organisation in question, not the state, and therefore isn’t something that the government can mandate.
So here we are, with the same vocal minority trying to make a moral issue out nothing. Gay marriage they claim, is a right which homosexual couples should enjoy, and the fact that they can’t get married somehow indicates we are backwards, un-evolved. “Get with the times!” they exclaim, assuming that leftist progressivism is the natural course of human evolution. “Just legalise it already!”, screams the Politically Correct acolyte, filled with a religious like fervour about the predestination of Western civilisation, and a solid belief that somehow their peculiar take on gay rights is as much as inevitability as the next full moon.
This issue is causing division and debate, and influencing the voting habits of a sizeable number of people. How important can this issue be, that it is influencing our political landscape so?
Why Gay Marriage is made a big issue, and why it isn’t proceeding as fast as its advocates would like.<
A complication for liberals on the gay right question is that thanks to their efforts, the West now has gone through decades of multiculturalism (multi-racialism) and the majority of non white migrants/cultures view gays in a far dimmer lit then probably a lot of Western conservatives. For instance the female president of the African nation of Libera Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, embarrassed white liberals such as Tony Blair, by defending a law that criminalises homosexual acts, saying: "We like ourselves just the way we are" and "We've got certain traditional values in our society that we would like to preserve." Liberian legislation classes "voluntary sodomy" as a misdemeanour punishable by up to one year in prison, but two new bills have been proposed that would target homosexuality with much tougher sentences. Homosexuality is illegal in a further 37 African countries. In fact most of the developing world isn’t interested in Enlightenment-inspired human rights, which it regards as cultural imperialism from the White West.
In the USA, tolerance of Homosexuality tends to be lower among Blacks in American, who are generally viewed by White Americans as being Liberal in their outlook. Many Liberals seem to assume that they would be supportive of such Liberal causes, and find it ironic that they don't. Liberalism seems to be a self defeating ideology, in promoting diversity and non-white immigration, but being wilfully blind to the fact that the non-white immigrants from non Western countries are moving the demographic away from one tolerant of Homosexuality. It is only White Liberals which take progressivism seriously as the future of our world, and they are, worldwide, a very small minority, growing smaller.
Homosexual rights as an extension of the Leftist war on marriage.
First the left tried to destroy marriage directly. It was common to hear how marriage was just a patriarchal, biblical, archaic, obsolete, materialist and backwards institution which had no place in modern society. Marriage they said, was a thing of the past and women should liberate themselves from marriage, from becoming the property of a man and seek to be independent, carefree, childless and pursue their own career. This was the Feminist cry of the 70′s, and it’s legacy today is 40 and 50 something year old women, who have regretted the lost opportunity to fulfil the natural desire to have a family, a husband, a life and a place of belonging that is their own. This shrill echo of counter culture confusion about marriage didn’t last. Women today still want marriage and children, much to the dismay of the militant feminists who had hoped the institution would die. Women still want a career, but they want balance. The independent, sterile women whose only purpose in life is to be an individual economic unit isn’t as common as they would have hoped. They gave up on that line of argument and as a result, we rarely hear about how marriage is obsolete. The world didn’t become Liberal fast enough for them.
Now after decades of calling marriage obsolete, unnecessary and undesirable, we now how the same leftist liberal ideologues wanting, demanding, as if it is of vital importance, the right for gays to partake in the institution they sought to dissuade people from and destroy. The only consistent position here is that marriage shouldn’t be an exclusive foundation for heterosexual couples, which is reality, was the only true motivator and reason for the origin of these absurd ideas anyway.
To be sure, there are plenty of people who take this at face value and actually believe the argument is for equal rights. They actually believe that it is about “Marriage Equality”, ending discrimination and the like. It is hard to see how a Homosexual marriage could hope to be equal to Heterosexual marriage, given that Heterosexual married couples can have children which are their biological descendants and Homosexuals can’t.
>Many homosexuals also think that the origins, the root of this liberal social cause is of a concern of their rights and equality, much in the same mistaken way that many Palestinian activists believe that Socialist groups actually have any interest in Palestinian nationalism. They couldn’t be more mistaken, yet they seem to be resistant to learning this, despite the far left openly stating that these causes are only vehicles by which to drive their own political agendas.
