Greens Guilty of Gross Discrimination
Shame on those intolerant, bigoted and hate-filled Greens. They are a disgrace. Instead of being open, inclusive and tolerant, they are just redneck haters who are denying lovers their dreams. How dare they exclude so many people from their basic right to love and marry?
They have come out and made it perfectly clear that they are not at all into real marriage equality. They want to use the ugly arm of the law to push their narrow and reactionary agenda. They actually say they will prevent loving and committed polyamorists from marrying. Unbelievable! And in this day and age! We have so far moved beyond the 1950s, yet we still find this bigoted and ugly intolerance to real love.
This is 2012 for heaven’s sake. When will the fundamentalist, archaic and clearly fossilised Greens get with the times? How dare they prevent those in love from their full rights? This is just such a horrific case of irrational discrimination and despicable bigotry.
As the press reports today, they are living in prehistoric times: “The Greens have declared they have a clear policy against support for polyamorous marriage as they pursue their case for same-sex marriage. Greens marriage equality spokeswoman Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has declared the Greens have a clear policy against support for polyamorous marriage. ‘Our bill clearly states marriage “between TWO consenting adults” and that is the Greens’ position. No, we don’t support polyamorous marriage – the only person who seems to want to talk about this is Senator Cash.’
“It comes after Senator Michaelia Cash, Liberal Senator for WA, today challenged the Australian Greens to state their position on polyamorous marriage. This follows the disclosure that polyamorists have made submissions to the Greens’ Senate Inquiry on Marriage Equality. ‘Sarah Hanson-Young must explain whether she does support “marriage for all”, as advocated by the Greens, who wish to “legislate to allow marriage regardless of sexuality or gender identity”,’ Senator Cash said. ‘Using these benchmarks it would really be a case of “anything goes”’.”
And just in case you think there are no such beasts as polyamorists, think again. They are all over the place, and gaining momentum every day. Strengthened by what they see the homosexual militants getting away with, they are demanding their “rights” as well, using the exact same arguments as the homosexual lobby.
An interesting piece in today’s Australian is yet just one more example of all this: “The power couple of Australia’s increasingly open polyamorous community, Rebecca and James Dominguez, have made Senate submissions urging the legalisation of same-sex marriage, as they promote greater acceptance of multiple-partner relationships. The couple have led the way in publicly outlining their own journey from monogamous marriage to one in which each has another lover as well.
“In her blog, Ms Dominguez, who is an administrator with IBM in Melbourne, writes: ‘My life rocks . . . I am incredibly happy and have almost everything I could possibly want . . . I’ve built a house with my husband and my husband’s boyfriend so there are four of us living together in nice harmony. (The fourth household member is Rebecca’s boyfriend.)
“‘James outed himself to me as bisexual a year after we got married. Remarkably, this didn’t really phase me. He talked to a nice female friend of ours that was interested in him, informed her about my boundaries and they agreed to have a sexual relationship. I felt more secure in my relationship with James . . . I knew that James wasn’t going to leave me, that he could have sex with and love another woman and still love me and want to be married to me.’
“For many years Ms Dominguez was president of PolyVic, which promoted the ‘practice of honest, open, ethical multiple relationships’. More recently the couple have taken up leading positions in Bisexual Alliance Victoria. The two organisations are closely connected and hold picnics which, the website says, are family-friendly with ‘food and drinks to share, picnic rugs or chairs, outdoor games, kids, dogs, kayaks’.
“As president of the alliance, Mr Dominguez, an IT specialist in the Victorian public service, wrote to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010. ‘The legal definition of marriage itself has changed over history, such as the removal on restrictions of inter-racial marriage and the provision for divorce,’ Mr Dominguez wrote in the submission.
“Ms Dominguez wrote in her own submission to the Senate committee: ‘Just as we have allowed changes in the past to things considered “traditional” (equality of women, humanity of non-white people), we can change “traditional” understandings of things now’.”
Now why is it that these “arguments” sound so very, very familiar? Oh yeah, they are the exact same “arguments” being used by the pro-homosexual marriage crowd. Absolutely identical. The reasoning for polyamory and group marriage is 100% identical to the reasoning for homosexual marriage.
Once you throw out the fundamental core criteria of marriage (proper gender, proper number, etc) then of course anything goes. And we are seeing this played out before our very eyes at this very moment. And all along the homosexual activists have the gall to mock those who warn of a slippery slope, as they claim that group marriage and other combinations will never be demanded.
But if you are still not convinced of the double standards and fractured reasoning of the Greens and others, let me take this a bit further. Let me show again how the Greens are the most bigoted, discriminatory and rights-denying party around. Consider this: what if I wanted to become a member of the Greens today?
Well, on the Greens’ membership form it says that everyone must sign this declaration: “I am not a member of another political party and will not join another political party while I am a member of The Greens. I agree to abide by the Charter and Constitution of the Australian Greens, and the Constitution of my state/territory party. I acknowledge that my membership is subject to approval by The Greens party in the state/territory where I reside.”
Hey, wait a minute. What kind of gross discrimination and intolerance is this? I deplore the Greens, I do not believe in anything they stand for, and I am happy to align myself with other political parties. So they won’t let me become a member. How intolerant is that?
And I even have to abide by their Charter and Constitution? I can’t believe it. This is just so blatantly wrong and discriminatory. Why can’t I join the Greens, even though I refuse to abide by any of their rules and regulations? Why am I being denied my human rights to join these guys?
Oh, but the Greens will argue that to so bend the rules in this manner would make a mockery of the Greens, and in fact undermine it and destroy it. By allowing anyone in, it redefines the group out of existence. Thus obviously the Greens cannot tear down their own rules and criteria, just to take in those who are bent on destroying it.
Hey, that sounds like perfectly good reasoning to me Greens. I can see real common sense and rationality there. It is a type of discrimination, obviously, but a very vital, necessary and healthy one if the Greens are to survive. Such proper discrimination must of course stand.
Er, wait a minute. Have I not heard this argument before? Oh yeah, I have: I and others have made it countless times. We have said exactly the same thing about the institution of heterosexual marriage. Indeed, in case things are not quite clear, let me just substitute a few words here and say all that over again:
“Oh, but the pro-marriage folks will argue that to so bend the rules in this manner would make a mockery of marriage, and in fact undermine it and destroy it. By allowing anyone in, it redefines the institution out of existence. Thus obviously pro-marriage folks cannot tear down their own rules and criteria, just to take in those who are bent on destroying it.
“Hey, that sounds like perfectly good reasoning to me. I can see real common sense and rationality there. It is a type of discrimination, obviously, but a very vital, necessary and healthy one if marriage is to survive. Such proper discrimination must of course stand.”
Wow, the utter and total hypocrisy and double standards of the Greens are simply mind-boggling here. When we rightly argue that to throw out the gender requirement of marriage is to redefine it and destroy it, the Greens foam at the mouth and scream about discrimination, hate and bigotry.
Yet when polyamorists want in to the institution of marriage as well, or I want in to the Greens party, we are both denied our rights, and told these rules cannot change. They are so blind to their own utter duplicity and irrationality here that they cannot even see how they shoot themselves in the foot every time they open their mouths.
Hypocrites all right. Blatant double standards all right. But what do we expect from the moonbats in the Greens party? What do us mere “earthians” know about anything? Obviously our mental and moral reasoning abilities are in a different league from theirs. And maybe that’s a very good thing too.