Recognising the ridiculous

Exasperated Australians living across this wide, bronzed land are once again putting up with Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

She is otherwise known as the ‘Worst Senator Ever to have (Dis)graced Australia’s Red Chamber’. And considering the competition for that role, that’s saying something.

Sarah is once again taking the bedroom antics of gay and lesbian people into the nation’s parliament. Between that and scowling, it’s about all she ever does.

Hanson Young

See.

This time, the South Australian Senator who gives all South Australians a bad name by mere association wants our nation to recognise all and any ‘marriages’ that are conducted overseas.

In fact, this is what the ‘General Outline’ of her Explanatory Memorandum to her Recognition of Foreign Marriages Bill 2014 states:

“The Recognition of Foreign Marriages Bill 2014 amends the Marriage Act 1961 to ensure that marriages that are validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised under the laws of Australia.”

Upon reading that, one would be forgiven for thinking that Hanson-Young wants our country to recognise polygamous marriages, child marriages, incestuous marriages, lesbian throuplets and any other form of weirdness that any other government overseas is willing sanction.

Of course, we all know that this is where ‘marriage equality’ is headed.

I guess the Senator thinks that every form of relationship is super.

And just like it is always possible with the ridiculous, this can be refuted with the wisdom of a children’s movie.

When everyone is super, no one is.

On a side note, was Sarah Hanson-Young the bad guy in The Incredibles? I might need to do a little research into that…

Anyway, back to the Senator’s Bill. Sane people still have two days in which to send through a submission opposing the recognition of the ridiculous. If you don’t want to go through the rigmarole of logging into the parliamentary website and uploading you own submission, please sign this petition organised by the Australian Christian Lobby.

However, if you want some ideas to add into a submission of your own, I have outlined just five of the many good reasons to oppose Sarah Hanson-Young’s backdoor Bill to homosexual marriage below.

1. Same-sex marriage is impossible because homosexuals can’t have sex and neither can lesbians

Despite popular assertions in esteemed publications like Cleo, marriage is about sex.

And this might come as a surprise for those who have endured the modern education system, but for sex to happen you need a male and a female.

It is simply not possible for people of the same sex to have sex. If you think about it, I’m sure I won’t need to draw you a picture. That means whatever homosexuals and lesbians get up to, it is not sex.

Previously, sex was known as the marriage act. Unfortunately, in today’s bureaucratic and soul-destroying society, the marriage act now refers to something that politicians passed in 1961.

I’m not sure anyone would agree that is an improvement.

And now Sarah Hanson-Young wants the marriage act to be ‘meh, whatever floats your boat’. It is a meaningless definition that renders marriage meaningless as well. And if marriage is meaningless it becomes pointless. And we all must ask the question then: why does a South Australian Senator want to waste Federal parliament’s time legislating something pointless?

The answer to that is simple. Sarah’s plan is not to recognise marriage ‘equality’ but to destroy the concept of marriage altogether. And that is reason number one why Senator Hanson-Young’s Bill should be opposed.

2. Same-sex marriage is impossible because homosexuals can’t make children and neither can lesbians.

Governments got into the game of recognising marriage for a reason. And it wasn’t so that everyone could feel warm and fuzzy about a having a bureaucracy so enmeshed in their lives that they received government certificates because they managed to get lucky.

It was because governments recognised that marriages not only produce children, but are the best places to raise them. And well raised children are the best things for any state that wishes to have a future.

If government recognition of marriage is not about kids and assisting families so that they raise them well, then government recognition of marriage merely becomes about recognising bedroom jollies. Again, it’s rather pointless.

And as I keep hearing from the illogical lads and ladettes at LGBTIandwhateverelseyouwanttothrowin HQ, the government has no place in the bedroom.

If that’s the case, then we should just bin Sarah Hanson-Young’s Bill and get on with life. But the government does have a role to play in the bedroom. That’s why it outlaws things like rape and assists those who use the life-creating power of sex with their task of raising children.

As it is impossible for homosexuals to create children, just as it is for lesbians, recognising whatever they ‘do’ as marriage actually destroys government respect for the power to create life. And that is reason number two why Senator Hanson-Young’s Bill should be opposed.

3. Same-sex relationships do not create families but destroy them

There is no honest person who honestly believes that it is great that they do not know their parents, or that they are dead, or that they do not speak with them.

Honest people lament these circumstances. They might say something like, “Gee whiz, it’s sad that Bill’s parents died in a car crash, but John and Sue will provide a good home.”

But that is not saying it’s great that Bill is an orphan. It’s simply stating that John and Sue have sacrificed to make the best of a bad situation. They have picked up, as best they can, the pieces of a broken home.

And honest people would say that is not ideal for children to grow up without their biological parents.

This means that homosexuals and lesbian couples cannot meet the best needs of children. One of these relationships has no mother. The other has no father. And in many cases, they have neither. It is impossible for any same-sex couple to be the biological parents of a child. And it is also impossible for them adopt a child and raise them in a home that allows them to understand both sexes. Same-sex relationships are inherently the most sexist relationships possible.

Children in these relationships are either dragged in from a broken home and placed in a situation where they will never see a loving interaction between the sexes, or they are deliberately created so that they will never live with their biological parents. In doing so, same-sex parents necessarily turn these children into a commodity.

Every same-sex couple with children has been involved in destroying a child’s chance to live in a natural family. There is simply no getting around this damning statistical fact. They do not deserve recognition from the government, but rather its condemnation. And that is reason number three why Senator Hanson-Young’s Bill should be opposed.

4. Recognising foreign homosexual and lesbian marriages is a subversion of Australian culture and law

Senator Hanson-Young’s Bill seeks to have the Australian government recognise foreign relationships that do not have support in this country. Australians were given a clear choice at the last election and we voted overwhelmingly against parties and candidates that support homosexual marriage.