>Given that gay marriage is just symbolic and that gays essentially have the same rights as married couples in the eyes of the state, one has to wonder what the real motivation here. Is the symbolism of marriage of such critical importance to homosexuals?
Marriage as defined by the state.
The crux of the issue is that the gay marriage activists want the state to define marriage and the state to define societies cultural norms, with of course, them being in control of the state. Marriage is a cultural institution, and as such, belongs to the people, and to the culture which defines marriage. It is not the state which gets to decide the meaning of cultural terminology, and nor is it, nor should be, the state or the government which commands the evolution of a nations culture. A government can only acts as a guardian of the nation on behalf of the people, not as an independent agent of change which forces itself upon the people it supposedly represents and is subservient to.
The nation, the Australian nation, an an expression of the Anglo/Western civilisation in the Southern Hemisphere, belongs to the people. The Australian culture, identity and cultural institutions likewise, belong to the people, being a creation of the people, not the Liberal or Labor party, or the Greens. Therefore, it is not the states right to command, especially for political purposes, what that culture is, or should and shouldn’t be. Marriage as a religious institution is to be defined by the church. Marriage as a cultural institution is to be defined by the culture, and as it is, those definitions of marriage are between a man and a women, with marriage being the core of family, family being the foundational building block upon which a society builds itself.
But what the left us arguing for, is for the state to take this power away from people and assume the right to dictate and define the culture, and the nation of the people it governs. Our government is in no position to assume to represent the Australian people, having proven itself, not just in this administration but previous administrations as well, to no longer represent the interests of the Australian nation.
Leftism however tends to support strong government, and in particular, supports a totalitarian like control over social make up and culture, going so far as to have the audacity to believe it has the right to change the racial make up of entire continents and wipe out a race of people in the name of progress. The political left, and Liberalism see all human affairs as political, and therefore under the dominion of the government and valid subjects of government policy. It is not enough for there to be a legally recognised civil union, this doesn’t touch on the cultural institutions, which is the real target, the real purpose of making this issue one of marriage rather than legal rights.
Gay Marriage is just bigotry extended.
One of the commonly used arguments used against gay marriage is the “slippery slope”. It generally goes like this: If gay marriage is allowed, then next comes polygamy, then marriages involving children, animals, inanimate objects and so forth. The argument, which somewhat is valid, is that why stop at Homosexuality? If we accept Homosexual couples are eligible candidates for marriage, who is to say that this shouldn’t be extended to polygamy, or marriage involving minors? If we are extending the definition of what marriage can be, then once we accept Homosexual couples as married couples, then why wouldn’t the definition then be extended once again?
The argument that is used to counter this is that polygamy doesn’t deny people the right to be married, as they can already get married, whereas homosexuals can’t get married at all. Partly true, but this doesn’t reflect the motives which advocates of gay marriage put forward. They argue that two people who are in LOVE should have the right to be married. The same argument that was used for mixed race marriages, which they so often remind us of, as if somehow allowing mixed race marriages is basically the same moral progression as allowing gay marriage.
So if a man happens to love two or more women, or a women happens to love two or more men, then the advocates of gay marriage ARE denying these people the right to marry someone they love. Yes, they may be married, but they are not fighting for gays just to get the status of “married” (a status which doesn’t confer any additional privileges to citizens anyway), they are fighting for gays to marry someone they love. So therefore, gay rights advocates are hypocritical in denying a man to marry two women. Surely we should be more accepting in our “multicultural” society, and embrace and allow for cultures such as Mormonism and Islam where polygamy acceptable!
The gay rights activist is knowingly or unknowingly practising the same exclusion, using their own bias, their own definition of what is acceptable and not acceptable and using the law to define marriage within their parameters. When they call someone a bigot for not approving two men getting married, they are practising the very same bigotry in not supporting polygamy, or marriage between a seventeen year old and a thirty year old. Both are denying someone the right to marry someone they love.
