The Truth About Same Sex “Marriage”

The Spectator comes up with some unspoken truths about Same Sex “Marriage”

But it’s all about equality, right?

31 August 2017

7:28 AM

We are in the middle of a storm of misinformation as the plebiscite on same-sex marriage draws near. Who do we believe?

George Brandis, who tells us everything will be fine and that those who have religious objections have nothing to worry about? The Greens, who say that the majority of Aussies want to redefine marriage but don’t want us to vote in a plebiscite because they’re afraid that we the people will say something different to the social media Twitterati, or Bill Shorten, who claims that any disagreement with same-sex marriage would only unleash hate, vilification and bigotry?

Along with a huge proportion of the mainstream media, the leader of the opposition has been caught out in ‘stretching the truth’ with their inaccurate reporting of having personally witnessed homophobic posters that were supposed to have been plastered all over the streets of Melbourne recently. Network Ten, in particular, were exposed by the ABC’s Media Watch for, by their own admission, a “creative” presentation of the facts by intentionally doctoring images made to look like they were being prominently placed on bus stop shelters.

To be honest, I don’t believe any of them. However, there is one person I believe. And, interestingly, she comes from the Marriage Equality side: Marsha Gessen, a lesbian political activist.

Gessen really let the genie of deliberate public deception out of the bottle all the way back in 2012 when she told the Sydney Writer’s Festival:

Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there. Because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change. And that is a lie.

We should have woken up to the alarm bell then but here we are, five years later, and the campaign for marriage ‘equality’ is lying more than ever in at least three different ways.

First, they want to redefine what marriage is. Everyone assumes that they just want to get married like the rest of us. But for many homosexual people, lifelong sexual fidelity is neither a reality nor an ideal. For instance, the psychiatrist and physicist Jeffrey Satinover writes: “One of the most carefully researched studies of the most stable homosexual pairs, The Male Couple, was researched and written by two people who are themselves a homosexual couple – a psychiatrist and a psychologist. Its investigators found that of the 156 couples studied, only seven had maintained sexual fidelity; of the hundred couples that had been together for more than five years, none had been able to maintain sexual fidelity.”

Why not be honest then and admit that what the LGBTIQ community mean by the term ‘marriage’ is not what everyone else does? Why mess with a proven and trusted social institution and turn it into something else? So, if you want to vote “yes” in the upcoming plebiscite then just know that you’re not voting for an exclusive sexual commitment of ‘love’ as most people assume, but something altogether different to what marriage historically means.

Second, they lie about what redefining marriage means for the rest of society. For example, approximately 12 months after the referendum on same-sex marriage in Ireland religious exemptions that had previously been promised were suddenly withdrawn.

In the U.S. state of Massachusetts gay marriage has been legal since 2004. Almost fifteen years on and the effects are being felt in every sphere of the community; schools, businesses, the legal system, politics, adoption agencies, hospitals and churches. Not a single area of society is left untouched. But just take the example of adoption agencies for instance. Not only are 50 per cent of all adoptions in Massachusetts now to gay couples, but if you disagree with the LGBTIQ juggernaut then you are ruled ineligible and, as such, Christian adoption agencies have been forced to close.

What this means practically is not just the abolition of free thought but a 50 per cent increase in same-sex behaviour amongst children, invasive medical procedures for people to reshape their genitals and the transgender affirmative action of boys being able to use girl’s bathrooms as well as to participate on their sporting teams. But it’s all still about ‘equality’, right?

Just this past week across the pond, the New Zealand-based family organisation, Family First NZ, was served a notice by the national Charities Registration Board that it intends to deregister the organisation. The board says Family First’s promotion of its views about marriage and the traditional family “cannot be determined to be for the public benefit in a way previously accepted as charitable”.

What’s more, contrary to what the Australian Medical Association recently claimed (based on a single study, from a single clinic, in a single city in the U.S. 14 years ago), that redefining marriage improves “overall health outcomes among LGBTIQ populations” the reality is that this is patently false. For example, in an ultra-tolerant country like Sweden, the rate of suicide among same-sex married men, which is three times greater than heterosexual married men, remains unchanged even after the redefinition of marriage.

Finally, the “yes” campaign is lying most egregiously about whom marriage really affects. The biggest lie of all is that children will be unaffected. On the one hand, according to the UN it’s a child’s right to know and be raised by their biological father and mother, so any talk of discrimination has to first of all address this. That’s because having a child is not like getting a puppy! It’s a life-long commitment that affects the well-being of not just you and your spouse, but the little ones being raised in your home. This is something that people like Katy Faust and Millie Fontana who have been raised in same-sex households know all too well.