As such, this Bill is nothing more than an attempt to subvert the extant culture that Australians have shown great desire to protect.

Furthermore it would render the Marriage Act 1961 a hypocritical and ambiguous law.

Simultaneously, it would recognise and prohibit same-sex marriage. As such, this Bill is nothing more than a sneaky and subversive way to bring homosexual marriage into Australia by the back door.

And that is reason number four why Senator Hanson-Young’s Bill should be opposed.

5. Recognising foreign marriages opens the way to polygamy, incest and child marriage.

There are all sorts of crazy governments with crazy laws out there. Australians are generally supportive of efforts to keep those crazy laws at arm’s length.

Some of these governments allow child marriage. Some of them allow polygamy. And some of them allow incest.

If Senator Hanson-Young’s Bill is passed, there is no logical reason why these relationships should not also be recognised. In fact, it would set a strong precedent for growing minority groups to pressure for these marriages to receive state approval too.

And let’s face it. The Islamic population is probably already larger than the homosexual and lesbian community in this nation. And if it isn’t, it soon will be. There can be no doubt that they will want to redefine marriage laws in their own image.

Islamic teaching allows things like marrying your cousin. It even allows you to marry your cousin when she turns nine. In fact, it also allows you to marry a whole bunch of cousins once they turn nine.

If the parliament believes it has the power to redefine marriage into whatever it wants, there is no reason at all why the passage of this Bill will not also lead to calls to recognise Sharia-compliant marriages overseas and eventually in Australia too.

And that is reason number five why Senator Hanson-Young’s Bill should be opposed.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On

63 Comments

  1. Yes, let’s put this to a referendum, but on one condition. If the vote goes against same-sex marriage, then the issue CANNOT be raised in any way shape or form for a decade.

    Post a Reply
    • Michael,
      We should never forget that even if idiots are in the majority in Australia, no referendum can ever change God’s laws – or over-rule a Sacrament of God’s Church.

      Post a Reply
  2. In reply to Patrick Gaynor [above] ” … Split parents is not the ideal situation for raising children. Unfortunately its the case with most children today …”

    “most children”? Indeed, ” … Couple families (where the children are the natural or adopted children of both parents), though, are still the most common type of family with children under 18 years. In 2006-07 they made up 73% of all families with children under 18 … ” gives a more balanced picture of our community. [ref. Federal “Families in Australia: 08” Report].

    Let’s not undersell the significant majority of parents and kids who are doing their best to “keep it together”.

    Post a Reply
    • Gerard,
      We must remember that “couple families” are definitely not the same as married couples. For instance, divorced and legally remarried couples are really in an adulterous relationship as Mark Chapter 10 reminds us:
      “7For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother; and shall cleave to his wife. 8And they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. 9What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.10And in the house again his disciples asked him concerning the same thing. 11And he saith to them: Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”

      Post a Reply
  3. In the former easrtern European communist countries what people hated most was the lie. This is what so-called same sex marriage is a legal fiction created by government and judges and Bernard is correct to call it out as such. All of the reasoning put forward to present a logical basis for it is based on misrepresentation and it is not hatred to speak the truth and that is another misrepresentation. Bernard’s blog is a miniscule response to the flood of falsities consistently being put forward by the mainstream media and people in positions of influence like this senator and it is somewhat dubious to imply that if Bernard didn’t have this blog then LGBTIQ suicide rates would drop.

    LGBTIQ people know it is like to live the lie and would suffer from doing so but then decided, with the coming out movement, to stop living the lie and be honest about their life, rather than having to pretend that their life was the same as straight. But they have tired of doing this and now they want society as a whole to live the lie instead of the truth about what is in society’s best interests, i.e. on ongoing future as a functional society. LGBTIQ people benefit from this as much as straight people. For people whose sexual behaviour is inherently sterile and hence disconnected from the future can of course place little value on that future and do, but they should not emotionally manipulate and guilt society into placing their interests above those of society as a whole. Just as living the lie was too much for LGBTIQ people in too many cases and the self destructed so too will society self destruct from living a lie concerning the engine room of its future.

    However the concept of same-sex so-called marriage hasn’t come about from the LGBTIQ campaign so much as a collapse in commitment to children and marriage among heterosexuals who in droves have abandoned the concept of ‘living in sin’ which was always part of the concept of marriage, its converse so to speak, and taken to the idea of using contraception to avoid children – and the usual lifestyle path is first sexual intercourse, then children, then marriage (if at all) and then no fault divorce.

    That people can talk about same sex ‘marriage’ is a consequence or symptom of this collapse rather than its cause.

    Post a Reply
    • Oswald – you’ve hit the nail on the head. Gay marriage is only a serious proposition by virtue of the fact that society no longer takes marriage seriously at all.

      Post a Reply
      • Basically Bernard, yes. Gay ‘marriage’ isn’t an extension of marriage so much as an extension of the anti-marriage developments which have been underway for some decades now. In that sense it isn’t so ridiculous but a somewhat logical progression.

  4. Dear Burnie, please cease and desist all of your vacuous vitriol… Whilst you are fully able to have your own opinion and perhaps expressing same you must realise that your actions have consequences … These consequences are a rise in hatred for us and also a rise in suicide rates etc… If you feel you served your country to do that you are as sad as the jihadists… Someone should pray for your ignorance and you should pray for your own guidance too …
    yours very sincerely
    Rachel Gilmore…

    Post a Reply
    • Dear Raechl, please cease and desist all your venom and hatred. Whilst you have your opinion, you must realise your hateful actions have consequences. These include attacks of all sorts on those who share Bernard’s beliefs and values – attacks which, in many respects, are as dangerous for this country as those of jihadists and others who hate the Christian foundations upon which our society was built. Please pray that your ignorance may be cured and that you will receive the guidance you sorely need. Yours very sincerely, Jim from Boomba.

