14 Reasons that Same-Sex Marriage is not about Equality

110

This article was originally published on 27/8/2016.

From an anonymous contributor.

The aim of the same-sex marriage movement is to change the definition of marriage, not marriage equality. All the talk of equality is just so the Left can present itself as the side which fights against inequality and injustice: “the good guys”. This way, they can more easily win supporters to their cause, because people like to think of themselves as good, and on the side of justice: “What’s wrong with you, are you against equality? Why are you against marriage equality, then?”

14341928159_9cfb93021b_Gay-weddingBut no, that’s just clever talking to persuade people. Same-sex marriage is not about equality. Here are fourteen reasons, even though one is enough. And by the way, I don’t have it in for gays. I just think same-sex marriage is a bad idea, and a raw deal for kids. The below contains no cheap shots, nor insults, just ordinary observations. My aim is to call out the people who disingenuously say that same-sex marriage is about equality.

1. Two men in a relationship, or two women, are not the same a man and a woman. This can be easily demonstrated in real life. Imagine meeting three groups of people on three different occasions. The first group is two men, the second is two women, and the third is a man and a woman. Will you act exactly the same towards each of the three groups? Will they act the same way towards you?

2. A man and a woman have the potential to have a child, but two people of the same sex lack that potential.

3. That potential to have a child is the entire basis of the continuation of our species and our civilisation. There is (roughly) a naturally-occurring 1:1 ratio of males to females in the world. The legal union of a man and a woman, aka marriage, reflects and supports these facts of nature. Same-sex marriage doesn’t reflect those facts, or contribute to future generations of human life.

4. A man and a woman have complementary sex organs; a same-sex couple doesn’t.

5. When a man and a woman can‘t have a child, it’s unfortunate. A same-sex couple, in contrast, can simply never have their own child; it’s never a question of ‘fortunate’ or ‘unfortunate’.

6. An opposite-sex couple can choose not to have a child. A same-sex couple can never be given that choice.

7. A same-sex couple uses a sperm donor or surrogate mother to obtain a child because they never had any other option. An opposite-sex couple does so because the first option is no longer available to them.

8. Any child raised by a same-sex couple is not the equal of a child raised by its own parents. In the former case, the child is denied one or both of its natural parents, and may when older have a yearning to seek out his or her biological mother or father. This is a common occurrence already. But in the latter case, the child is not denied its parents, and is allowed to be raised and loved by the same parents to whom it is related, and who brought it into existence. Such a child will never yearn to find any lost parent; his or her parents will be at home.

9. A child raised by a same-sex couple does not have equal representation of the sexes in parenting roles. In other words, such a child does not have both a male parent and a female parent. In contrast, a child raised by its own parents, or opposite-sex foster parents, does get equal representation of the sexes. This is a problem for the Left. They want every industry to have equal representation of male and female workers: from parliament, to the army, to boardrooms. But they don’t demand equal representation of the sexes in the job of parenting. Why the exception?

10. A same-sex couple lacks the ability to provide a child in its care a role model of both male and female parenting. An opposite-sex couple, whether the child’s own parents or foster parents, does not lack this ability.

11. The Left argues that gays have historically been denied the right to marriage. This is false. They have always been free to marry, but it’s been a bit harder for them. Regardless, there is not an inequality that needs to be addressed. (Yes, gays have in the past not been totally free to pursue a gay lifestyle. But that is not the same as being denied the right to marriage.)

12. If introduced, same-sex marriage will instantly cause a shift in language. There won’t be simply ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ any more. We will have to speak of one’s ‘gay husband’ or one’s ‘female wife’; of ‘gay marriage’ and of ‘real marriage’. People like to be clear when they speak, and because same-sex marriage really is not the equal of real marriage, these new terms, or ones like them, will be inevitable.

13. If the Left really wanted equality, why not push to abolish marriage altogether? Let the state recognise no marriage at all, only cohabitation arrangements. Surely no-one at all being married would be real equality? 0=0, after all. It would be a bit like abolishing the aristocracy, instead of expanding it by admitting different people to it. Abolishing marriage might even be easier to pull off. Many opposite-sex couples live together and have kids without getting married, or cohabit for many years before having a wedding ceremony. The terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are already used less, in favour of ‘partner’. Why not just push that social current the whole way along, abolish marriage once and for all, and get equality that way? Of course, you wouldn’t do that if equality wasn’t your goal, and something else was.

14. Why is the Left not pushing to change the definition of marriage to include polyamorous relationships as well as well as same-sex couples? Why does their ideal version of marriage only consist of two people? Is, in their view, a polyamorous relationship not equal to a two-person relationship? If so, why? What’s so special about the number 2? (Of course, for a man and a woman, 2 is a very special number, as that is what is necessary to have a child. The number 2 reflects the fact that there are two sexes, which are polar and complementary. But what is the particular significance of the number 2 to a same-sex relationship?)

