More Marriage Myths from the Militants

Activists who push for things like homosexual “marriage” routinely rely on falsehoods, sloppy thinking, emotionalism, and the endless promotion of myths. And one of the most common myths perpetuated by the activists is that it is only religious folks who oppose their agendas, and they should not be allowed a say because we live in a secular nation.

wong 2This myth is repeated constantly in the hopes that enough gullible people will eventually start believing it. Of course there is no truth to this at all, but that does not stop the activists from keeping on bringing it up. I have dealt with this often already, but it looks like I need to do so yet once again.

This is because we have just had a leading Labor politician again pull out this old canard and use it to silence her opponents. The Labor leader in the Senate Penny Wong gave a speech on Wednesday night in which she once again regurgitated these tired old myths about nasty religious views encroaching on society and a new theocracy about to raise its ugly head in Australia.

She was quite upset that some religious folks and some religious organisations have actually dared to enter into public debates over some of the most pressing social and cultural issues of our time. Be it homosexual marriage or the dangerous “Safe Schools” programs, Ms Wong thinks it is entirely inappropriate for religious folks to have a say on these crucial matters – at least in the public arena.

Let me offer here some moral and mental clarity to offset the silliness and falsehoods of Ms Wong. Those who are interested in what she had to say – some of which I will quote below – can read it by using the link at the end of this article. Here then are six rebuttals to her thoroughly mistaken and woefully inaccurate views.

Imposing your beliefs

Ms Wong seems to think that Christians and religious types are somehow ‘imposing their beliefs’ on others when they speak about controversial issues such as the sexual education of our children or the redefinition of marriage. She said this: “Religious freedom means being free to worship and to follow your faith without suffering persecution or discrimination for your beliefs. It does not mean imposing your beliefs on everyone else.”

Um, earth calling Ms Wong: This is exactly what you and your mates are guilty of: you are forcing your views onto the rest of us. You are forcing your patently false belief that religious folks must butt out of all public discussions and debates, and you are pushing your radical view that two men and their sexual relationship can somehow equate to heterosexual marriage.

How bizarre for her to claim that groups like the Australian Christian Lobby are forcing their views onto the nation, but she and her colleagues are not! Of course she is pushing an agenda and of course she is trying to impose her values and beliefs onto everyone else.

And when I or any other faith-based individual or group speak out about these matters, I am not imposing my beliefs on anyone. I can’t – I am just a mere citizen using the rights of free speech to share my point of view. The main ones who can impose their views are politicians – like Ms Wong – who actually do have government power behind them to force certain views onto others.

Religious folks must stay silent

What sheer arrogance and contempt Ms Wong has for ordinary Australians to suggest that they must sit down and shut up when it comes to these important social and moral debates. The simple truth is this: the majority of Australians still consider themselves to be religious, while hard-core atheists and secularists are still a minority group here.

Is she really saying that the majority of Australians should not be allowed to speak on vital issues of the day because their religion is somehow adversely affecting them and what they have to say? Does she really have that much disrespect and hatred of ordinary Australians that she expects that they must just exempt themselves from these crucial debates because they happen to have religious convictions?

Everyone has a worldview

Contrary to what Ms Wong may believe, we all have a worldview or set of presuppositions that we operate from. This is as fully true of Wong and all the other sexual militants as of anyone else. They do in fact work out of a particular religious orientation.

In this case their worldview happens to be that of secular humanism and the like. These are just as much faith-based systems as any other. Even the US Supreme Court has declared that non-theistic views like Buddhism and secular humanism are religious belief systems. So please spare us this silliness that you operate on a different level from most other Australians.

Non-religious arguments

Another myth being pushed by Wong and others like her is that the only opposition one can have to something like homosexual marriage comes from some sort of religious bias. She wrongly assumes that only a handful of Christians and a few other religious types are making the no case on these sorts of issues.

The truth is, there are all sorts of people who are opposed to homosexual marriage, to the safe schools programs, and other radical left agenda items. Plenty of non-religious folks can be found in their ranks. I know many personally who are not at all religious.

And of course the case against fake marriage can be made entirely on secular grounds without the slightest reference to religion or sacred texts. Indeed, I have done that often now, including in full-length books. My debate book with homosexual activist Rodney Croome is made up entirely of non-religious arguments.

The book, Why vs Why: Gay Marriage (Pantera Press, 2010), features only social science, medical, philosophical and scientific arguments, and not one religious or biblical argument. The same is true of the first half of my 2011 book, Strained Relations. There would be hundreds of other examples of secular rebuttals to these things, be they in book, essay or article form.

Separation of church and state

Ms Wong and so many like her once again mangle what this particular debate has always been about. See what she says in her speech as one article puts it:

Wong said that religious belief should not be applied to frame laws in a secular society because “in societies where church and state are constitutionally separate, as they are in Australia and the US, this leads not only to confusion but also to inequity”.