      Post a Reply
  5. Are we opposed to sodomites getting married? Of course not. If sodomites will stop bending over and backing up into other men, seek treatment for their disorder (especially through recourse to the Sacrament of Penance) and once completely cured, can find a suitable wife, then yes, they could get married.

    Post a Reply
  6. Excellent article, Bernard.
    I believe the only way to resolve the issue of whether the majority of Australians approve of the introduction of same-sex “marriage” (it can never be true marriage) is to have a referendum. This will not happen, because the homosexual lobby is happy just to have rigged poll results. They are terrified of what they know will happen in a referendum – the outright rejection of same-sex “marriage”, which they know in their hearts is unnatural, immoral and a perversion of true man-woman marriage.

    Post a Reply
  7. Sodomy is still a criminal offense in many African countries. Legalising homosexual marriages would be unthinkable in many of these regions. So who are the uneducated, savage “kaffirs” today – civilized black Africans or pro-sodomy, pro-abortion white Australians???

    Post a Reply
    • Rory you should consult your bible with regards the sins of sodom see Ezekiel 16:49

      Post a Reply
      • Genesis 19: “Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”.

        Of all the mortal sins, the Catholic Church lists 4 that are so evil that they cry out for God’s vengeance: one of these is sodomy.

  8. Well bugger me, that’s interesting.

    Post a Reply
  9. It never ceases to amaze me how this sad excuse for a politician, sprouts such untruths, endless exaggerations and continually opens her mouth to make the last stupid comment fade into insignificance compared to the next piece of idiocy.

    Time to either get on some medication, or off some and get some reality into life.

    Post a Reply
  10. Not to mention bogging down the system so that that done between 2007 and 2013 cannot be undone.

    Post a Reply
  11. Great article Bern! Well written,clearly outlining the issue and its logical outcome. Well done. Disregard the hysterical complaining of the mob who show no foresight and understanding of the current issue.

    Post a Reply
    • Patrick I admire your adulation of your brother and understand family loyalty but perhaps you would be kind enough to explain just what you mean by “the mob who show no foresight and understanding of the current issue.”

      Are you suggesting that somehow people should have had the foresight not to have been born homosexual ?

      Can you please explain just what you do mean and what “Foresight and understanding” that you expect gay people should have ?

      Post a Reply
      • There is no evidence that people are “born” gay. And before you reply “but they didn’t choose it”, pedophiles “don’t” choose their orientation either. Not choosing it, does not make it natural nor does it make it right.

        2ndly and more importantly the issue that Bernard is discussing is recognizing foreign gay marriage, not whether or not homosexuality is natural so you are trying to throw in a red-herring.

        Once again, another reply on this thread where the individual hasn’t actually argued Bernards points.

        I support gay’s and lesbians. However I am very concerned about how quickly and easily we seem to change laws, and social mores without putting nary a thought into it’s consequences but create policy based on “popular” opinion, which is easily manipulated by pulling on people’s emotions.

        We have to make decisions based on cause and effect thinking and rational thought about what we allow in society, not emotive decisions. If you want to live in a world where decisions are made based on how people feel, look no further than the middle east. It’s not the right way to go about things.

      • doug, I think I can dive in here; those who show now foresight could be those who think that marriage is some kind of game show that anyone can join by dressing up and saying some cute words and having a big hollywood romantic buzz. Not so, of course; it exists in the interests of society mediated through the state to protect women and children from exploitation and potentially poverty…of course that’s marriage in a Christian context, marriage under other religions can include opportunity for the exploitation of children…and I’m not saying that the Christian concept of marriage has not taken some considerable time to ‘bed down’ (pun intended); now play marriage between those who cannot have a sexual relationship (that is one potentially procreative) is sought, or would have the potential effect of legitimizing the perverted faux sex plumbing games on the one hand, and desensitize society to the depredation of the homosexual sub-cult; an outcome of course would be the adoption of children by homosexual couples; removing children from their natural developmental environment, sometimes denying them access to a live natural parent, and exposing them to a high risk of abuse.
        So not only not a good idea, not only a silly idea, indeed, a pointless idea but finally a BAD idea.

      • Douggie, Douggie, Douggie ………. So people are born homosexual, are they? Or Lesbian? Or GTBXDSENMMMYTTESCDGFDC (did I leave out any of the other current fashionable letters?). Douggie, me old cock, let me tell you how things will be, IF you are correct. Here it is – are you ready for a cold dose of reality? IF you are correct, then eventually scientists will identify the “gay gene”. And when that happens, well …. coming to an abortion clinic near you … the pitiless plastic buckets there will be filled with dead, pre-born gays. That’s right, mate – unborn homosexuals and lesbians will be slaughtered in their millions in abortion clinics by parents who do NOT want a homosexual / lesbian child. Think clearly, mate – the vast majority of mums want their one or two kids to eventually produces grandkids that they, the grand-mums, can dote upon. That won’t happen if sonny boy Bill likes blushing violet Ben. From the flowerpot men come …. nothing. Not even Weeds. They, like the vast majority of homosexuals, are doomed to self-inflicted, inevitable extinction. So you can bet your bottom dollar that, when you are proven correct and scientists identify the homosexual gene – the great silent massacre of unborn homosexuals will commence. And what will you do about that, mate? ANS: nothing – because you support a woman’s right to abortion – don’t you? So here’s the final irony of ironies – IF you are correct – unborn homosexuals will be massacred by the million – you won’t say a thing about it because you’re another useless pro-abortion modern boy – and it will be Bernard and those like him who will fight to save them from the silent abortion abattoirs that infest modern Western “society”. Strange how things play out – isn’t it?

