A gay man states why he’ll vote no

You might be surprised, but not all homosexuals support ‘marriage equality’.

And, in what may be even more of a surprise, some of them even talk to me. And I talk to them.

We might disagree on many things, but we don’t have phobias and nor do we engage in hate.

One of these men is Ben. He has put forward his view outlining why he’ll vote no in the plebiscite and I respect him for his courage. All too often the LGBT community rips apart one of their own for dissent.

This is what Ben has to say:

The one-sided same sex marriage (SSM) debate has been raging for a while now and with the postal plebiscite on SSM now confirmed for September this year, I thought it was about time I had a good think about the situation and explain why myself and my partner of 15 years will be voting NO.

Firstly, SSM is an attack on the institution of marriage itself, the foundation of our civilisation and most importantly the bedrock of our family relationships. Changing the definition of marriage paves the way for other types of relationships to be recognised and I honestly don’t think many of my fellow Australians have fully thought through or realise the consequences and ramifications of changing the definition of marriage…

Most will vote yes out of fear of offending the many homosexual people they have as friends and family.

As a gay man, my partner and I have never personally experienced any type of discrimination or homophobic behaviour because of our sexuality or relationship with each other. Both of us have been accepted into each other’s families. After 15 years I now feel that my partner’s family is my family, and my family accepts my partner as part of our family.

Homosexual relationships have the freedom to be whatever those involved want them to be. Why is there such a need to constrain that to a religious ceremony that is more than likely going to end in divorce? SSM is a step backwards for the gay community in my honest opinion.

If anything needs to be changed or redefined, maybe it should be to recognise same sex unions rather than use the term marriage…?

Marriage itself is about children. Until gay people can give birth to their partner’s children it is a non-issue for me personally.

It’s time people stopped falling for catchy slogans and obscure hashtags and start thinking of the future they are helping to create for their children and their children’s children.

After 15 years with my partner, a piece of paper and pretty ceremony will not change our relationship at all. We will still remain just as committed to each other as we always have been. Our relationship has never been defined or never will be defined by a piece of paper and a religious ceremony.

My views on these issues is well known and it’s clear that Ben and I have philosophical and religious differences. But Ben’s voice is important in this debate and that is why it deserves to be heard.

Not all homosexuals will be voting yes because of the impact this change will have on families. And that means we should not be afraid to join them and vote no too.

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of eight 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

37 Comments

  1. “One of these men is Ben. He has put forward his view outlining why he’ll vote no in the plebiscite and I respect him for his courage. All too often the LGBT community rips apart one of their own for dissent.”

    How do we know this person is real and not just a sockpuppet?

    Post a Reply
  2. I think Ben should be commended for supporting his own convictions which in today’s society,
    is dying.I am not concerned if he is homosexual,I am concerned for people who cannot think for
    themselves.I think they’re too many people who will believe the lies,bias and propaganda they
    are being told on TV,radio,newspapers and self-serving vested interest groups-and being swayed by voting for them only,and not having a spine to defy what you have been told.
    The reason I will vote no is because I refuse to conform to a vested interest group that puts its interests first and what is for the general population is immaterial.
    TURN OFF YOUR TV,RADIO,DO NOT READ NEWSPAPERS AND NOT BE PERSUADED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS.
    THINK FOR YOURSELVES.

    Post a Reply
  3. This guys is brave and representative of a large proportion of the LBGTI community. I have had contact with 3 gay (or previously gay men) who have stated the same.

    Check out –
    http://www.oktosayno.com.au

    Post a Reply
  4. Thanks for sharing this! I agree and support you, Ben. I will also be voting no for similar reasons.

    Post a Reply
  5. Is there some information being circulated by the Government as to what this actually means, so that people know exactly what they are voting for or against? Before couples started “composing” their own vows and promises, the old, traditional marriage was very much like a legal contract…to take this other person into your life (and care), and it was “not to be entered into lightly”…I think what has happened to a great extent over the years, and in many cases, is that the solemnity of that promise is not so much valued any longer. And I know there were still unhappy marriages, and people forget about the ‘cherish” part of the vow. So, why not make a law that (any) marriage can be viewed as a legal contract, (with legal consequences if the contract is broken)… and ask a blessing if couples are really sincere about it. I believe that a clergyman obtains his/her authority to conduct a marriage from the Government, not from a/the church. Perhaps it should be left to individual clergymen to decide if they wish to apply for a licence – surely they cannot be sued for refusing a blessing if they are uncomfortable about it. I believe there has been at least one case in England where this has happened. The advertisements on TV at the moment are quite shallow.