Closely connected to this is the whole issue of surrogacy, or what Aldous Huxley envisioned in Brave New World as The Department of Hatchery and Conditioning. We’re not as scientifically advanced or impersonal as Huxley suggested, but he was right in one thing – reproduction is now being separated from relationship. And the “yes” campaign is once again lying about what those consequences will be. As Caroline Norma, herself a lesbian, wrote just last year, “Whether or not the campaign is ultimately about advancing the cause of easier access to surrogacy and expanded types of reproductive technologies is a question the equality movement leaves unanswered.”

Politicians such as Christopher Pyne and Penny Wong are assuring us that nothing at all will change if we redefine marriage: “The sun will still rise, and children will still eat more ice cream than is good for them.” But that’s just another ‘pork pie.’ Redefining marriage changes everything. The evidence from overseas unequivocally proves it.

What really stinks is that there are people on both sides of parliament who know it, but are lying to our faces.

Mark Powell is the Associate Pastor of Cornerstone Presbyterian Church, Strathfield. 

Advertisements

Another Brazen Lie By The Media About Same Sex “Marriage”

There used to be an expectation that the media were there to provide information. But in the post-truth era there is no such expectation as the media just keep on pushing their favourite causes.

Bill Muehlenberg writes:

Marriage Wars: Truth Tellers vs MSM Deception
Aug 28, 2017
This is a tale of two groups – those who value truth and facts as they defend the institution of marriage, and those who merrily push falsehoods, lies and deception as they promote their radical agenda to destroy marriage. And as is so often the case, it is a David vs Goliath struggle.

In this case we have one or two folks daring to discover the truth and speak the truth vs all the money and manpower of the mainstream media and the organised left. Just one man seeking truth can help topple the lies of many, and in this case I am proud to say I know well the individuals involved in this case of truth telling vs entrenched falsehoods.

And this is a story that keeps on giving – every day new revelations emerge about just how immoral, deceptive and careless with the truth the secular left and its media allies are. And all because one brave soul first decided not to buy the propaganda of the MSM, but do a little bit of digging for himself.

Read the full article, including the role of Ten in providing their extra fake news, here

Bill Muehlenberg: Homosexuals Against Homosexual Marriage

Bill Muehlenberg writes:

Homosexuals Against Homosexual Marriage

Aug 23, 2017

Yesterday I penned a piece quoting from a number of Australian homosexuals who have voiced their opposition to homosexual marriage. Why write such an article? It is pretty obvious: this is the sort of information the mainstream media and the pro-homosexual lobby does NOT want to get out into the public arena.

They want you to believe that not only every homosexual just can’t wait to have homosexual marriage legalised, but that everyone plus their dog wants it too. This is all part of the narrative of the activists: lie through your teeth loud enough and often enough, and eventually folks will start to believe you.

Since the other side plays fast and loose with the truth, I and others will proffer some facts and some truth here, even if it results in even more hate, derision and censorship. Just as plenty of debate about homosexual marriage has taken place among Australian homosexuals, so too elsewhere.

In North America for example, many homosexuals have expressed their disinterest in marriage. In fact, there are many homosexual organisations which are fiercely opposed to the concept of same-sex marriage. As one example, consider the US-based group, Against Equality. They are quite explicit in their aims:

“Against Equality is an online archive, publishing, and arts collective focused on critiquing mainstream gay and lesbian politics. As queer thinkers, writers and artists, we are committed to dislodging the centrality of equality rhetoric and challenging the demand for inclusion in the institution of marriage.”

Also, when Ontario legalised same-sex marriage in 2003, there was not exactly a huge rush of Canadian homosexual couples to the altar. Indeed, the New York Times was so intrigued with this fact that it did a major story on it. Here is one excerpt from that article:

When David Andrew, a forty-one-year-old federal government employee, heard that the highest Ontario court had extended marriage rights to same-sex couples … he broke into a sweat. “I was dreading the conversation,” he said, fearing that his partner would feel jilted when he told him that he did not believe in the institution. “Personally, I saw marriage as a dumbing down of gay relationships. My dread is that soon you will have a complacent bloc of gay and lesbian soccer moms.”

The article also cites Rinaldo Walcott, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, who shared his worries about getting on board the heterosexual marriage bandwagon: “I can already hear folks saying things like: `Why are bathhouses needed? Straights don’t have them’. Will queers now have to live with the heterosexual forms of guilt associated with something called cheating?”