  12. My name is Common Sense and my parents were that of Nature, Algebra and Thinking.
    Laws by the minority for the minority, laws that will in the end destroy the majority.
    Lets look now at one before our parliament.
    Same sex marriages, a very small group that produce absolutely nothing, nothing wrong with this,
    the world is over populated anyhow.
    This small group have all the rights they need at the moment, they have the right to live together
    form partnerships, agreements, make wills etc, the same rights, in work and play, the majority have.
    They have no right under the law of NATURE or GOD to marry as man and woman, for this they are
    CLEARLY NOT.
    To pass such a ludicrous law for this minority group is to condemn the rights of another majority group.
    Will we sell the souls of our CHILDREN? Those that cannot speak for themselves on this matter.
    Will we sell their rights under the LAW of NATURE to have both a MOTHER and FATHER?
    Will we in future vote out, those in parliament that clearly do not have enough intelligence to represent
    us on issues of importance? Those would have us put an ash tray on a motor bike!

    Post a Reply
  13. Stick with it Bernard you are going to get a lot of replies of anger from those that can not accept that they are different but want everyone else to be different as well to make them feel better about themselves.
    The truth is most don’t give two hoots what gays get up to but at the same time do not want to exclude them from living together under a partnership for legal purposes.
    What rights they can not claim though is the right of marriage that is the joining of two parts, one being female and the other being male.
    Let gays find another name for their union and everyone should be happy; one such name that has been presented in the past is “Homiage’ derived from homo and marriage.
    While many now exclude religion from this argument there is one thing that no one can exclude and that is nature and no where in the animal world are offspring produced with two of the same sex.
    Much of this gay marriage thing is so gays can adopt and raise children, do not children under the law of nature have the right to both a mother and a father.

    Post a Reply
    • What you refer to is marriage by a different name. If we’re going to give gay couples all the same rights as heterosexual couples, what’s the point of calling it something else? That’s like demanding that a homosexual change their name so as not to diminish the masculinity or femininity of a name. We should either recognize gay couples under law and call it a marriage, or not recognize them at all. Recognizing a gay couple under law and saying it can’t be called marriage on purely religious grounds is ridiculous. The dictionary definition of a word doesn’t come into the argument, because word definitions have always changed over time and more than likely always will.

      Post a Reply
      • webboy42, Can I ask you this why are you calling yourself something other than your name and why then can’t gays call their partnership something other than marriage?
        As for the definition of marriage it refers to the joining of two parts one being male and the other being female I cannot see the definition changing without plumbers finding another way of fixing pipes together without a male and female thread let me know if you believe this can be done.

  14. You, sir, are without a doubt, the most pathetic excuse for a human in parliament. You hide behind a veil of “tradition”, you spit embers of hellfire coated in pure sulphuric acid, and for what? The hope that through the vilification of others, you’ll receive eternal happiness from your God? What kind of “honest person” would actually believe the sheer nonsense you so blatantly attempt to conspire in others?

    If you think that a consistently hateful approach to anybody who does not fit your belief of a perfect world is going to make the world a better place, you are not deserving of a seat in Australian Parliament. You are not deserving of anything short of the foul dystopia you attempt to create, you foul, loathsome, evil man.

    I do not even have the capacity to even attempt to “respect” your views, for your views are an abyss of lost respect.

    Sure, this comment may seem hypocritical in that I am spreading hatred of my fellow man, but guess what? I’m an Atheist, and I answer to nobody but myself.

    So as far as I’m concerned, you can shove your opinion fair up your clacker.

    Kris.

    Post a Reply
    • Why is it those that write such rude, spiteful and vile things always accuse others of this? You did not address one thing Bernard said. Not one. Nothing that he said was rude or nasty, he was stating a lot of facts and drawing conclusions.

      It seems today that way too many people think that when some-one disagrees with them, it is “hate-speech” or some other such nonsense. If you can’t justify your own position then that is your problem. Responding to Bernard with hissy fits and temper tantrums because you have no actual argument and because aren’t getting your own way resembles the behaviour of a toddler.

      I actually support Gay’s and lesbians. It is just a shame I have to be associated with people as hostile, aggressive and nasty as you’ve been.

      Bernard you make some great points, particularly the one where we are supposed to recognize a foreign law. No way will I support that.

      It is always those people like Sarah Hanson Young who seem to lack any real individual identity of their own, that want to destroy the identity of others. She isn’t doing this “Because” she supports gay marriage, she’s doing it “Because” she opposes anything that establishes a boundary that might cause a person to feel any pain.

      Post a Reply
      • Well said Annie.

    • Bernard,
      It looks like you may have stirred up a few demons with some of your courageous remarks in opposition to sick homosexual mockery of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony. Some of these responses are probably best dealt with by an exorcist.

      Post a Reply
    • Thank you Kris for brilliantly illustrating how some of you atheist think. No reason, logic or facts just ad hominem attacks.

      Post a Reply
    • Hmm lets just think abit. Bern has sacrificed alot, he gave up his family and the comforts of a modern day country to go serve and defend that same country and its people, gay or not. He has married a wonderful girl and been faithful to his marriage and his family. He has raised 6 children and iven up alot for them. Finally, he has shown more guts than most by taking a stand to something that is completely immoral and unAustralian. Id be interested to know your background…

      Post a Reply
    • Hey Kris – I have some news for you! Bernard is NOT in Parliament! That kind of makes you look pretty stupid – doesn’t it? I mean – REALLY stupid!

      Post a Reply
    • Kris – nice word usage, but! You must have really given your Thesaurus a real thrashing as you composed your tsunami of outrage! You, Sir, are a Quality Troll!