Gay rights progressives state that minors can not consent, whereas two gay people can. Currently, it is the law which says that one must be eighteen to legally consent to marriage. However, what the gay rights activists are arguing, is that the law should be changed to allow for gay marriage where it doesn’t allow for now. So based on this, if one wanted to marry a sixteen year old, the fact that a sixteen year old cannot legally consent isn’t an issue. The gay rights progressive is asking for the law changed, demanding the right for gays to get married. In many ways the same as demanding the right to marry a sixteen year old.
Someone who wanted to marry a sixteen year old girl, but couldn’t, would only need to make the same argument the gay rights progressives make: Change the law! If we are changing laws, why do gay rights progressives arbitrarily define some laws, such as those which limit marriage to men and women bad and in need of changing, and others, such as the legal age of consent being eighteen, sacrosanct and not open to question or change? There is no reason for this stance, apart from ones own personal opinion. Which means the gay rights leftist cannot claim any moral superiority. They are not one up!
Where Homosexual marriage will lead.
The advocates for gay marriage often state that when homosexuals are allowed to marry, that the sky won’t fall in, that heterosexual relationships will continue as normal and the world will not end. This line of argument is disingenuous, and mostly a ploy to try and steer discussion from legitimate concerns, by putting forward comical and absurd arguments as if they were characteristic of opposing views. This aside, there is truth that the world won’t end, and that two gay people being married in and of itself, won’t immediately cause chaos, but opponents of gay marriage have never stated that chaos would ensue the next day.
The problem isn’t whether homosexuals are married or not, but how society, and in particular, the vocal, intolerant and militant left will use this victory to further engineer society and conduct their war against traditional western values.
The sky will not fall in the day after gay marriage is legalised, and to be certain, even a year or two afterwards, there won’t be many ramifications. Predictably, the left will use this fact to say “See! They sky didn’t fall in! The bigots were worried about nothing”. But after a decade or two, the slow attack on western values will continue, with legalised gay marriage now a weapon in their arsenal of ideological bludgeons. We already are witnessing opponents of gay marriage having their means to make a living attacked by the militant Political Correctness Inquisitors. Professor Kuruvilla George, who was Victoria’s deputy chief psychiatrist resigned his position after the The Equal Opportunity Commission had received e-mails and phone calls in response to the Professors stand.i When its comes to the Politically Correct left, tolerance is a one way street.
Predictably, as per the leftist modus operandi, their attack will go like this. Firstly, after gay marriage has become not just a legal fact, but a realised fact, they will remind us that this is what marriage now is, a union between two people, not solely between a man and a women. With the inclusion of homosexual pairings into the definition of marriage, the battle will continue against heterosexual ideals of marriage, using the very fact that presently gays are married as an argument that marriage as a heterosexual institution is “outdated” and “obsolete”.
Witness the way that the left treat multiculturalism as a classic example of this very strategy in action. After having used the state as a means of implementing broader immigration policies, they then waited until multi-racialism became a fact, then proclaimed that Australian is multiracial. This is exactly the same tactic that was used in all other White nations, even when the indigenous population were White! It is not longer true to say that Australia is a nation of just white people, and they use this to argue against those who say it is, or should be. Likewise, when there are a number of homosexual married couples, the left will argue that marriage is not about the union of a man and women, precisely because there are married people who are of the same sex. Those who claim that marriage is between a man and a woman only, will not be told they are wrong, not because they don’t agree with their views, but because the fact that there are homosexuals who are married PROVES them wrong. Much in the same way, that if a German says that Germans are white, the progressive can point to all the Africans and Turks who are given German citizenship and use them as “proof” that the argument is incorrect.
This isn’t the goal, because this in itself wouldn’t be enough. As the progressive left always push for more and more, looking for the next push in our ‘evolution’, there will be further demands to be sure. After having destroyed the idea that marriage is a heterosexual arrangement by having exceptions to the rule, they will then look towards cultural representations of marriage.
Again, we can look towards multi-racialism as an example of where this has happened before, as living proof of the standard procedure in which they use moralistic causes as an attack against the West. With multiculturalism, or more accurately, multi-racialism, the progressive left pushed towards changing our culture, and even our history in order to accommodate the new “reality” they constructed. So we have Pakistanis depicted in medieval Britain, we have an Asian Snow White and Black Santa Claus. Portrayals of all white cultural scenes are now “racist”, and multi-racialism must be expressed where possible in order to reflect their society.
In the “Theology of Political Correctness, part 3″, it talks about the totalitarian nature of the Politically Correct progressive narrative, and this re-writing of history, this reinventing and retelling of old stories in order to add multiracial elements is how progressives seeks not only control over the present, but also demand that the past and future accord with their cultural narrative. We can then predictably expect a similar treatment of marriage. Now that marriage has been deemed to be inclusive of homosexual couples, it will only be a matter of time before it is demanded that cultural depictions of marriage now reflect the new “reality”. So stories, both present and past in which marriage features, will now be rewritten, reworked in order to include same sex marriage. It would be necessary to do this, in order to rework the West’s cultural and historical narrative to appear to support and to have always supported the progressives particular view of how society should be organised.
Legitimate Gay Marriage as an ideological weapon
It is here where the real threat lies. The issue in the gay marriage debate has not, and probably has never been about homosexual rights. The left have always used homosexuality as a weapon against the West, and it is probably true to say that the core protagonists in raising and pushing the gay marriage agenda don’t really care about marriage at all, though they might be gay themselves. After all, the left spent years, decades in trying to destroy marriage directly, and some today freely admit that gay marriage isn’t about gays, but an attempt to ruin the heterosexual institutions. Homosexuals being married in and of itself won’t do it, but gay marriage being a fact can be used in order to demand change to the way in which our media, our culture and even our history depicts marriage, in what ideals it conveys.
No longer will it be acceptable to just show heterosexual married couples, even if there was no intention to do this. As it is now, an all white cast, or an all white story invariably gets call of “racist” and is pronounced as “backwards”, “outdated” and the like, even if there was no deliberate intention to do so. Likewise, there will be similar accusations made against cultural depictions of marriage which just happen to be exclusively heterosexual. The progressives will demand that gay partnerships be portrayed to reflect reality, and will bully and try to marginalise and make acceptable solely traditional depictions of marriage. They will now have means to marginalise those who don’t portray their cultural narrative, it will be law.
This cultural distortion, where every fifth married couple is a happy, long lasting homosexual couple, will be portrayed as the norm. Heterosexual marriage will be often depicted only alongside successful homosexual marriages. Children will grow up with a weakened image of heterosexual marriage, and from here the social changes and issues will follow. As the overwhelming majority of children will naturally grow up heterosexual, they will be done a disservice by being portrayed a skewed image of the world, much in the same way they are currently being shown a skewed and distorted image of the world in which all non-white nations are homogeneous and happily so, but Western nations are all multicultural melting pots and happily so.
As to how successful this will all be in destroying the institution of family, marriage and heterosexuality as the dominant force shaping our society is debatable. Outlined above is how the progressives will attempt to use gay marriage, based upon their current practices regarding another “progressive” ideology, multi-racialism. But natural instincts are strong, and it isn’t a foregone conclusion that they will achieve their goals, but one mustn’t leave this to chance. Currently the far right are gaining ascendancy in Europe, and Multiculturalism is slowly being declared a “failure”. Their attempts to engineer the heterosexuality out of our culture may likely eventually lead to the same dismal, confused, conflict ridden and problematic state that multiculturalism has. The irony is that the strongest argument against Homosexual marriage isn’t Homosexuals, but the Liberal establishment, and its complete unworthiness in shaping our future.
The issue of gay marriage has once again been given a run through the media. The leftists who are pushing for gay marriage and using the issue for their own political purposes have seen fit to push the issue into the spotlight once again. White Western man, facing an economic crisis, the spiritual and racial destruction of his nation and ecological destruction of his habitat is supposed to put the interests of a small minority ahead of his own to appease leftists progressives.
The far left, such as the Communist groups which parade themselves as “Socialist” use gay rights in an attempt to force their corrupted and distorted interpretation of Marxism on us. Their interest lies more in the change to our social order and cultural norms that gay rights can bring. If only the gay community were aware of this! They seem to believe that these Communists and Trotskyites are dedicated to gay rights for the sake of gay rights, despite Socialism originally having little, if anything, to do with granting marriage rights to gays. To the far left, the promotion of gay rights is supposedly the natural extension of the transition to Communism. These so called progressives go so far as to also claim that somehow the fight for gay rights is a continuation of the enlightenment! Something that would come as a surprise to Immanuel Kant or Thomas Paine. It is indicative of the religious nature of Politically Correct progressivism, that they would try to argue that the current social struggles are the culmination of historical movements.