    Post a Reply
  6. Marriage is not a religi I us ceremony,it is a civil union. You can get married without attending church!

    Post a Reply
    • This is the most sense ive heard in a very long time. I have a great friend who is gay. And although im probably voting against him it doesnt mean i dont support masculine partnerships. It only means i disagree with the terms of what marriage ACTUALLY means. X Great words Ben.

      Post a Reply
  7. I really don’t know why we are wasting our time and energy on this debate. People have been living in de facto relationships for years and they have the same legal rights as married people. If two people of the same sex want to live together don’t they make sure they have wills like anyone else and so should not encounter any legal issues if one or the other passes or the relationship breaks down?

    Post a Reply
  8. I commented on the marriage aspect of same gender people and got some nasty replies. I have many friends and others who have same gender partners, and they are genuine loving people. Most of them have been with their partners for many years, a lot longer than most male/female marriages last. So I see no need to “marry” as such. This is only a religious ritual and a piece of paper does not guarantee life partnership. Be happy being in a loving, caring situation and to hell with all the rigmarole regarding marriage.

    Post a Reply
  9. Good on you Ben.
    As an older couple said “if it ain’t broke, dont fix it”. Leave marriage alone. If a LGBT moment must be called/recognised as something call it a civil ceremony.
    Only thing I object to is the other people using this as an excuse to change other things on a whim.

    Post a Reply
  10. I agree 100% with Ben, marriage is between man and woman! . I was in a gay relationship for 18 years, and felt accepted equal in every way, even in a police environment. I was never discriminated against, ridiculed, mocked or harassed because of my sexual preference or my relationship. We had a great mixture of straight and gay friends and gay marriage was never brought up as an issue until the last couple of years. I had a very professional, successful career for 43 years and I believe I was very well respected both inside and outside the workplace. Never was our relationship equal than when my partner and I separated last year when we were both subjected to the same laws under the Family Law Act, where we paid solicitors, family law court, exactly what a hetero couple would pay.

    What a waste of money this debacle is! Get on with more important issues.

    I

    Post a Reply
    • I have total respect for you and your honesty along with Ben’s.

      Post a Reply
  11. A friend shared this post, and as I’m interested in hearing all perspectives, I clicked through to read it. I confess, I was a little disappointed and I’d like to share a couple of thoughts.

    Ben says, “As a gay man, my partner and I have never personally experienced any type of discrimination or homophobic behaviour because of our sexuality or relationship with each other.”

    He may not mean it to sound this way, but it comes across to me as, “This hasn’t affected me personally, so there is no problem.” This is not a very compassionate approach, and flies in the face of countless other people who have faced a great deal of pain from the judgement, rejection and alienation they have experienced solely because of their sexual orientation.

    He also says, “Why is there such a need to constrain that to a religious ceremony that is more than likely going to end in divorce?”

    As far as I am aware, most advocates of SSM are not chasing a “religious ceremony”, but civic recognition of their committed relationship. As far as divorce is concerned, as half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, the same could be said of them.

    While I respect Ben’s capacity to choose what he wants for himself, his words come across to me as lacking compassion for anyone else. They are simply dismissive of any other view, and thus do a disservice to his argument.

    Post a Reply
    • Thank you I agree with you.

      Post a Reply
  12. I have been voicing similar concerns myself. I have been asking about bigamy (multiple husbands or wives) bisexual love ( one person being married to a partner of each sex) incest (which I have been informed is being legalised in some countries). Where will it end.Leave marriage alone (call it something else) life is already too confusing

    Post a Reply
  13. Thank you both. I hope your message goes far, and is really heard by those who wouldn’t even think of an ulterior motive by this push.

    Post a Reply
  14. Mmmm didn’t John Howard stop the ACT & NT from legalised civil Unions as well.
    I don’t want the ceremony in a church!
    I would like my union to be legally recognised so that I and my partner don’t need to seek my parents or my partners parents permission to access our property should one of us pass.
    I would also like the same legal rights afforded to those next to me when it comes to having our names legally listed on our perspective death certificates without having to prove that we have been in a relationship deffacto or otherwise to the governing body in an allocated time frame!
    Call it what you like Civil Union, Marriage, Joined at the Hip, Hitched……………just give me the same legal rights!