Another telling comment comes from a Toronto homosexual magazine editor who said, “Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ‘till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.”

In an editorial in an American homosexual magazine, Jim Rinnert says of SSM: “I’m against it”. He writes, in part:

Gay marriage strikes me as, first and foremost, just another way to show the straights that we’re the same as them, that we’re as “normal” as the heterosexuals with whom we share the planet and thereby are worthy of acceptance into their clubs. Well, without getting into a discourse on the social function of homosexuality in cultures ancient and modern, let me just assert that, guess what—we’re not the same. We’re different. Rather than try to paint heterosexual stripes on our pelts, let’s examine, explore and celebrate our different coloration.

Noted Irish political commentator and homosexual, Richard Waghorne, has also weighed into the debate, arguing that homosexuals should leave marriage alone. He said, “Actually, gay people should defend the traditional understanding of marriage as strongly as everyone else. Given that it is being undermined in the name of gay people, with consequences for future generations, it is all the more important that gay people who are opposed to gay marriage speak up.”

He especially made his case on the well-being of children, and how they deserve a mother and a father, something which same-sex marriage can obviously never provide them. Thus he says homosexual marriage “is not only unnecessary, but verges on selfishness”.

All these stories – and more – are found in my book Strained Relations with full documentation. Indeed, with over 700 footnotes, it is one of those books the other side has been doing its best to pretend does not exist. But there are plenty more examples of homosexuals telling us to say ‘no’ to homosexual marriage. Here are some others.

Doug Mainwaring is one homosexual leader who has demonstrated some hard-headed honesty. His article, “I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage,” is well worth quoting from:

The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely. Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to ‘old-fashioned’ religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have….
There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch ‘deprivation’ on their hearts.

He continues,

Here’s a very sad fact of life that never gets portrayed on Glee or Modern Family: I find that men I know who have left their wives as they’ve come out of the closet often lead diminished, and in some cases nearly bankrupt, lives—socially, familially, emotionally, and intellectually.
They adjust their entire view of the world and their role within it in order to accommodate what has become the dominant aspect of their lives: their homosexuality. In doing so, they trade rich lives for one-dimensional lives. Yet this is what our post-modern world has taught us to do. I went along with it for a long while, but slowly turned back when I witnessed my life shrinking and not growing.

His conclusion needs to be shouted from the rooftops: “Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.”

Consider also two Irish homosexuals, Keith Mills and Paddy Manning. They have a very important 4-minute video on why they are against homosexual marriage. Please watch it and share it widely: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6HD8KLQBvA&feature=youtu.be

They remind us about this fundamental truth: “Marriage is, at its heart, about children and providing those children with their biological parents. Recognising difference is not discrimination.” Yet I have folks attack me for even daring to promote this short clip. One even said, “This video is stupid, bigoted, hateful and hurtful.” Good grief!

Another fellow, a 30-year-old gay man, has penned a piece also opposing homosexual marriage. He begins:

I can’t seem to bring myself to celebrate the triumph of same-sex marriage. Deep down, I know that every American, gay or straight, has suffered a great loss because of this.
I’m not alone in thinking this. The big secret in the LGBT community is that there are a significant number of gays and lesbians who oppose same-sex marriage, and an even larger number who are ambivalent. You don’t hear us speak out because gay rights activists (most of whom are straight) have a history of viciously stamping out any trace of individualism within the gay community. I asked to publish this article under a pseudonym, not because I fear harassment from Christian conservatives, but because I know this article will make me a target of the Gaystapo.

He continues:

The wheels of my Pride Parade float came off the moment I realized that the argument in support of gay marriage is predicated on one audaciously bald-faced lie: the lie that same-sex relationships are inherently equal to heterosexual relationships. It only takes a moment of objective thought to realize that the union of two men or two women is a drastically different arrangement than the union of a man and a woman. It’s about time we realize this very basic truth and stop pretending that all relationships are created equal.
This inherent inequality is often overlooked by same-sex marriage advocates because they lack a fundamental understanding of what marriage actually is. It seems as though most people view marriage as little more than a love contract. Two people fall in love, agree to stick together (for a while, at least), then sign on the dotted line. If marriage is just a love contract, then surely same-sex couples should be allowed to participate in this institution. After all, two men or two women are capable of loving each other just as well as a man and a woman.
But this vapid understanding of marriage leaves many questions unanswered. If marriage is little more than a love contract, why do we need government to get involved? Why was government invited to regulate marriages but not other interpersonal relationships, like friendships? Why does every religion hold marriage to be a sacred and divine institution? Surely marriage must be more than just a love contract….
Marriage is often correctly viewed as an institution deeply rooted in religious tradition. But people sometimes forget that marriage is also based in science. When a heterosexual couple has sex, a biological reaction can occur that results in a new human life.
Government got into the marriage business to ensure that these new lives are created in a responsible manner. This capacity for creating new life is what makes marriage special. No matter how much we try, same-sex couples will never be able to create a new life. If you find that level of inequality offensive, take it up with Mother Nature. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples relegates this once noble institution to nothing more than a lousy love contract. This harms all of society by turning marriage, the bedrock of society, into a meaningless anachronism.