Actually the term in question has nothing to do with the US Constitution which in fact fully guarantees religious freedom. The exact phrase came from Thomas Jefferson a full decade after the First Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified.

And that Amendment was never about keeping religion out of the nation and its governance. It was specifically about government not officially endorsing and promoting one religion above another. That is all that was meant, and the Founding Fathers would scoff at any notion that they were trying to set up some secular state where religion had no value or influence. Quite the contrary.

For more on this important aspect of the debate, see here:

Double standards

Why is it that Wong and her secular left buddies never say a word when religious lefties come out and support their positions? Be it pro-homosexuality, pro-abortion, pro-Islam, anti-family, anti-capitalism or what have you, these leftist agenda items are being run with all the time by those of the religious left.

I have yet to hear Ms Wong and others in her party say that these folks must keep their mouths shut because they are “religious” and therefore not entitled to speak in a secular society. The exact opposite is true of course: they will praise these religious lefties, they will invite them to speak at their rallies, they will quote them in their speeches, and they will lionise them in public. The double standards here are utterly blatant and appalling.


Penny Wong as a citizen, a lesbian, and a politician, is entitled to push her point of view all she likes. That is what a democracy with genuine freedom of speech is all about. But she certainly is not entitled to misuse and abuse her political power, prestige and influence to seek to silence the majority of Australians and their legitimate concerns because they don’t happen to square with her radical secular left beliefs.

Dragging up the religious card is by now such a tired and such a discredited tactic. It is pure bunkum, and it tells us much about Wong and others that this is all they can come up with to make their case. Indeed, they are not making their case at all. They are just trying to silence all contrary voices.

[1487 words]

23 Replies to “More Marriage Myths from the Militants”

  1. The ‘non-religious’ view on SSM which I have often shared is that marriage actually pre-dates religion. It doesn’t matter if we look at the ancient Egyptians, the tribes of the Amazon or pre-European settlement Australian aborigines, some form of marriage has existed across all cultures since time immemorial. And it has always been between a man and a women for the purpose of bringing forth the next generations. Same sex ‘marriage’ is simply a nonsense; regardless of whatever foolish legislation is passed, it doesn’t exist. It’s just the product of some militant leftist gay activists who cooked-up a new outrage in recent years claiming that some inequality exists; it is as nonsensical as gay men claiming inequality because they want the right to give birth and breastfeed.

  2. I have a dream that one day true Australians will be free to voice an opinion. I have a dream that our political and Islamic oppressors are seen for what they are and that the dream will one day become real and all of us politically, religiously oppressed will be free to silence those who would seek to silence us forever.

  3. Everything the Australian Government has a right to give homosexuals has already been given. They already have all the civil rights of truly married people despite the fact that homosexual relationships are nothing like equal to marriage – they don’t respect and unite the natural family, they don’t respect the child’s rights to be raised wherever possible by their biological parents, they don’t respect sexual morality, they don’t give society the access to parentage to prevent incest, they undermine the rights associated with parenthood plus they give the state defacto parental rights by undermining the biological basis of these rights etc. etc. etc. The argument of equality is a complete lie because the two things are nothing like equal.

    The Australian Supreme Court ruling that the Federal government has authority over marriage cannot by any reasonable assessment say that the Federal Government has the right to redefine marriage without consent from the Australian voting public. If that were truly the case the government could redefine anything they wished within the Constitution without ever having to take anything to the public. The whole idea of referenda would be completely undermined because, if the government can redefine the words the Constitution is written in, you can make the Constitution say anything you like. That authority was never given to the government and if we allow this to happen this will be just one more right we have just ignorantly given away with total disregard for the freedoms we have inherited. The biggest slippery slope is the idea that laws can be based on lies. No person in their right mind should ever allow this to happen. The simple line within the Constitution says that the Federal government has the right to make laws with regard to marriage. It does not say anything like the Federal Government can redefine marriage to be whatever it deems and then take authority over that new idea of what the new definition of marriage is. Nowhere in the Constitution will you see the idea that the government has the right to redefine the words the Constitution is written in. Clearly if that was actually said it would make the Constitution completely useless. You could redefine elections. You could redefine what States are. You could redefine what citizens are. You could redefine anything and take whatever power you wanted over whatever you wanted.

  4. Thank you for standing up. Believers get labeled because they do not go along with the secular flow, as what happened today, when someone in a room pointed out that I did not go along with same-sex marriage. I am encouraged that traditional marriage advocates are now being heard, after getting some breathing space. Keep up your good work. The lights are shining in the darkness!

  5. Thank you Bill for taking on the Wong belittling of the meaning of marriage – no matter what religious group or non religious members of Australian society.
    I thank God for writers like you & wait for the day when Australians are able to participate in a clear vote for the maintenance of marriage as it is in our Constitution.