The issue is actually a very minor one, despite the fact that the left want to make it appear to be the biggest issue since Rosa Parks supposedly had trouble getting a seat on a bus. Homosexuals in Australia have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples in the eyes of the state. Marriage doesn’t convey any additional rights to a citizen, and in those instances where a state of marriage may matter, such as in a funeral parlour or hospital, the matter of who has what rights is determined by the organisation in question, not the state, and therefore isn’t something that the government can mandate.
So here we are, with the same vocal minority trying to make a moral issue out nothing. Gay marriage they claim, is a right which homosexual couples should enjoy, and the fact that they can’t get married somehow indicates we are backwards, un-evolved. “Get with the times!” they exclaim, assuming that leftist progressivism is the natural course of human evolution. “Just legalise it already!”, screams the Politically Correct acolyte, filled with a religious like fervour about the predestination of Western civilisation, and a solid belief that somehow their peculiar take on gay rights is as much as inevitability as the next full moon.
This issue is causing division and debate, and influencing the voting habits of a sizeable number of people. How important can this issue be, that it is influencing our political landscape so?
Why Gay Marriage is made a big issue, and why it isn’t proceeding as fast as its advocates would like.<
A complication for liberals on the gay right question is that thanks to their efforts, the West now has gone through decades of multiculturalism (multi-racialism) and the majority of non white migrants/cultures view gays in a far dimmer lit then probably a lot of Western conservatives. For instance the female president of the African nation of Libera Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, embarrassed white liberals such as Tony Blair, by defending a law that criminalises homosexual acts, saying: "We like ourselves just the way we are" and "We've got certain traditional values in our society that we would like to preserve." Liberian legislation classes "voluntary sodomy" as a misdemeanour punishable by up to one year in prison, but two new bills have been proposed that would target homosexuality with much tougher sentences. Homosexuality is illegal in a further 37 African countries. In fact most of the developing world isn’t interested in Enlightenment-inspired human rights, which it regards as cultural imperialism from the White West.
In the USA, tolerance of Homosexuality tends to be lower among Blacks in American, who are generally viewed by White Americans as being Liberal in their outlook. Many Liberals seem to assume that they would be supportive of such Liberal causes, and find it ironic that they don't. Liberalism seems to be a self defeating ideology, in promoting diversity and non-white immigration, but being wilfully blind to the fact that the non-white immigrants from non Western countries are moving the demographic away from one tolerant of Homosexuality. It is only White Liberals which take progressivism seriously as the future of our world, and they are, worldwide, a very small minority, growing smaller.
Homosexual rights as an extension of the Leftist war on marriage.
First the left tried to destroy marriage directly. It was common to hear how marriage was just a patriarchal, biblical, archaic, obsolete, materialist and backwards institution which had no place in modern society. Marriage they said, was a thing of the past and women should liberate themselves from marriage, from becoming the property of a man and seek to be independent, carefree, childless and pursue their own career. This was the Feminist cry of the 70′s, and it’s legacy today is 40 and 50 something year old women, who have regretted the lost opportunity to fulfil the natural desire to have a family, a husband, a life and a place of belonging that is their own. This shrill echo of counter culture confusion about marriage didn’t last. Women today still want marriage and children, much to the dismay of the militant feminists who had hoped the institution would die. Women still want a career, but they want balance. The independent, sterile women whose only purpose in life is to be an individual economic unit isn’t as common as they would have hoped. They gave up on that line of argument and as a result, we rarely hear about how marriage is obsolete. The world didn’t become Liberal fast enough for them.
Now after decades of calling marriage obsolete, unnecessary and undesirable, we now how the same leftist liberal ideologues wanting, demanding, as if it is of vital importance, the right for gays to partake in the institution they sought to dissuade people from and destroy. The only consistent position here is that marriage shouldn’t be an exclusive foundation for heterosexual couples, which is reality, was the only true motivator and reason for the origin of these absurd ideas anyway.