He concludes:

At its core, the institution of marriage is all about creating and sustaining families. Over thousands of years of human civilization, the brightest minds have been unable to come up with a successful alternative. Yet in our hubris we assume we know better. Americans need to realize that same-sex relationships will never be equal to traditional marriages. You know what? I’m okay with that.

It is always refreshing and encouraging to find homosexuals who will show a bit of honesty here. They are willing to say what needs to be said, despite all the hatred and abuse that inevitably follows. And they know the fundamental truth about marriage: it is all about the children.

But for daring to share these basic truths, these homosexuals have been on the receiving end of plenty from the ‘love and tolerance’ brigade. As I asked in my companion piece to this one: If a homosexual opposes homosexual marriage, does that make him a hateful, bigoted homophobe?

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/
thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/im-gay-and-i-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

You Can’t Do Heavy Industry On Renewables

Maybe the Green-Left Collective is starting to wake up to the fact that even in a post-truth age, you can’t just pretend that wind and solar can replace thermal power without affecting the whole economy.

 

Jo Nova writes:

Matt Howell, the CEO of Tomago Aluminium Smelter, told a few home truths on ABC radio Monday.

To paraphrase in my own words:

1. Aluminium Smelters gobble electrons for breakfast. His smelter uses 10% of  the entire electricity supply of the most populous state in Australia (NSW).

2. If power goes out without warning for more than three hours, the smelter pot lines freeze, permanently. The company goes to the wall.

3. The largest battery in the world would keep their smelter going for all of 8 minutes. There is a good reason there are no solar or wind powered aluminium smelters anywhere in the world.

4. The government can ‘t let the market solve anything whilst it is simultaneously destroying the free market by propping up the market failures at the same time.

5. Electricity pricing has suddenly gotveryugly. Their electricity bill may now be subject to price spikes where it could cost them $4 million just to keep one pot line running during that spike. It is as if suddenly gas stations only sold $400 per Litre petrol. (Which would be$1800/per gallon).  What he doesn’t say, but which logically follows from that, is thatheavy industry in most of Australia can no longer get reliable electricity at an affordable price, even with forward contracts. Cry, scream, run with your factory.

6. In Australia, if we achieve “zero coal” we will also achieve “zero heavy manufacturing”.

7. If we want heavy industry, we need a HELE Coal plant. There are hundreds being built around the world, and we are selling our coal to them. How crazy are we?

Howell makes some great points. It’s good to see an ABC presenter willing to let the evil capitalists speak. Well done Matt Wordsworth. I found something worth listening to on the ABC this year.

 

Read the rest of the article, including the link to the interview here

THE DOMINO EFFECT: FIRST MARRIAGE, THEN GENDER AND SEX WILL ALL FALL

Repeat after me: “There is no slippery slope”

Marriage-Alliance-Australia-Marriage-Gender-Sex.jpg

From The Marriage Alliance comes this warning.

 

THE DOMINO EFFECT: FIRST MARRIAGE, THEN GENDER AND SEX WILL ALL FALL

 

In an extraordinary admission, the UK’s “Government Equalities Office” confirmed that the changing of gender legally at whim, with the mere filing of a form, builds on the “progress” made with the redefinition of marriage.

In a joint media release, the Equalities Office and the Minister for Equalities declared that: 

Since Parliament voted for the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967, there has been significant progress on LGBT equality. In 2013 the law was changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. Earlier this year, Turing’s Law was passed, posthumously pardoning men who had sex with men for these now abolished offences. And the recent election saw the highest number of openly lesbian, gay and bisexual MPs voted into Parliament. Today’s announcement looks to build on this progress.