For all these reasons, same-sex marriage is not about equality. Despite that, advocates of same-sex marriage keep harping on about it. They call it ‘marriage equality’.

Well, it’s time to call them out on that. Same-sex marriage is not about equality, it’s about changing the definition of marriage. Why they want to do that is a topic for another essay. But briefly, as far as I can see, the aim is to diminish the importance of family, family ties, sex roles in parenting, and the influence of the Church in our society.

Photo by joseanavas

Photo by Rog01

  • Steve B

    The fact that we have to come up with counter arguments to marriage perversion is a sick joke…

  • Pete of Freo

    And what about equality for those who want to fuck animals, or pumpkins, or washing machine hoses??

    • Olaf Koenders

      Tried all those have we..?

      Pffft.. I’m just being an idiot.

      But it wouldn’t surprise me that if we go this road that sometime in the future we’ll have some dirty Muslim group pushing for donkey marriage. I mean, they’ve been raping ’em for centuries already, right?

    • Garry Ward

      Now ya talking sense. Ya forgot the blokes who tackle Range Rover exhaust pipes.

    • Garry Ward

      There’s a subtle slip through with the word sex being substituted for the word SODOMY. Dear fellow readers, sodomy is when one man inserts his penis in anothers anus and gives the bedroom a smell of an unflushed toilet. I am not so good with words so this is as soft as I can write about two totally different activities. SEX is SEX. SODOMY is FILTHY.

  • Malcolm Smith

    Great minds think alike. Your 14 reasons boil down to 3 of the 7 reasons I gave last year in:
    http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/same-sex-marriage.html

  • Olaf Koenders

    I don’t really care what gays and lezzo’s do, but looking around the animal kingdom, it’s always been male and female couples, excepting asexualities such as snails and fleas etc.

    Gay coupling in nature is an anomaly, which appears (so far as I know) to be a human trait only. Many hundred million years of evolution have provided all species with what they need to survive and propagate.

    Gay sex of any kind is an end-game in this regard, especially if it becomes the norm, which I believe it won’t.

    The church or religion in general has always been the domain of marriage, because sin, ya know. Note that this isn’t required in the animal kingdom. Imagine the blank stares we’d get from an animal if it could comprehend such a subject and that we’ve been subjecting ourselves to it for this long.

    Although the church and its stranglehold over marriage is now almost dissolved, it’s still a legally binding contract regarding adultery, bigamy and the like. I feel, and I bet that many may disagree, that the definition of marriage shouldn’t be changed to include gay couples, because we’ll soon be overrun by all manner of definitions, just like the LGBTIAlphabet have some 60 definitions of gender identities. It’ll go too far one day. How many gender toilet blocks will we have to construct to cater for that? Boggles the mind.

  • Elizabeth Craster

    I’d choose to remain anonymous too, if I was dribbling this rubbish and Olaf, did you check your information on the sexual activities of animals? As far as you know apparently isn’t very far at all, you may go further if you got your facts straight.

    • Olaf Koenders

      They’re smart enough not to crave marriage.. 🙂

  • Yuri.A

    Elizabeth, please enlighten us further.
    Please set out the facts for us in a cogent and intelligent response regarding rainbow creatures in the animal kingdom.
    Perhaps we need a plebiscite on gay marriage for our animal friends.
    I will ask my lgbtixyz cat and dog how they feel.

    • Steve B

      Ha ha ha, that is funny…

  • Meowfsy

    “From an anonymous contributor” Oh, of course it is. Because you’re spouting garbage. You are against same-sex marriage because you believe it will spoil the sanctity of marriage for opposite-sex couples. You are accusing the same-sex marriage movement to not be about ‘equality’ without providing any facts to prove this what-so-ever. Also, marriage ≠ parenting, just so you know. And if you think that getting married but not having children is so awful, then you should take that up with all the opposite-sex couples who choose not to have children before using it as an excuse to be against same-sex marriage.

    Here’s my rebuttal to each of the points you’ve made here:

    1. Yes… and yes? How I act towards people and how they act towards me is determined by the individual person, not their gender alone.

    2. What does reproduction have to do with marriage legality? Yes, same-sex couples can’t (yet) have biological children of their own in the same way that opposite-sex couples can. But last time I checked, people get married because they love one another, not because they want children. With this logic, should all couples who choose not to have children be banned from marriage?

    3. Once again, what about opposite-sex couples that choose not to have children?

    4. Yes, that is a biological fact. Good on you. But what has that got to do with marriage? We already know that complementary sex organs aren’t necessary to have sex, if that’s your problem.