To be sure, there are plenty of people who take this at face value and actually believe the argument is for equal rights. They actually believe that it is about “Marriage Equality”, ending discrimination and the like. It is hard to see how a Homosexual marriage could hope to be equal to Heterosexual marriage, given that Heterosexual married couples can have children which are their biological descendants and Homosexuals can’t.
>Many homosexuals also think that the origins, the root of this liberal social cause is of a concern of their rights and equality, much in the same mistaken way that many Palestinian activists believe that Socialist groups actually have any interest in Palestinian nationalism. They couldn’t be more mistaken, yet they seem to be resistant to learning this, despite the far left openly stating that these causes are only vehicles by which to drive their own political agendas.
>Given that gay marriage is just symbolic and that gays essentially have the same rights as married couples in the eyes of the state, one has to wonder what the real motivation here. Is the symbolism of marriage of such critical importance to homosexuals?
Marriage as defined by the state.
The crux of the issue is that the gay marriage activists want the state to define marriage and the state to define societies cultural norms, with of course, them being in control of the state. Marriage is a cultural institution, and as such, belongs to the people, and to the culture which defines marriage. It is not the state which gets to decide the meaning of cultural terminology, and nor is it, nor should be, the state or the government which commands the evolution of a nations culture. A government can only acts as a guardian of the nation on behalf of the people, not as an independent agent of change which forces itself upon the people it supposedly represents and is subservient to.
The nation, the Australian nation, an an expression of the Anglo/Western civilisation in the Southern Hemisphere, belongs to the people. The Australian culture, identity and cultural institutions likewise, belong to the people, being a creation of the people, not the Liberal or Labor party, or the Greens. Therefore, it is not the states right to command, especially for political purposes, what that culture is, or should and shouldn’t be. Marriage as a religious institution is to be defined by the church. Marriage as a cultural institution is to be defined by the culture, and as it is, those definitions of marriage are between a man and a women, with marriage being the core of family, family being the foundational building block upon which a society builds itself.
But what the left us arguing for, is for the state to take this power away from people and assume the right to dictate and define the culture, and the nation of the people it governs. Our government is in no position to assume to represent the Australian people, having proven itself, not just in this administration but previous administrations as well, to no longer represent the interests of the Australian nation.
Leftism however tends to support strong government, and in particular, supports a totalitarian like control over social make up and culture, going so far as to have the audacity to believe it has the right to change the racial make up of entire continents and wipe out a race of people in the name of progress. The political left, and Liberalism see all human affairs as political, and therefore under the dominion of the government and valid subjects of government policy. It is not enough for there to be a legally recognised civil union, this doesn’t touch on the cultural institutions, which is the real target, the real purpose of making this issue one of marriage rather than legal rights.
Gay Marriage is just bigotry extended.
One of the commonly used arguments used against gay marriage is the “slippery slope”. It generally goes like this: If gay marriage is allowed, then next comes polygamy, then marriages involving children, animals, inanimate objects and so forth. The argument, which somewhat is valid, is that why stop at Homosexuality? If we accept Homosexual couples are eligible candidates for marriage, who is to say that this shouldn’t be extended to polygamy, or marriage involving minors? If we are extending the definition of what marriage can be, then once we accept Homosexual couples as married couples, then why wouldn’t the definition then be extended once again?
The argument that is used to counter this is that polygamy doesn’t deny people the right to be married, as they can already get married, whereas homosexuals can’t get married at all. Partly true, but this doesn’t reflect the motives which advocates of gay marriage put forward. They argue that two people who are in LOVE should have the right to be married. The same argument that was used for mixed race marriages, which they so often remind us of, as if somehow allowing mixed race marriages is basically the same moral progression as allowing gay marriage.
So if a man happens to love two or more women, or a women happens to love two or more men, then the advocates of gay marriage ARE denying these people the right to marry someone they love. Yes, they may be married, but they are not fighting for gays just to get the status of “married” (a status which doesn’t confer any additional privileges to citizens anyway), they are fighting for gays to marry someone they love. So therefore, gay rights advocates are hypocritical in denying a man to marry two women. Surely we should be more accepting in our “multicultural” society, and embrace and allow for cultures such as Mormonism and Islam where polygamy acceptable!
The gay rights activist is knowingly or unknowingly practising the same exclusion, using their own bias, their own definition of what is acceptable and not acceptable and using the law to define marriage within their parameters. When they call someone a bigot for not approving two men getting married, they are practising the very same bigotry in not supporting polygamy, or marriage between a seventeen year old and a thirty year old. Both are denying someone the right to marry someone they love.
Gay rights progressives state that minors can not consent, whereas two gay people can. Currently, it is the law which says that one must be eighteen to legally consent to marriage. However, what the gay rights activists are arguing, is that the law should be changed to allow for gay marriage where it doesn’t allow for now. So based on this, if one wanted to marry a sixteen year old, the fact that a sixteen year old cannot legally consent isn’t an issue. The gay rights progressive is asking for the law changed, demanding the right for gays to get married. In many ways the same as demanding the right to marry a sixteen year old.
Someone who wanted to marry a sixteen year old girl, but couldn’t, would only need to make the same argument the gay rights progressives make: Change the law! If we are changing laws, why do gay rights progressives arbitrarily define some laws, such as those which limit marriage to men and women bad and in need of changing, and others, such as the legal age of consent being eighteen, sacrosanct and not open to question or change? There is no reason for this stance, apart from ones own personal opinion. Which means the gay rights leftist cannot claim any moral superiority. They are not one up!
Where Homosexual marriage will lead.
The advocates for gay marriage often state that when homosexuals are allowed to marry, that the sky won’t fall in, that heterosexual relationships will continue as normal and the world will not end. This line of argument is disingenuous, and mostly a ploy to try and steer discussion from legitimate concerns, by putting forward comical and absurd arguments as if they were characteristic of opposing views. This aside, there is truth that the world won’t end, and that two gay people being married in and of itself, won’t immediately cause chaos, but opponents of gay marriage have never stated that chaos would ensue the next day.
The problem isn’t whether homosexuals are married or not, but how society, and in particular, the vocal, intolerant and militant left will use this victory to further engineer society and conduct their war against traditional western values.
The sky will not fall in the day after gay marriage is legalised, and to be certain, even a year or two afterwards, there won’t be many ramifications. Predictably, the left will use this fact to say “See! They sky didn’t fall in! The bigots were worried about nothing”. But after a decade or two, the slow attack on western values will continue, with legalised gay marriage now a weapon in their arsenal of ideological bludgeons. We already are witnessing opponents of gay marriage having their means to make a living attacked by the militant Political Correctness Inquisitors. Professor Kuruvilla George, who was Victoria’s deputy chief psychiatrist resigned his position after the The Equal Opportunity Commission had received e-mails and phone calls in response to the Professors stand.i When its comes to the Politically Correct left, tolerance is a one way street.
Predictably, as per the leftist modus operandi, their attack will go like this. Firstly, after gay marriage has become not just a legal fact, but a realised fact, they will remind us that this is what marriage now is, a union between two people, not solely between a man and a women. With the inclusion of homosexual pairings into the definition of marriage, the battle will continue against heterosexual ideals of marriage, using the very fact that presently gays are married as an argument that marriage as a heterosexual institution is “outdated” and “obsolete”.
Witness the way that the left treat multiculturalism as a classic example of this very strategy in action. After having used the state as a means of implementing broader immigration policies, they then waited until multi-racialism became a fact, then proclaimed that Australian is multiracial. This is exactly the same tactic that was used in all other White nations, even when the indigenous population were White! It is not longer true to say that Australia is a nation of just white people, and they use this to argue against those who say it is, or should be. Likewise, when there are a number of homosexual married couples, the left will argue that marriage is not about the union of a man and women, precisely because there are married people who are of the same sex. Those who claim that marriage is between a man and a woman only, will not be told they are wrong, not because they don’t agree with their views, but because the fact that there are homosexuals who are married PROVES them wrong. Much in the same way, that if a German says that Germans are white, the progressive can point to all the Africans and Turks who are given German citizenship and use them as “proof” that the argument is incorrect.