  6. I am one if those nonchristian, nonreligious people as referred to by Bill. Although I believe in A supreme being I don’t give a name or gender or face to this supreme person. But I do believe in religion as a basis for human existence where families adhere to a moral code, honesty and respect. A male is born with XY sex chromosome and female with XX and no matter what the homosexuals and transgenders bang on about a true marriage can only happen between a man and a woman. Yet they are entitled their opinion but they SHOULD NOT rubbish traditional marriage views or views of the religious people. You practise what you preach WONG.

  7. I was quite surprised tonight, watching the ABC the Drum, when one commentator actually quoted Jesus in his reference to marriage being only between a man and a women, you could feel the anger and credulity in the other commentators at the mention of the J word. But it is the answer as you can’t deny that Jesus said it. Jesus never said anything that he didn’t mean. Bring on the plebiscite.

  8. Thank you Bill for sounding the voice of reason in the midst of this assault upon our Australian and Christian values. People of the left, such as Penny Wong, are entitled to their opinions but where the left always oversteps is in its shrill screaming at those who hold opposing views.
    Ms. Wong and those of her ilk, scream at the rest of us, not because of their superior logic or reason but in an attempt to justify their view of morality and chosen lifestyle. People whose consciences are pricked are often vile and contemptible towards those who, in their minds, stand in opposition to their ‘values’. Hence their hatred of anyone calling themselves Christian. To justify their leftist platform, they are prepared to annihilate the rest of us, if they can.

  9. I am an atheist and have no time for religious organisations and their followers. I am vehemently opposed to SSM as it does not conform to the natural order. i.e. male and female to procreate the next generation. I strongly resent the fact that Shorten, Wong, and Plibersek sabotaged the democratic will of the people to hold a plebiscite and on the grounds that the public are too small-minded to debate and vote on the subject. I have no trust in the moral judgements of our politicians when they cannot even exercise moral and ethical principles in regard to their own travel expenses and two-homes allowances.
    If SSM becomes merely a political decision then Shorten and co will forever be remembered as the anti-democracy Party.

  10. Thanks, Bill. So helpful, such politicians are chillingly clever at confusing the issues. Your clarity is ever appreciated!

    Penny Wong was very quick to tell us that she goes to church, (I think it was on Q&A) -does that make her religious?! interestingly when she was then questioned about her faith she avoided the question saying it was a personal and private matter. She had just made it rather public, I thought.

    How can politicians like her be held accountable for such lies and the confusion? Is there not some mechanism to challenge politicians who abuse their power other than waiting for an election? How can an honest debate occur?

  11. Why is it OK for those who support LGBT be allowed to name call and be disrespectful to those who believe the biblical source of what marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman or believe in traditional marriage without any religious beliefs? Or call them homophobic when we express that we don’t accept SSM. They expect government laws to back them up and silence anyone who is not in favour of their beliefs. Because ultimately that is what it is – their belief, their opinion. Yet they want to silence anyone else’s opinions or beliefs calling them out of date, or saying they shouldn’t be accepted because they are “religious views”. A bit hypocritical?

  12. A Penny worth of thoughts that makes no cents but only shows gross hypocrisy!!!

  13. Penny Wong is a Paper Politician – the inspiration for this piece of wisdom is Paper Genders by Walt Heyer. Thankyou Bill, for putting me onto Walt Heyer and for todays’ excellent Shredding of this bit of Leftist scrap paper by Wong.

  14. The SSM brigade have their megaphones, while the traditional/conventional marriage followers have had tea-towels shoved in their mouths. The only ‘hate speech’ being spoken is by the dangerous mind-manipulators of the left. Many gay people do not want same sex marriage, and feel that there are far more urgent matters to address.

  15. The foundations of a moral stable society are being destroyed. Marriage is vital key for a safe stable environment for children to grow and learn about love, commitment and relationship from their parents. A man and woman. Can’t escape that reality Penny. Do Wong and Co. have any thought to how society will handle the fatherless generation of angry, defiant, uncontrollable children being raised in welfare dependent homes of single mothers? No one is fighting for protection of family and Marriage now. SSM will just further devalue and make a joke of what God invented marriage for: for family, for the creation of children, and to learn selfless love. A covenant between a man and a woman made before God.

  16. How can some one with no real personal family life experience dare to speak About marriage between a man end a woman some thing that has been respected widely for thousands of years ..

  17. Senator Wong seems to suffer from acute & frightening delusions, IF there is ANY ‘forcing of beliefs’, such is by Politicians, NOT by John (or Mary) Citizen. She seems to ignore Chesterton’s advice: Before you remove a fence, it is wise to ascertain why such was built initially. Her views are regressive, NOT ‘progressive’.
    “Atta boy”, Bill.

  18. Hi Bill, Ms Wong is clearly an educated woman, I am led to believe she came from a Christian family. From the best of my limited theological knowledge, God has not repealed Hebrews 10:31 AMP Version. There will be a day of reckoning, and I would not want to be in Ms Wong’s shoes when it comes to pass. Bill, thank you so much for continuing to “DISH IT OUT”. God Bless, Kel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *