Hello to everyone out there in blog land
Now that the push by homosexual lobby groups in Australia for same sex marriage is gaining momentum, I feel the need to express my views on this issue. Although I may be a lone voice of opposition crying out in the wilderness, I still wish to exercise my right to express an opinion on this contentious issue.
As I see it, same sex marriage is not a moral, religious or political issue. Nor are there any discriminatory, human rights or equality issues involved. Put simply, same sex marriage was a non issue that has been turned into a political football by homosexual lobby groups, using a basket of red herrings, to put pressure on the current minority government in the Federal Parliament of Australia to get what they want.
Red herring number one is gay pride.
Being gay has absolutely nothing to do with being homosexual. Depending on the dictionary used, being gay means to be lighthearted and carefree. This is a mood or feeling not a sexual activity. Therefore, anyone can be gay in the true meaning of the word. If homosexuals are so proud of what the are, why did they hijack a perfectly innocent word and corrupt its meaning to describe themselves. After all, heterosexuals are simply heterosexuals and I don’t see being so is a matter for pride because it is simply the way nature intended us to be. Conclusion: there is no such as gay pride.
Red herring number two is homophobia.
Homophobia is a word invented by homosexuals to describe anyone who disagrees with their push for same sex marriage. Homophobia is made up of two words; homo: meaning a genius of hominids including modern man and phobia: meaning abnormal intense and irrational fear of a given situation, organism or object. Put simply, to be homophobic is to suffer from an abnormal, intense and irrational fear of one’s own species irrespective of gender. Conclusion: if there is such a condition as homophobia there must also be the condition of hetero-phobia: an abnormal intense and irrational fear of the opposite sex.
Red herring number three is gay rights.
Under Article 2 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, homosexuals have the same human rights as everyone else. But, is being homosexual or heterosexual a human right or simply a human condition? In other words, does Article 2 make homosexuality or heterosexuality a human right? As stated above, being gay is as mood or feeling not a sexual activity and if being gay in this context was a human right, what a wonderful world it would be. Conclusion: there is no such thing as homosexual (gay) rights.
Red herring number four is discrimination.
Up until the 1970’s homosexual sex acts were a crime. This made homosexuals vulnerable to arrest, criminal charges, court appearances and punishment. During the cold war era, this vulnerability was exploited by both sides and homosexuals were deliberately targeted, compromised and blackmailed into spying against their own country. This may have been the rationale behind the discriminatory policy of not allowing homosexuals to be employed in government agencies or serve in the military. However, at the height the cold war period, homosexual sex acts were decriminalised . This paved the way for discriminatory policies to be removed. Today homosexuals serve openly in parliament, in the judiciary, in government agencies and the military without fear of discrimination. Conclusion: homosexuals are no longer discriminated against.
Red herring number five is marriage equality.
This is the biggest red herring in the basket and will be difficult to refute without offending and upsetting our homosexual brethren. Homosexual lobby groups claim that religious institutions and governments should not define, morally or legally, what a family unit should be made up of and they are absolutely right. Yet this is exactly what homosexuals want government to do by changing marriage legislation. In my view, marriage equality means: no mater what social status a marriage partner has outside the marriage, neither partner should try to dominate the other. In other words, equality of the sexes in marriage.
To further refute the validity of homosexual claims for marriage equality, one has to go back in time to the early stages of human development. Whether one is a creationist or an evolutionist is irrelevant. This is because it was mother nature who determined that, for mammals (including homo sapiens); copulation for procreation was to be between adult males and females. Because human offspring take up to twenty years to reach maturity, Mother Nature also gave our species the ability to form long term (monogamous pair bond) relationships to ensure our offspring survived to maturity. But the story did not end there; Mother Nature also gave our species a special gift that enables us to engage in sexual activity solely for pleasure as a means of cementing and maintaining these long term bonds. This pair bonding is explained in the book ‘The Naked Ape’ by Zoologist Desmond Morris (Della Publishing, New York 1967). Over many thousands of years, as human settlements and communities grew and became more complex, these long term bonds became formalised, stylised, ritualised, politicised and institutionalised into what are now modern marriage bonds.
Unfortunately, Mother Nature is not perfect and genetic defects (physical and mental) appear from time to time in most species on this planet. This is a hard fact of life on Mother Earth. With our species it is generally accepted that the brain is our biggest sex organ. When two people of the opposite sex are in an intimate situation, their sensory organs send signals to the sexual receptors in the brain that trigger physical sexual arousal. So why are two people of the same sex sexually attracted to each other and become aroused? Is it caused by a genetic disorder or a chemical/hormonal imbalance in the brain? In other words, are the sexual receptors in the brains of homosexuals malfunctioning? If this is the case then homosexuals are suffering a form of sexual dysfunction and should be treated as such.
Is same sex marriage the answer? The objective answer is no. Giving legal sanction for one man to marry another will enshrine, in marriage, the unnatural bonding of two males for sexual gratification. Following decriminalisation of homosexual sex acts, the anal penetration of men and the anal penetration and double penetration of women has proliferated in the pornography industry. I believe that this is demeaning to all those who produce and consume this type of pornography because it can hardly be classified as erotic. There also appears to be some serious health risks associated with this form of sexual activity. Was it coincidental that the first major outbreak of the HIV/AIDS virus was within the homosexual community in San Francisco; or was it a warning from Mother Nature that this unnatural form of sex is dangerous to our health? This insidious virus has changed the way medical services are delivered and brought about the need to protect ourselves by using safe sex practices. Is this the sexual legacy we want to pass on to future generations?
Given the loss of human life due to HIV/AIDS and the financial cost of research to find a cure, perhaps it is time for a radical re-think about this issue. In the age of genetics, DNA, stem cell research etc, surely in-depth research can be initiated to locate and isolate the area of the brain where sexual arousal is triggered so that this type of sexual dysfunction can be treated. Surely this will be a better solution than allowing politicians to pander to the egos and whims of homosexuals to secure their minority (gay) vote.
Why should politicians be allowed a conscience vote on the issue? Given the conflict of interest should homosexual politicians be allowed to vote on this issue? I believe the government should seek a mandate from the people in a referendum in keeping with the democratic principles of Australia.
It is my hope that this post will generate some objective debate on this issue rather than subjective name calling and I invite comments from both sides of the sexual divide.
Personally, I believe that the human female is the most delightful loving and caring creature on the planet and sharing a long term relationship with a woman is one of the great joys of living. I could not imagine living my life without such a relationship and I feel sad for those men who are unable to do so through no fault of their own making.