      Post a Reply
    • Well Kris we know where you stand and its clear democracy isn’t for you. Let me share something with you about Bernie Gaynor. He is a straight forward, honest, forthright and principled man I have grown to respect and I don’t do that lightly. He is most deserving of a place in government and I for one will do what I can to support him should he run. He believes the things I believe in and they are the very things that have given Australia a solid stable foundation in the world. Now you can rail on about him but you are wrong and if only you could understand that your adversarial language is seen for what it is, anti free speech. Now please take the time to get to know Bernie and you will be the better for it.

      Post a Reply
  15. First, it is you, Bernard, and not Senator Hanson-Young, who reduces same-sex marriage to “bedroom antics” and “bedroom jollies”. Same-sex marriage is about a lot more than sex. For example, the status of marriage automatically confers on couples a bundle of rights (and, importantly, a bundle of responsibilities) under State and Territory and federal law. Presently, same-sex couples are denied the automatic protection of those rights.

    Second, you selectively quote from the Explanatory Memorandum. The object of the Bill is more specific than recognising *any* foreign marriage. Clause 3 is explicit: “[T]he object of this Bill is to recognise under Australian laws same-sex marriages solemnised in a foreign country.” There is a clear line between the marriage of 2 consenting adults of the same-sex and child marriages, incestuous marriages, and polygamous marriages — such as consent and identity.

    Third, you curiously assert that “marriage is about sex”. Marriage — all marriages — is not only, or even mainly, about sex. Marriage is about mutual support, commitment, sharing with one another, caring for one another, and, above all, love. Sex can be an expression of that love. But sex does not merely mean missionary, heterosexual, procreative sex. Otherwise, couples who stopped having sex, and couples who could not have children, and couples who chose not to have children, would no longer be “married” in your eyes.

    Fourth, you say that marriage is about kids and assisting families so that those families may raise kids well. In this case, you would support same-sex marriage. If marriage confers benefits to children of opposite-sex couples — such as cohesion and stability and exclusivity and the automatic bundle of rights mentioned above — then why deny those benefits to the children of same-sex couples?

    Fifth, empirical evidence shows that same-sex couples do just as well as — and in some respects, better than — heterosexual couples who raise children. You assume that the child of a homosexual couple will not know their biological mother or father. Similarly, your bald assertion that “it’s impossible for [same-sex couples to] adopt a child and raise them in a home that allows them to understand both sexes” assumes a lot. Your equally as bald assertion that these children “will never see a loving interaction between the sexes” is plain offensive. The statistical facts are that children of same-sex couples do well.

    Sixth, you say that recognising foreign homosexual and lesbian marriages is a subversion of Australian culture and law. In fact, the law of the land, since the High Court’s decision in Cth v ACT, is that the constitutional meaning of “marriage” can include “same-sex marriage”. It’s not “parliament [who] believes it has the power to redefine marriage into whatever it wants”; it’s the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the land.

    Seventh, your assertion that recognising same-sex relationships does “not have support in this country” contradicts poll after poll, including a poll conducted by the Coalition’s own pollsters, which shows overwhelming public support for same-sex marriage. You say that “we voted overwhelmingly against parties and candidates that support homosexual marriage”. Some people would have indeed voted against candidates on the basis of their stance on gay marriage. (Others, like me, would have voted *for* candidates who supported same-sex marriage.) Many more voted against the carbon tax. Some people voted against debt and deficit. Some people voted against the ALP’s leadership shambles. In any event, the will of the people will be exercised through Parliament. And if the last election is, as you say, a reflection of the will of the people on same-sex marriage, then you defeat the argument for an unnecessary constitutional referendum on the subject.

    Eighth, you raise the usual and thoroughly discredited slippery slope arguments. You say “If Senator Hanson-Young’s Bill is passed, there is no logical reason why [incestual, child, and polygamous] relationships should not also be recognised”. In fact, there is every logical reason, as I mentioned before, why same-sex marriage should not be equated with these other kinds of relationships: consent, power, and identity.

    Finally, you poke fun, as usual, at Islam. You say “Islamic teaching allows things like marrying your cousin”. Australian secular law, already, also allows people to marry their cousins.

    I believe people who weigh the Senator’s facts, evidence, and arguments against your denial of the facts, your misconstruction of the evidence, and your logically flawed arguments, will be able to recognise (with exasperation) who, truly, is being ridiculous.

    Post a Reply
    • My name is Common Sense and my parents were that of Nature, Algebra and Thinking.
      Laws by the minority for the minority, laws that will in the end destroy the majority.
      Lets look now at one before our parliament.
      Same sex marriages, a very small group that produce absolutely nothing, nothing wrong with this,
      the world is over populated anyhow.
      This small group have all the rights they need at the moment, they have the right to live together
      form partnerships, agreements, make wills etc, the same rights, in work and play, the majority have.
      They have no right under the law of NATURE or GOD to marry as man and woman, for this they are
      CLEARLY NOT.
      To pass such a ludicrous law for this minority group is to condemn the rights of another majority group.
      Will we sell the souls of our CHILDREN? Those that cannot speak for themselves on this matter.
      Will we sell their rights under the LAW of NATURE to have both a MOTHER and FATHER?
      Will we in future vote out, those in parliament that clearly do not have enough intelligence to represent
      us on issues of importance? Those would have us put an ash tray on a motor bike!

      Post a Reply
      • Angus I am delighted that you believe in the democratic idea that the majority of the population should make the rules, I understand that while you are in a minority by not wanting gay marriage and equal rights for gay people that you will not only abide by but actively support the wishes of the majority of Australians who are in agreement that same sex marriage needs to be allowed in this country.

