Sometimes you read something that really gets your juices flowing. An article in yesterday’s Sunday Herald Sun is a case in point. The author made a really illogical case for homosexual marriage. I felt compelled to pen a reply this afternoon. In the light of the new push for same-sex marriage in Australia, the following 1000-word article may be helpful to you in standing up for the real thing.
Fuzzy thinking, mushy moralising
There is an enormous amount of sloppy thinking around these days. Especially when it comes to issues of morality. Many of our supposed experts and elites are in fact totally out at sea when it comes to clear thinking and moral clarity. The examples appear on a daily basis.
Consider a column found in the 2 April 2006 Sunday Herald Sun by political correspondent Glenn Milne. From beginning to end it is one long exercise in muddled thinking and moral thickness.
Entitled “Labor’s courage on gay marriage,” Glenn Milne’s article is an attack on John Howard and the Federal Government for its stance on same sex marriage. He makes a number of foolish and oft-repeated arguments. None of them stand up under scrutiny.
First, he claims that Howard is playing “wedge-politics” by taking a strong stand on this issue. He says Howard’s stance is simply meant to split Beazley from his blue collar base in the Labor Party.
The truth is, Howard is standing strong on this issue because he believes in the importance of marriage, and is not willing to redefine the whole institution without a fight. And he also knows that the overwhelming majority of Australians know what marriage is, and do not want activist minority groups and their media supporters to redefine its very nature.
If the blue collar types within the Labor Party do not like radical and trendy agendas like homosexual marriage, then the obvious thing for Labor leaders to do is to reject it as well. The only ones playing wedge politics here are the homosexual activists who wish to decimate marriage for their own ends, and their media supporters, like Milne.
Milne then makes this statement, somehow thinking it strengthens his argument: “Most people either know someone who is gay or of someone who is gay.” The implication seems to be that nearly everyone is homosexual, and that numbers alone determine what is right.
One might as well argue that in Germany in the ’40s everyone knew a Nazi or knew of a Nazi. Does that therefore make that worldview right? Does that mean we as a society need to embrace that activity? Since when does numerical prevalence determine what is right and wrong?
And it may well be the case in fact that many people do not know homosexuals personally, for the simple reason that there are not many around (less than 2 percent of the population). Sure, most people know of homosexuals, since the media in general and people like Milne in particular are so happy to promote their cause, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. But exaggerated media coverage does not equal widespread public support, nor does it mean that homosexuals are ubiquitous.
But one thing Milne does not mention. There are also those people who know of former homosexuals. I know of a number of men and women who once were deeply into the homosexual lifestyle, but have now left it. Many of these ex-homosexuals have gone on to heterosexual marriage and have had children. Of course Milne and his ilk will never want that unpleasant fact to get out into the public.
Milne concludes his piece by offering some pretty shaky advice on how we should formulate social policy on this issue: “Who has the right to get in the way of gays’ happiness if they aren’t hurting anyone?” It appears his advice is simply to allow whatever makes people happy and does not harm others.
If you think about it for a minute, that is a pretty silly bit of advice. Fortunately most politicians – and voters – are wiser than this. They know that mere happiness is not sufficient for formulating public policy, or anything else for that matter.. After all, many people would be quite happy seeing polygamy, polyamory or group marriage legalised. After all, it isn’t hurting anyone and it makes those involved quite happy. Therefore, why not go ahead and legalise it?
And there are those who would argue that consensual relations involving incest are quite alright. If dad and daughter are happy, and are not hurting anyone else, then why not? A little bit of incest never hurt anyone, supporters will argue. And the main thing is, it makes them happy.
The examples are endless. Some people are quite happy to blow their minds using illicit drugs. They are the first to argue it is not hurting anyone else, and they do so very much enjoy it. So let’s legalise all mind-altering drugs. After all, we wouldn’t want to make people unhappy now would we?
Milne is wrong in other ways on this point. Governments have a right to promote what is in the best interests of society and its citizens. Heterosexual marriage is in society’s best interests. Promoting the dangerous homosexual lifestyle is not. And tearing down the institution of marriage by allowing any and every possible sexual combination is definitely not in the national interest.
Therefore governments have every right in the world to restrict behaviours which are not only dangerous to individuals and society at large, but which the majority of the population disapprove of. The real question is, what right do homosexual activists and their sympathizers have to impose their radical agendas on the rest of society?
What right do radicals have who wish to destroy marriage as we know it and to undertake enormous social transformation, just so they can indulge in their own preferences? And given that perhaps a majority of homosexuals do not even want marriage in the first place, as it is too restrictive to their lifestyle, why is this author, and others, so intent on pushing this agenda?
This article is so riddled with holes that it makes Swiss cheese seem quite solid by contrast. But the radical social engineers never let sound reasoning nor sound ethical reflection get in the way of pushing their agenda. What is really surprising is that they are given so much space in the media to do so. But that is another story.
Suffice it to say that clear thinking and moral discernment seem to be in short supply nowadays, especially amongst our intelligentsia and media commentators. Fortunately there is a lot more common sense and level-headedness in the population at large.