The Confused Politics of Homosexual Marriage

For a number of years supporters of homosexual marriage in Australia have been stating that opinion polls show most Australians are in favour of legalizing these marriages. Yet, at the same time, they have used every means at their disposal to prevent the Australian people from voting on this issue.  This is confusing.

At the last election, the Australian Federal Government promised to hold a plebiscite on this issue. However, supporters of homosexual marriage blocked the proposed plebiscite in the parliament. So to keep its promise, the government has had to resort to a postal survey instead. Homosexual supporters also tried to block this survey but failed. This is also confusing.

The Australian Federal Government has now initiated the postal survey in an effort to resolve this very controversial issue. The Australian people have been asked to answer one question which is “should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?” with a simple yes or no answer. However, because the postal survey is not compulsory what the outcome will be is unknown. But, nevertheless, homosexual marriage supporters are trying to convince people that the result will be a foregone conclusion in their favour. This is as perplexing as it is confusing.

In the lead up to the postal survey, the Federal Government have introduced temporary legislation to prevent people on either side of this issue from being intimidated, threatened or vilified. But, so far, it has been the supporters of homosexual marriage that have been doing this. Also, history tells us, that temporary legislation introduced by governments has a habit of becoming permanent.

Should the yes vote get over the line, a private member’s bill will be put before the Australian Parliament to amend the Marriage Act to include homosexual couples. I have no doubt that such a bill will be successful. But if the result is a no vote what then? Will supporters of homosexual marriage shut up and go home with their tails between their legs. Or will there be demonstrations and riots in the streets of our cities because they refuse to accept the will of the people. Unfortunately, I believe that the latter will be the case.

One of the arguments put forward by homosexual marriage supporters is that heterosexual marriage is “traditional.” However, I believe that neither church nor state invented or created marriage. Human beings are born with the natural instinct to form a long term bond with a member of the opposite sex to produce and rear children together. Children born into these unions are nurtured by both parents to adulthood and form a bond with them. This is natural not traditional.

I believe marriage laws simply reflect and protect this natural pair bonding of human males and females who wish to create their own biological family units. I also believe that the only traditional thing about marriage is the wedding ceremony be it religious or civil (state). For most people, this is the only input the church and state have in their marriages.

Supporters of homosexual marriage claim that legalization of homosexual marriage will not sent western civilization down a slippery slope to self destruction. I have to agree with this because I feel that western civilization began its descent down a slippery slope during the first half of the 20^th century.

The major armed conflicts of the 20^th century destroyed biological family units on a massive scale. Wives and mothers became widows and children were deprived of one or both biological parents. To fill the shortage of men caused by war, women entered the workforce en masse. Employers rewarded these hardworking women by paying them less than they would a man for doing the same job.

Single parenting became widespread and today is actively encouraged. We now have families where siblings have the same mother but different biological fathers. Some of these children will never know who their biological father is or his family history.

The end of World War Two in 1945 saw the start of the cold war between east and west. People had to cope with the genuine fear that, at any moment, they could be vaporized by a nuclear bomb.

Anti-establishment and anti-social groups began to appear and grow. This was also the dawn of the sexually promiscuous society with its unwanted pregnancies and back street abortions. These illegal abortions eventually created the lucrative ‘Planned Parenting’ abortion industry where children are sucked out of the womb and their organs harvested and sold.

The 1970’s saw the introduction of no fault divorce (walk in walk out marriage). Once again, children are deprived of the full time care of one (usually the father) of their biological parents.

The destruction of so many cooperative biological family units over the last hundred years has had a lasting negative effect on human social structure and society.  I was born in January 1941 and have lived through the social changes briefly outlined above. In my humble opinion, these social changes are the reason why we now live in a fragmented, volatile and drug fueled violent society.

Any further attacks on the natural biological family unit will not improve western civilization but take us further down the slippery slope to destruction.

As a final comment, I cannot shake the uneasy feeling that homosexuals are being used as unwitting dupes in a push to increase the separation of men from women and children from parents. This will further weaken the natural biological family unit and with it, change the cooperative nature of our society. If this is successful, the way will then be open to create a new world order. Where this will take western society is anybody’s guess.

aquarianmist