In a near-Orwellian development, enabling individuals to change their gender on their birth certificate at a snap of their fingers is being considered as “progress”: 

Proposals to streamline and de-medicalise the process for changing gender will be part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition, the Gender Recognition Act.

 

The consultation on the Gender Recognition Act, to be published in the Autumn, will look to improve the recognition process and reduce the stigma faced by the trans community. Proposals will include:

  • Removing the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being able to apply for gender recognition. The current need to be assessed and diagnosed by clinicians is seen as an intrusive requirement by the trans community; and
  • Proposing options for reducing the length and intrusiveness of the gender recognition system. 

It really is incredible: the UK is digging itself a politically-correct hole so deep, that they have reached a point where “facts” and “medical precautions” are now considered “offensive” – even though Britain was one of the spearheads in the whole transgender movement:

Britain became one of the first countries to legally recognise people who wanted to change gender without surgery in 2004 with the Gender Recognition Act. However in the years that have followed a series of barriers to changing gender have frustrated those who want to make the switch. One is the need to prove they have been in transition for at least two years before they can legally apply to become the other sex.

The other is the medical checks needed. Currently people need to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria before being allowed to make legally change sex.  Campaigners said the tests – which involve seeing a panel of doctors – is embarrassing and intrusive, noting it should be a decision for the individuals.

As stated above, changing one’s registered gender has been possible in the UK for several years. Apparently though, it is not enough to be possible – it has to be super easy, otherwise, LGBTI individuals won’t have ‘sufficient rights’:

Up to now, it was already possible to change your sex in government records, but it was a laborious process. A doctor had to diagnose gender dysphoria and the person had to be living in the chosen gender for two years. Under the new legislation all that will be needed, it seems, will be a rubber stamp. No hormones; no surgery; just an uncomfortable feeling inside that things are not quite right. 

Instead of requiring individuals to seek medical expertise to determine if they truly have gender dysphoria, all they need to do is sign a form.  

Minister for Women and Equalities, Justine Greening, had no qualms voicing her support for the measure

This government is committed to building an inclusive society that works for everyone, no matter what their gender or sexuality and today we’re taking the next step forward.

We will build on the significant progress we have made over the past 50 years, tackling some of the historic prejudices that still persist in our laws and giving LGBT people a real say on the issues affecting them.

However, Ms Greening’s own words show that she is either blatantly ignoring, or entirely ignorant regarding the importance of gender with regards to the LGBTI community.

“What we want to try to do is streamline the process, make it easier, demedicalise it and make it less intrusive,” says Ms Greening.  A study with her proposals will be published later in the years. She recently told the media that society needed “to “stop treating people changing their gender as if it’s some medical problem that needs fixing. Actually this is a choice that people are making and we need to try and make that choice more straightforward than it already is.”

For years – nay, decades – the transgender lobby has been telling us that ‘gender dysphoria’ is an innate condition, not a choice. Now they are backtracking from, not progressing their own statements.

Redefining gender is part and parcel of redefining marriage.  Neither further the progress of anyone’s rights – it creates utter chaos. Think about it: enabling people to change their gender renders biological sex meaningless. Without gender, there is no need for “same-sex” in same-sex marriage – because apparently, a person can switch between either genders without undergoing any type of alterations.

Going further, changing “sex” to something based entirely on preferences (e.g. what gender do I want to list on my birth certificate?) abolishes any “special” status or traits of the LGBTI community. Without preconceived, concrete definitions of biological gender, there is no basis for distinguishing amongst lesbian, gay men, heterosexuals, or heck, even transgender!

All of this has been clearly pointed out by articulate critics of this newest UK kowtow to radical gender reform:

Critics warned that allowing people to effectively “self-identify” as a member of the opposite sex, while maintaining the anatomy of their birth gender, would unleash a firestorm of legal cases over access to women-only hospital wards, prisons, lavatories, changing rooms and competitive sports.

Gender and sex both depend on the definition of marriage. Wherever marriage is redefined without its one man, one woman definition, we clearly see societies abandoning their definition of gender, making sex entirely based on preferences. It is not freedom – it is utter chaos. 

The outright insanity plaguing the UK may seem thousands of miles away, but this is an illusion: any country considering redefining marriage placing themselves in jeopardy of falling to the same chaotic level. 

There is no beating about the bush: redefining marriage brings a torrent of consequences. The traditional definition of marriage is essential to societal perception – and treatment – of gender and sex. If a country is truly considering messing with this foundational institution, then it must be a decision made by ALL citizens.