    5. That’s your personal view of what is ‘fortunate’ and ‘unfortunate’, that doesn’t mean it is shared by everybody else. If a same-sex couple was upset because they could never have a biological child, I would consider it unfortunate.

    6. I don’t know what world you live in but both couples can choose whether or not to have children.

    7. You just contradicted question 6? You made a big deal about how same-sex couples can’t have kids and now you are demonstrating ways that they can. Sure, they aren’t as biological as opposite-sex children, but does that matter?

    8. Are you against same-sex parents or are you against adopting children in general? Because it sounds like the latter.

    9. Just because a child has a mum and dad, it doesn’t mean they are guaranteed to be represented well. What about single parents? What about deceased parents? What about irresponsible parents? You said you were going to create an argument from facts, but if you only use selected facts and ignore the rest then your argument is completely baseless.

    10. Once again, single parents, irresponsible parents… And you’ve also mentioned foster parents are fine here. So you’re okay with adoption then? What about the whole ‘search for biological parents’ argument?

    11. Where and when have gay people been allowed to legally marry? You know that marriage isn’t just a wedding with fancy clothes right? It is a legal document, and such a service was denied to same-sex couples. And despite marriage being legal in the U.S. some couples are still denied this service.

    12. You have a problem with new terms? Okay so I don’t know, maybe you don’t do it, but no matter if it’s your husband or wife, a lot of people tend to say ‘Partner’ as in, “my partner and I”. Nobody has ever had a problem with this, even though it can be pretty ambiguous (are they even married? Or just a couple? Who knows). So, if there was never a problem with this term before gay marriage, why would there suddenly be an issue now?
    Also, nobody would ever say “oh, Brandon’s gay husband” … They would just say “Brandon’s husband”. The gender is in the fucking title of ‘husband’, and Brandon is obviously a man. If you can’t work out that they are gay then you are an idiot. And why would gay-marriage not be equal to ‘real’ marriage? If two men (or two women) are married, then they are married. They aren’t ‘gay married’ they aren’t ‘fake married’, they are married. It’s as real as any other marriage. What the fuck are you talking about?

    13. Like I said, marriage is a legal binding document that will merge your assets and rights with the person you are marrying. It is NOT just a fancy ceremony. To abolish marriage would be to screw a lot of couples over. Including my parents. No thanks.

    14. There is a demand for same-sex marriage and no demand for polyamorous marriage. And once again, marriage is a legal binding document and is able to be the same for same-sex and opposite-sex marriage. But would need to be altered for a polyamorous marriage. It isn’t so simple.

    • Steve B

      You’re boring. Stop being so boring. Your counter arguments carry no weight here. They are boring and confected to suit a ridiculous premise…

      • Meowfsy

        Lmfao. I have an opinion that differs from yours and so therefore, I’m boring. Alright mate, you do you. At least I actually had an arguement, rather than just saying “THIS ARTICLE IS BORING!”.

        • Steve B

          Man plus woman = marriage. End of story…

          • Meowfsy

            I’m not sure if you know this, but same-sex marriage is legal in the U.S. and the country hasn’t exploded. Keep bible-thumping all you want, but there is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage and it IS about equal rights.

          • potenz walker

            Please, write an article about it and submit it to the Australian bigots corporation – they love you.

          • Steve B

            Genital mutilation is legal in some countries as well. Still does not make it right. You people are such hypocrites. You pick and chose your legalities…

        • potenz walker

          How much for the little lady catsfy? how much do you charge?

        • computer hacker

          My dog regularly humps the cat. Doesn’t mean we should legalize bestiality.

    • Yuri.A

      tl:dr
      I’m arranging for my gay dog and transgender cat to get “married” in a Las Vegas wedding chapel.
      I’m not sure how that fits your rebuttal points 6 & 8 meowfsy
      Not sure about rebuttal 4…. it was rather vulgar.

      • Meowfsy

        You sound like you are over 50, thinking that any mention of sex is ‘vulgar’.

        And what you said doesnt fit my rebuttal points 6 and 8 at all? A dog and a cat getting married is entirely irrelevant. I have no idea what you’re saying here.

        • Yuri.A

          Meowfsy…..1000 keks !

    • Sissipus

      You sound like one angry faggot.

    • The Author

      Hi Meowfy,

      The article was not 14 reasons why we should not have
      same-sex marriage. It was 14 reasons why same-sex marriage is not equal to
      man-woman marriage. I made this list to demonstrate that the use – often overuse
      – of the word ‘equality’ when talking about the redefinition of marriage was incorrect
      and misleading and disingenuous. I said that people spoke about ‘marriage
      equality’ because they wish to get people to support their cause. I said or clearly
      implied all this in the title and opening paragraphs.