        I am so glad you have the common sense to understand this

      • First up Doug there has never been a vote on same sex marriage so you can not say that the majority support it, when the question is raised in general conversation when at social events etc there is no majority of support.
        The media pushes this “most people want it” thing and people go along with it.
        Gays can have all the rights without having to call it a marriage call it a Homiage and end of story and if two of the same sex can reproduce offspring then and only then as nature rules shall they have the right over that of a child to raise them.
        Are you one that believes a child doesn’t have a right to be raise with both a mother and father and that is what this gay marriage thing is really about when it is all said and done?
        I am a religious man but my church is not that of any denomination but of the one that is all around me and that is the church of nature so you can leave God out of this as well as too many are quick to bring into the argument.
        Don’t come back with the old one about single parents either there are single parents in nature as well but not by choice the same as we have single parents not by choice.
        Now don’t forget to answer truthfully do you believe a homosexual has more rights than that of a child, yes or no is the answer that is required here Doug.

      • Dear Angus No of course I do not believe homosexuals have more rights than children that would be ridiculous, but neither do I believe that they should have any less rights. I actually believe that all people should have EQUAL rights. I know that thought offends many people but I am sure they will learn to cope with it.

        I would be delighted to have a vote on same sex marriage, I think currently around 70% of the population supporting and around 20% being against. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/poll-shows-growing-support-for-samesex-marriage-20140714-3bxaj.html

        By saying marriage is only valid if it can produce children are you saying that my marriage of 30 years to the same beautiful woman is somehow invalid because we both knew we could never have biological children together ? Are you suggesting that the children we have cared for and loved over the 30 years are somehow lesser people because they are not our genetic offspring ?

        Two of the young women I know have been in a loving and committed relationship for 10 years now, one of them is now pregnant and they are expecting their first child, they know children develop better in married relationships so they want to get married to provide that security and stability to their child.

        You are saying that because of your beliefs that child should NOT be raised by a married couple because you want more rights than that of a child ?

        to me that is a pretty unkind and uncaring attitude !

      • So Doug, in the case where homosexuals and lesbians want to subject children to their direction, whose rights come first? The right of the childl to chose whether or not they are forced into an enviroment that is not natural for them, or the rights of someone who has chosen a way of life that naturally means they wont have children. Seems to me like they are wanting to bake their cake and eat it to. Children are the natural result of a heterosexual relationship and naturally never the result of a homosexual or lesbian relationship. Seems they naturally, shouldnt have them. Children are a privillege not a commodity. If people want to chose a gay or lesbian relationship then they should accept the consequencesof thwir decision instead of trying to force those who are unable to protect themselves, ie kids, into a situation that

      • Sorry, writing from a mobile can be abit tricky with fat thumbs to continue from my last comment…into a situation that is a child is never meant to be in.

      • fine I can only hope this becomes a democratic vote.

        Can you point me to one independent opinion poll that shows the majority of Australians object to same sex marriage ?

      • Dear Patrick

        First let me assure you that if I bake a cake I certainly want to eat it too, if you are incapable of understanding metaphors perhaps you should give up trying to have adult conversations on serious subjects.

        Second on the rights of people to have children and raise them I would question why you think it is somehow gods almighty will that heterosexual couples who are drug addicts, child abusers, neglectful, or abusive should have every right to have as many children as they wish, yet somehow you feel that 2 people who really desperately want to have children should not have them in a stable and loving relationship ?

        That sounds like you are advocating for the rights of child abusers over the rights of the child to me.

        I think our society should care for all children, I think our society should support and nurture children and parents to ensure children are raised in healthy and safe environments.

        I am far more concerned with the safety and welfare of children than with the genitals their parents may have.

        Perhaps if you lifted your thoughts above the waistline occasionally you could understand this concept ?

      • Douggie, Douggie, Douggie … trying the tired old line about pristine homosexuals being better parents than drug addict heterosexuals? Mate – you’re grasping desperately at very flimsy straws. Now let’s admit the truth. The vast majority of homosexuals have NO interest in kids and families – they simply want a jolly life of drugs, buggery and everything that goes with all of that. The end result is this – the vast majority of homosexuals NEVER have children and die childless. That is – they remove themselves from the gene pool by virtue of the “lifestyle choices” they have selected. Hey! Perhaps Darwin was right after all! The inherent tendency for extinction that accompanies homosexuality is a means by which this odd human characteristic self-regulates! What do you think, Douggie? Have you, too, reserved your very own seat on the express train to cosmic buggery?

      • Polls can be targeted, even political elections can be manipulated through distractions, but a referendum is hard to beat! Take it from California, USA, a state topped only by Las Vegas as a place renowned for loose living. Proposition 8 of the 2008 California ballot proposed an amendment to the state constitution banning from same sex unions the status of marriage. This amendment passed, 52% in favor, 2% blank and 79% voter turnout. While the amendment has since been ruled unconstitutional at the federal level, the stance of what is considered to be one of the most liberal states stands.
        Perhaps a referendum will come to Australia too, but I doubt the GLBT lobby will allow it without a fight.
        (Well done, Bernie, on a well ordered, logically written article!)

      • Douggie, Douggie, Douggie …….. mate, if you really reckon the majority of Australians support same-sex “marriage” – well, let’s put it to a vote! Let’s have a referendum / plebiscite on this simple question! But you won’t do that, will you, me old cock? No you won’t! Why is that, Douggie? Because you and I both know full well that if the homosexual/lesbian/q/t/pick-another-letter lobby ever try that, you’ll be smashed more comprehensively than a Christmas Island Red Crab under a Mack Double B. But I’m happy to see you give it a go, mate. I’ll be sitting here in my comfy chair the day that happens, hooking into the beer and prawns and celebrating loudly when the election result is announced about 30 minutes after the polls close. And Douggie – I am so glad you have the common sense to understand this!

      • fine I can only hope this becomes a democratic vote.

        Can you point me to one independent opinion poll that shows the majority of Australians object to same sex marriage ?

      • Douggie, Douggie – bring it on, mate! Tell all the LGBTRWXFDHGNVTYTRVCDC leaders, activists and gurus to stop faffing about and press for a referendum / plebiscite! Stop all the pressurising of malleable politicians and concentrate on bringing a vote on the issue to the citizens of Australia! Do that, mate – and you’ll be done like a dinner.

      • Doug, nobody simply has a right to parenthood. Its an honour and a privillege to be a parent and it comes with certain responsibilities. The government use to recognise this fact which is why it use to take marriage seriously and which is why the government set up establishments to remove children from bad parents such as drug addicts and alcoholics ect. If two people loving people desperately want to have children then chose a life style that actually allows you to have them naturally. Because I would say that Nature has found lesbian and gays unfit to have children 100% of the time. This does not mean that heterosexual couples that are married and that cant have children are unfit, that is an unfortunate and sad situation but the ability to adopt should be open for them. Gays and lesbians break up more than the average herterosexual couples do. I know this from talking with my friends who have chosen this life style. Split parents is not the ideal situation for raising children. Unfortunately its the case with most children today….doug you say want children to have a secure and good upbringing. Well thats in an enviroment in which children are naturally spose to be in. In a home that has a mother and a father and who understand their roles and responsibilities in raising children. Gays and lesbian couples dont work at all because their sexual relationahip produces NOTHING!! It is simply a mutual masterbastion session, regardless of how much they might “love”each other. That is the perfect enviroment for child to grow up gender confused. At least a heterosexual relationship does something for its society. It creates new members. It builds the community and it does it without needing any sperical requirements.

      • Dear Little Jimmy

        You seem to have a lot of experience with one sector small of the gay community, have you come out of the closet yet or are you still hiding under a pseudonym so your identity is not recognized ?

        I understand how difficult a double life must be for you, conflicted between your desires and your religious beliefs, I hope you find a solution to your obvious problems. A good councilor may help you work through your issues and help to remove some of the hate from your life.

      • is that all you got Doug? The old cannot refute your logic you must be a closet homosexual line.
        if you cannot see that homosexual lifestyle is damaging to ones physical health as well as mental you are indeed a simpleton.
        homosexual behaviour is entirely for self gratification and complete disregard for the other person involved in the behaviour, rectal tearing etc and risk of venereal disease in both male and female homosexual acts should be enough to tell you something is wrong. infact just recently the increase in HIV cases has increased in gay males http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-17/hiv-rates-in-australia-remain-at-20-year-high/5602706
        seems to me that casual relationships among this minority group is quite obviously more common than what they like to admit. Anyone who thinks children should be introduced to a world where disease risk is high is a half wit.

      • The majority of people in this country don’t know anything about same-sex marriage (SSM), other than what is said on in the mainstream media about it. The way supporters of SSM portray it, thanks to effective sophistry and the almost complete support of the mainstream media, is as follows: One who does not support SSM is a bigot, a bad person, whereas one who supports it also supports justice, and is therefore a good person. Now, nobody wants to be thought of as a bad person, even people who do not know all the facts about SSM. So they cast their ostrakon as a ‘yes’ when asked whether they support SSM, thus avoiding arguments with the kind of people who will huff and puff about this (people like Sarah Hanson-Young), and also looking like a virtuous supporter of justice and equality. All at no effort whatsoever.

        Thus, the results on the polls you cite are the result of clever sophistry, fear and ignorance. Even you would agree that those are not a good foundation for dramatic changes to our civilisation.

        Here’s the truth. If this were put to a referendum, and the facts were truly examined and debated, before a secret ballot — i.e., democratically — there is no way the majority of people in this country would support changing the definition of marriage. We didn’t even vote for a republic, and look how popular that idea seemed to be! The mainstream media pretty much all supported that, too. No, if examined properly, in the way I’ve described, ordinary, reasonable people will come to exactly the same conclusion that Bernard and many others already have.

        I reiterate: The polls you cite which say the majority of Australians support redefining marriage are based on sophistry, fear, and ignorance. The SMH was just making news, pal. Nowadays, polls are the only way papers can scoop the internet to be the first to report things.

      • Well said there Justin, spot on.

      • Justin, absolutely bang on, well written mate. The Sophistry used by the homosexual lobby and mainstream media is compunded by societies poor appreciation of marriage and what it represents.

      • Some more falsities from Troy:
        *
        “But sex does not merely mean missionary, heterosexual, procreative sex”.
        Well actually sex means a biological characteristic of being male or female but is also used as a contraction of “sexual intercourse”, which can only occur between the male and female sexes so ‘gender’, a grammatical term, has been borrowed as a synonym for sex.
        *
        “Otherwise, couples who stopped having sex, and couples who could not have children, and couples who chose not to have children, would no longer be “married” in your eyes.
        This is putting the LGBTIQ line of argument into a straw man named Bernard. The essential of sexual intercourse need only occur once to consumate the marriage. It can never be unconsumated. This objection is ofyen raised by the LGBTIQ lobby as being the fatal flaw in Bernard’s point but it is not. For marriage in not a natural state of affairs and society has encouragements for it and used to have discouragements for engaging is sexual intercourse outside of marriage and the social contract meant that every man and woman living together would marry to set an example to all men and women to comply with the moral obligation to marry.
        *
        “The statistical facts are that children of same-sex couples do well. ”
        There is no such thing as a ‘statistical fact’. LGBTIQ commissioned studies, often by LGBTIQ researchers such as the recent one by ‘Dr’ Crouch, merely report that same sex partners raising chilren will report that the children they are caring for do well. This is a fact but there is nothing statistical about it.
        *
        “… poll after poll, including a poll conducted by the Coalition’s own pollsters, which shows overwhelming public support for same-sex marriage”
        All it showed was that when 1000 people were contacted by phone they agreed with the question put to them. The questionnaire was never made public. Beyond that same sex marriage is being marketed very strategically as common everyday part of life as it homosexual behaviour of the type Bernard posts about. That is part of the selling. So people may report as having bought into the idea and we often see comments about polls that a very significant majority of the population support same sex marriage. Yet back before the last Federal election when outgoing MP Tony Windsor, hence with nothing to lose politically, suggested the question be put to a plebiscite to every voter in Australia to vote in private, every single LGBTIQ spokesperson rejected the idea. They are happy to claim that a significant majority of voters support the idea but were adamant this majority be denied a chance to vote privately and confidentially in a 100% sample. Total hypocrites.