This isn’t the goal, because this in itself wouldn’t be enough. As the progressive left always push for more and more, looking for the next push in our ‘evolution’, there will be further demands to be sure. After having destroyed the idea that marriage is a heterosexual arrangement by having exceptions to the rule, they will then look towards cultural representations of marriage.
Again, we can look towards multi-racialism as an example of where this has happened before, as living proof of the standard procedure in which they use moralistic causes as an attack against the West. With multiculturalism, or more accurately, multi-racialism, the progressive left pushed towards changing our culture, and even our history in order to accommodate the new “reality” they constructed. So we have Pakistanis depicted in medieval Britain, we have an Asian Snow White and Black Santa Claus. Portrayals of all white cultural scenes are now “racist”, and multi-racialism must be expressed where possible in order to reflect their society.
In the “Theology of Political Correctness, part 3″, it talks about the totalitarian nature of the Politically Correct progressive narrative, and this re-writing of history, this reinventing and retelling of old stories in order to add multiracial elements is how progressives seeks not only control over the present, but also demand that the past and future accord with their cultural narrative. We can then predictably expect a similar treatment of marriage. Now that marriage has been deemed to be inclusive of homosexual couples, it will only be a matter of time before it is demanded that cultural depictions of marriage now reflect the new “reality”. So stories, both present and past in which marriage features, will now be rewritten, reworked in order to include same sex marriage. It would be necessary to do this, in order to rework the West’s cultural and historical narrative to appear to support and to have always supported the progressives particular view of how society should be organised.
Legitimate Gay Marriage as an ideological weapon
It is here where the real threat lies. The issue in the gay marriage debate has not, and probably has never been about homosexual rights. The left have always used homosexuality as a weapon against the West, and it is probably true to say that the core protagonists in raising and pushing the gay marriage agenda don’t really care about marriage at all, though they might be gay themselves. After all, the left spent years, decades in trying to destroy marriage directly, and some today freely admit that gay marriage isn’t about gays, but an attempt to ruin the heterosexual institutions. Homosexuals being married in and of itself won’t do it, but gay marriage being a fact can be used in order to demand change to the way in which our media, our culture and even our history depicts marriage, in what ideals it conveys.
No longer will it be acceptable to just show heterosexual married couples, even if there was no intention to do this. As it is now, an all white cast, or an all white story invariably gets call of “racist” and is pronounced as “backwards”, “outdated” and the like, even if there was no deliberate intention to do so. Likewise, there will be similar accusations made against cultural depictions of marriage which just happen to be exclusively heterosexual. The progressives will demand that gay partnerships be portrayed to reflect reality, and will bully and try to marginalise and make acceptable solely traditional depictions of marriage. They will now have means to marginalise those who don’t portray their cultural narrative, it will be law.
This cultural distortion, where every fifth married couple is a happy, long lasting homosexual couple, will be portrayed as the norm. Heterosexual marriage will be often depicted only alongside successful homosexual marriages. Children will grow up with a weakened image of heterosexual marriage, and from here the social changes and issues will follow. As the overwhelming majority of children will naturally grow up heterosexual, they will be done a disservice by being portrayed a skewed image of the world, much in the same way they are currently being shown a skewed and distorted image of the world in which all non-white nations are homogeneous and happily so, but Western nations are all multicultural melting pots and happily so.
As to how successful this will all be in destroying the institution of family, marriage and heterosexuality as the dominant force shaping our society is debatable. Outlined above is how the progressives will attempt to use gay marriage, based upon their current practices regarding another “progressive” ideology, multi-racialism. But natural instincts are strong, and it isn’t a foregone conclusion that they will achieve their goals, but one mustn’t leave this to chance. Currently the far right are gaining ascendancy in Europe, and Multiculturalism is slowly being declared a “failure”. Their attempts to engineer the heterosexuality out of our culture may likely eventually lead to the same dismal, confused, conflict ridden and problematic state that multiculturalism has. The irony is that the strongest argument against Homosexual marriage isn’t Homosexuals, but the Liberal establishment, and its complete unworthiness in shaping our future.