    Post a Reply
  15. CONGRATULATIONS BEN I ADMIRE YOU AND YOUR PARTNER VERY MUCH ! I WILL BE VOTING KNOW ALSO FOR THE VERY SAME REASON, NOT BECAUCE I HAVE A DISLIKE TO GAY PEOPLE .

    Post a Reply
  16. Ben is a very brave man. He has high lighted the developing problems a family will face, whether they be gay or straight. Our children need roll models of both gender so they can make the right lifestyle choices. No vote will go a long way into reversing the gender bending agenda.

    Post a Reply
  17. He’s Right..there’s no reason for gays to marry,marriage is a commitment ceremony where the man promises to support the woman who bears his children..all societies have some sort of marriage..in the old tribal days no society needed it,but once we moved away from tribal situation,marriage became necessary..gays talk about SSM giving them equality,lovely buzzword,but it doesnt really..equality to marry,equality to divorce and lose your house too..SSM won’t make people who hate gays like them,cannot legislate people to like you..if you think about it it his no benefits for gays at all..only businesses after the pink dollar..how many businesses benefit from a marriage from photographers florists etc… And divorce lawyers are rubbing their hands with glee

    Post a Reply
    • Yep…this whole ssm issue is all a vicious scheme by the wedding industry trying to increase business. Sock it to them.

      Post a Reply
  18. Thank you Ben for thinking about the children and future generations. You’re an inspiration!

    Post a Reply
    • Well thought out Ben. I agree with your thoughts.

      Post a Reply
  19. Good on you Ben, I agree. It should be a union service, not marriage. If SSM is approved it will open up a whole range of human rights issues, as seen in overseas countries. Peodophillia, multiple wives, beastiality, underage marriage, etc, etc. And they will keep pushing for their preferences to be approved just as the LBGT community is doing now.

    Post a Reply
  20. Absolutely spot on, Ben. It’s PC gone crazy & out of control. Let plain Common Sense take place.

    Post a Reply
    • Well said Ben. You are very courageous to speak your mind.

      Post a Reply
  21. I’m glad Ben and his parter feel so included and accepted that they don’t feel they need full equality under the law.
    Sadly that is not the case for many other people who wish to be able to get married just as their heterosexual counterparts do.
    Marriage equality is only about that. Nothing more, and nothing less. Just equality under the law.

    Post a Reply
  22. Congratulations Ben! Common sense prevails. My concerns are the same as your concerns. In overseas countries which have approved SSM, some are already experiencing the fallout including banning Christian teachers from universities, just in case they have anti SS views. Islam supports polygamy and there are Chinese whispers circulating that Imams are going to push to legalise multiple wives in Australia! Look out Centrelink! Well done Ben

    Post a Reply
    • The parts of the gay community I used to know socially would have a fit at the idea of gay marriage: the very idea of the gay lifestyle was a no commitment all fun lifestyle.

      Post a Reply
    • Ben has got the most sensible attitude to the plebiscite? I felt bad and even some Facebook people too almost suggesting that vote yes even though I don’t believe it should be. When do other peoples feelings count but mine don’t.

      Post a Reply
      • Be your own person. Vote for what you think is right.

  23. That poor bloke is out of line, he will get hammered by the PC Socialist mob, you can’t think for yourself, you must follow the dictatorship line of the media backed new age Nazi types.

    Woman’s lib mob get all huffy to any woman who does not want stand behind all there crap 100% as well.

    People have the right to not have to follow such Political Correct thugs, but that’s not the way the PC mob see it, and if the PC mob get there way there will be hell to pay if anyone stands out of line to anything that they say.

    Post a Reply
    • Did you just call the left socialists AND nazis? Might want to look up those terms before you start flinging them around together!

      Post a Reply
      • THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKER’S PARTY
        While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that ‘National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology. Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.

        At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, anti-Semitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties.

      • Not sure you really know what they are either!

        Learn history so we don’t jabs to repeat it please.

      • Nazi = national socialist. And it was socialist, in theory anyway. And almost all, of not all socialist/communist countries have proved to be dictatorships and nationalist. See Joe’s comment. Most lefties have lost the plot and are ineducable so I am probably wasting time and space. Think on it, if you retain the faculty.
        I do like the post by the way. One of my gay friends describes himself the most homophobic person in our department!

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