      • sex |seks|
        noun
        1 (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse : he enjoyed talking about sex | she didn’t want to have sex with him.
        • [in sing. ] a person’s genitals (used in novels to avoid more vulgar or anatomically explicit terms).
        2 either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions : adults of both sexes.
        • the fact of belonging to one of these categories : direct discrimination involves treating someone less favorably on the grounds of their sex.
        • the group of all members of either of these categories : she was well known for her efforts to improve the social condition of her sex.
        =================================

        Sex can be any sexual activity not just male female intercourse

      • Oswald: 1. I stand by the statement that “sex[ual intercourse] does not merely mean missionary, heterosexual, procreative sex[ual intercourse]”. Readers can look up a dictionary and make up their own minds whether my statement is true or false. 2. If sexual intercourse exclusively means procreative sexual intercourse, then infertile couples cannot have “sexual intercourse” and, therefore, can never be really “married” (according to Bernard). I cannot see anything you have said that counters this. 3. I took the phrase “statistical fact” directly from Bernard’s blog; it’s his phrase, which I quoted back at him, not mine. In terms of substance, there is more than one study — and at least one court case — that show how well children of same-sex couples do. 4. I refer to “poll after poll”, not merely one poll. The trend in these polls is clear: support for same-sex marriage has grown to majority support. Even a majority of Christians (according to polls) now support same-sex marriage because they recognise the difference between Christian marriage and secular marriage. But Bernard himself has said the will of the people is reflected in our representatives in Parliament. So why go to a plebiscite? More significantly, why go to a plebiscite on just the issue of same-sex marriage? Why not go to a plebiscite on the issue of offshore processing of asylum seekers? Or real action on climate change? Or abortion rights? I am glad you used the correct term “plebiscite” rather than “referendum”. But imagine the nature of the debate that would take place if all adult voters went to the election booths to vote on same-sex marriage? Imagine the division. The hurt. The cruelty. The psychological damage inflicted on young gay men and women, in particular, bombarded with TV, radio, and newspaper campaigns about how their relationships are somehow less than “normal” relationships. When people are told they are “disordered”, “broken”, “have a condition that can be cured”, or are “depraved”, “perverted”, or mere “sodomy lovers”, or whose relationships are akin to incest, paedophilia, or bestiality, such labels have real and negative impacts. Those real and negative impacts comprise one reason every main professional association of psychologists and psychiatrists support marriage equality: marginalisation, demonisation, and discrimination harm lives, particularly young people. I am sorry to say it, but commentary from people such as Bernard and Bill Muehlenberg and leaders of the ACL, however genuine their intentions, can also harm young lives — in some cases, views like theirs can even contribute to ending young lives. Now THAT, I know, is a fact.

    • Troy trots out the usual convenmient falsity that marriage is less about sexual intercourse (which same sex couples cannot engage in) and more about love. Yet a previous post by Bernard pointed out that there was nary a word about love in the Marriage Act which was replete with references to children, the natural consequence of sexual intercourse between make and female and the only way children can be produced, somtimes with ART being involved and such legislation had its genesis in giving legal force to make males stand by their vow to support the women who become pregnant to them and the children they father. Troy’s convenient falsity ignore the essential element of marriage which has always been consumation by sexual intercourse after which a marraige has been taken to be valid and cannot be declared null. OTOH it is the no fault divorce laws which have introduced something of what Troy is referencing by in essence making the absence of love a basis for divorce for those who wish to break their vow. But this isn’t the same thing as saying love is the essential of marriage. Besides if that was its essence then two sisters who love each other and living together should be able to marry in order to avail themselves of the rights the state confers on married people. Why should they be discriminated against merely because they do not engage in mutual mastrubation? Troy like the esteemed senator would point to marriage always being about two people not three but this is the arithmetic result of 1 male + 1 female = 2 people. Of course this essential of marriage, sexual intercourse, is an impediment to same sex so-called marraiges which is why in the UK they removed this from their marriage legislation before legislating same sex ‘marriage’.

      Post a Reply
    • For goodness sake Troy are you serious about all this. Bernie is spot on and this whole movement of homosexuals, lesbians, transgender and other sexual oddities is just plain silly and anything but natural. Dont you understand that a society needs stability and this lot don’t stabilise they de-stabilise. Its not about equality its about forcing the rest of us to believe their behavior is normal and and acceptable and it isn’t. Its OK for them to do what they want in private but public recognition also sets a dreadful example for future generations. Political correctness and all the other nonsense diversions take away from society and do not add to it.

      Post a Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Who wouldn’t feel bad after a visit from Hanson-Young? — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami - [...] Recognising the ridiculous (Bernhard Gaynor) [...]

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest

Shares