Whenever a homosexual activist tries to convince you of something, you can almost be certain that the exact opposite is in fact the case. Truth-telling is not always their strong suit. They are happy to say anything in order to push their radical agendas.
For example, in their crusade to destroy marriage, they claim that no one is asking for anything too radical. ‘No, we won’t ask for polyamory and so on’ they claim. When you point out to them quotes from all sorts of activists who are pushing for this, they will switch tack, and claim that this is maybe the case overseas, but not here in Australia.
Sorry, but what do you get when a word starts with L, ends with E, and has an I in the middle? I have been documenting for years now the very radical changes being proposed, all in the name of marriage equality. And believe you me, many of these activists want to go the whole hog.
And it is not just folks from overseas calling for this. There are plenty of Australians doing the same. I have a nice collection of their writings, and it keeps growing. Some of these folks are not at all shy about what they are demanding.
Indeed, a number of activists are coming out of the closet on this big time. Consider another Australian writer who is quite happy to go all the whole way in dismantling marriage. Katrina Fox, who in 2008 co-edited a book called Trans People In Love, wrote a revealing piece for the ABC in 2011.
Entitled, “Marriage needs redefining,” she made it perfectly clear how all the boundaries surrounding marriage must be smashed. You can tell things will be going downhill fast when she begins her article this way: “A more inclusive option is to allow individuals to get married whatever their sex or gender, including those who identify as having no sex or gender or whose sex may be indeterminate.”
She informs us that monogamy is clearly just not on, and she even cites a 2010 book informing us that “monogamy may not be natural to humans”. She claims it is “unrealistic” for people to expect to remain in lifelong sexually faithful relationships.
She then goes on to approvingly speak of “non-monogamy” and “open relationships”. Says Fox, “Surely it makes more sense to expand the definition of marriage to include a range of relationship models including polyamory, instead of holding up monogamy as the gold – indeed only – standard.”
But wait, there’s more: “Marriage would also benefit from being expanded to include non-sexual, non-romantic relationships, like the existing Tasmanian relationship register which allows anyone who is in a ‘personal relationship involving emotional interdependence, domestic support or personal care’ to register that relationship.”
And it gets even more interesting. If it were not for the lack of consent, there really might be no limits at all: “I’m not suggesting we goes as far to sanction people marrying inanimate objects like the German woman who married the Berlin Wall and was utterly devastated when her ‘husband’ was destroyed in 1989. Nor am I advocating marrying animals since they cannot consent, but simply extending marriage to reflect the broad range of loving relationships between consenting adults.”
Gee, if we could just get those laptops and wombats to provide a bit of consent, just think how we could help further the cause of marriage equality. Indeed, why even be concerned about a mere detail like consent, since we are already progressing so nicely?
She is also quite ticked off at homosexual activists who claim they won’t force churches to perform same-sex marriages: “These tactics have horrified many gay, lesbian and queer people, including me. It’s hard to imagine any person of colour advocating for religions to have the right not to marry non-white people, so why some gay campaigners think so little of themselves and the broader queer community to sanction what is bigotry beggars belief.”
And just in case we have not got her drift, she also says, “In 2011 it’s time to redefine marriage to include a diverse range of relationships between one or more people of any sex or gender (including not specified or indeterminate). Those desperate to cling on to outmoded traditions would do well to heed the moniker used by motivational speakers: ‘Adapt or die’.”
Her concluding line is perhaps the most bizarre of all: “Opening up marriage to be more inclusive, progressive and representative of the realities of our relationships today is not a threat to the institution, but rather an opportunity to preserve it.”
What?! She has just spent the entire article demonstrating how she plans to massacre marriage, transforming it out of existence, and now she wants to tell us that this is somehow going to “preserve” marriage. Yeah right.
Let me simply follow in her footsteps, and give an analogy as to what she is proposing. Let’s do to the AFL what she wants to do to marriage. We all know that Australian Rules Football is a hidebound, archaic institution which really needs to get with the times.
It has been hampered by out-dated tradition and needless rules and regulations. It certainly does not reflect current realities of where we want to go with sport. So let us make a few obvious changes. First of all, it is silly – and quite discriminatory – to allow just two teams at a time to play the game.
Thus from now on I suggest any number of teams be allowed to enter into the action at the same time. Monoteams are just so passé, and polyteams are really the way to go. And how sexist and species-ist is it to exclude women and animals from the game. No more men-only AFL.
And having just one ball is so repressive and intolerant. From now on any number of balls can be used during the game. And it is the worst form of oppression to have just two sets of goal posts, so from henceforth anyone can set up goalposts anywhere they like.
Moreover, restricting the game to an oval is just so unfair and oppressive. The game should be allowed to be played wherever one chooses; in an office, the toilet, at church, or in the centre of Parliament House, Canberra.
And given that rules, umpires, and the like are evidence of rigid conformity, outmoded authoritarianism, and bourgeois morality, all games from now on will be played completely free of any rules, and all umpires will be forever banned from the game.
Isn’t this just so very liberating, progressive and modern? Why be slaves to old-fashioned laws and morals? Let’s go with the times and end all unjust discrimination and restrictions on rights. After all, the name of the game is equality, freedom and justice for all.
Oh, and by the way: ‘Opening up football to be more inclusive, progressive and representative of the realities of our sporting relationships today is not a threat to the institution, but rather an opportunity to preserve it.’
Adapt or die, AFL. Yeah, I guess that all makes perfect sense. So, foolish me, thinking that a bit of tinkering around the edges of marriage would be a big deal. I can thank Katrina Fox and her buddies for clearing this up for me.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44576.html
[1218 words]