So 77 MPs in New Zealand (versus 44 others) decide they will forever alter the fundamental nature of marriage in order to placate a few hundred activists who are making a stink. Go figure. On something this important a referendum should have been held and the people should have been allowed to speak.
And already we see the loopy left exploiting this big time. The Australian Greens have said they will introduce a bill into the Senate to recognise here any homosexual marriage which occurs in New Zealand. We expect this from the uber-radical Greens, but we don’t expect it from what is supposed to be a conservative party.
NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell has just come out in support of homosexual marriage. So, another Liberal Party leader bites the dust, sells his soul, and shows us his true colours. Of course we have known all along what a limp-wristed weakling he is.
As I wrote at the time, basically the very first thing he did when becoming NSW Premier in 2011 was to announce his full support of the annual Sodom and Gomorrah perversion event – the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. He proudly proclaimed the government (that is the taxpayer) would keep funding this sexual debauchery parade.
And get a load of the Orwellian Doublespeak he used to push his radicalism: “My view – a view that I’ve come to in recent years – is that as a Liberal who believes that commitment and family units are one of the best ways in which society is organised, I support the concept of same-sex marriage.”
Does one laugh or cry at such sheer moonbattery? No, the family always have been mum, dad and the kids. Sure, there may be childless families, or the extended family, or two sisters living together. But two guys basing their relationship on sodomy do not a family make – nor a marriage.
It is a pity deluded leaders such as Barry and the NZ 77 do not listen more closely to what other homosexuals are actually saying. Many have been quite forthright in proclaiming that marriage is just not on, and is in fact wrong. Why do these homosexuals never get a hearing in the lamestream media?
Of course we know the answer to that, so it is up to the alternative media to shed some light here. As I report in my book, Strained Relations, many homosexuals have admitted that they most certainly do not want marriage. Many have said if they do get marriage, it will be bent out of recognisable form when they get done with it.
But here I want to highlight just one homosexual leader who has showed a bit of honesty on this matter. I refer to Doug Mainwaring who recently wrote a piece entitled, “I’m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage”. It is well worth quoting portions of it here:
“The notion of same-sex marriage is implausible, yet political correctness has made stating the obvious a risky business. Genderless marriage is not marriage at all. It is something else entirely. Opposition to same-sex marriage is characterized in the media, at best, as clinging to ‘old-fashioned’ religious beliefs and traditions, and at worst, as homophobia and hatred.
“I’ve always been careful to avoid using religion or appeals to tradition as I’ve approached this topic. And with good reason: Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance. But reason and experience certainly have.”
As to experience he shares how he once was in a heterosexual marriage, but that ended. He says this about the impact on children in a homosexual household: “One day as I turned to climb the stairs I saw my sixteen-year-old son walk past his mom as she sat reading in the living room. As he did, he paused and stooped down to kiss her and give her a hug, and then continued on.
“With two dads in the house, this little moment of warmth and tenderness would never have occurred. My varsity-track-and-football-playing son and I can give each other a bear hug or a pat on the back, but the kiss thing is never going to happen. To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness.
“There are perhaps a hundred different things, small and large, that are negotiated between parents and kids every week. Moms and dads interact differently with their children. To give kids two moms or two dads is to withhold from them someone whom they desperately need and deserve in order to be whole and happy. It is to permanently etch ‘deprivation’ on their hearts.”
He continues, “Here’s a very sad fact of life that never gets portrayed on Glee or Modern Family: I find that men I know who have left their wives as they’ve come out of the closet often lead diminished, and in some cases nearly bankrupt, lives—socially, familially, emotionally, and intellectually.
“They adjust their entire view of the world and their role within it in order to accommodate what has become the dominant aspect of their lives: their homosexuality. In doing so, they trade rich lives for one-dimensional lives. Yet this is what our post-modern world has taught us to do. I went along with it for a long while, but slowly turned back when I witnessed my life shrinking and not growing.”
He finishes, “Two men or two women together is, in truth, nothing like a man and a woman creating a life and a family together. Same-sex relationships are certainly very legitimate, rewarding pursuits, leading to happiness for many, but they are wholly different in experience and nature.
“Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable ‘social units,’ and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives.
“And while same-sex marriage proponents suggest that the government should perhaps just stay out of their private lives, the fact is, now that children are being engineered for gay and lesbian couples, a process that involves multiple other adults who have potential legal custody claims on these children, the potential for government’s involvement in these same-sex marriage households is staggering.
“Solomon only had to split the baby in two. In the future, judges may have to decide how to split children into three, four, or five equal pieces. In Florida, a judge recently ordered that the birth certificate of a child must show a total of three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man (the sperm-providing hairdresser of one of the lesbian moms). Expect much more of this to come.
“Statists see great value in slowly chipping away at the bedrock of American culture: faith and family life. The more that traditional families are weakened in our daily experience by our laws, the more that government is able to freely insert itself into our lives in an authoritarian way. And it will.
“Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas at Austin, recently said, ‘I think you can have social stability without many intact families, but it’s going to be really expensive and it’s going to look very “Huxley-Brave New World-ish.” So [the intact family is] not only the optimal scenario … but it’s the cheapest. How often in life do you get the best and the cheapest in the same package?’
“Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations.”
And he ought to know.