      This is what this situation is like: Say a dad buys his kids
      a nice rocking horse, and puts it in the living room, and decorates it, and
      says, “Alright kids, here’s your new Christmas tree!” What are the kids
      supposed to say to that? “Dad, that’s not a Christmas tree, it’s a rocking
      horse.” Dad: “What, you got something against rocking horses?” Kids: Not at
      all. But we know what a Christmas tree is, and that isn’t one. It’s a rocking
      horse.” Dad: “But you can put your presents under it! It doesn’t matter that it’s
      not a ‘pine tree’! Besides, in other countries the government says they are
      legally the same!” Etc.

      My article is kind of like 14 reasons why a rocking horse
      does not equal a Christmas tree: it’s 14 reasons why same-sex marriage does not
      equal real marriage. And yet, all we hear about is equality this, equality that.
      Just like a rocking horse and a Christmas tree, they are not the same. So why
      draft a law saying that they are the same? Why the rush to get it done through
      parliament, why the fear of a plebiscite? What’s this all about really?

      Moreover, you did not deny any of the reasons I gave; all
      you did was give your opinion on each one as to why it was not an adequate reason
      not to have same-sex marriage. As I said, that was not the topic of this article.

      I’ve got two questions for you. First, Do you think that a
      man or a woman ought to be allowed bring a child into this world, fully
      intending to take that child away from its natural mother or father? That is a
      yes or no question. How you answer perfectly illustrates what the push for same-sex
      marriage is really all about, and that is the conflict between two competing value
      systems, one based on Christianity, and one based in Marxism.

      My values are that a child does best if it has both mother
      and father, and plenty of love. This is not hard to accomplish. The
      Marxist-based values are broadly speaking, that family is either unimportant,
      or bad, or a hindrance.

      Here’s the second question (composed of three bits). I
      noticed you used the word ‘fuck’ several times in your responses. That is a
      literary device which has two aims; demonstrating to the reader the level of your
      emotional connection to this topic, and also the disdain you have for me. I
      ask; could you have got your point across without emotion and disdain? If so, then
      why didn’t you do that? Did you think that your argument would carry more
      weight if you used emotion and disdain, rather than reason?

      • Steve B

        Killed Meowsky’s argument as dead as the concept of marriage perversion. Great counter point…

    • Sojourner

      Hi “Meowfsy”. Given your opposition to the expression of opinion under anonymity I’m assuming that is your real name?

    • athousandmonkeys

      Unfortunately for you, Meowfsy, your pathetically ignorant delusion has no bearing whatsoever on the actual truth. But by all means, keep desperately lying to yourself if that’s what it takes for you to cry yourself to sleep just a little less each night.

    • TL;DR

      Go back to Israel, Goblin

  • Olaf Koenders

    Origin of the word “fuck”, as far as I heard many moons ago from my school bus driver, was that marriage was the domain of the King, as it was his land.

    Fornication outside marriage was unlawful, so couples had to apply to the King to get married. They also had to hang a “fuck” sign on their door, because they were Fornicating Under Consent of the King. Without which they could be thrown into the dungeons. Later, the domain of marriage was moved to the church.

    However true that story is I have no idea. These days marriage is an unnecessary licence to fornicate. It’s just “legal” hand-waving as to the obvious. Why should we spend all the time, money and angst changing the definition of it to satisfy minority groups who have some insane craving to make their quite obvious ugly-bumping “official”? To what end benefit would this satisfy their egos, besides satisfying their egos that they got their way in the end?

    • Uncle Yarra

      Dunno if Van Halen was right, but I thought it was a colonial term, For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, i.e. convicts would outnumber young female maids etc, in the colonies (like Oz) and if they got together and were caught they would be prosecuted, i.e. done for a fuck.
      My 5c worth…

  • Sissipus

    British newspaper saturdaylast had an article about some shela who has married the Eiffle Tower………. now that is a BIG dildo

  • Eliza

    I am absolutely boggled that it’s not common knowledge by now that it’s been established years ago that homosexuality is found naturally in over 1,500 animal species. Here is a link to but one of the scientific institute’s statement from 2006: http://www.nhm.uio.no/besok-oss/utstillinger/skiftende/againstnature/index-eng.html

    Humon, a writer and artist, made a few cute-ish comic strips a few years ago depicting the diversity of mating and sex practices in the animal kingdom, many of which include homosexuality, and all of her facts listed can be verified independently in any zoology textbook: http://m.imgur.com/gallery/jKXOf

    And of course, wikipedia keeps a masterlist. Citations abound. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

    • Steve B

      Thousands/millions of years of evolution and humans are to take their moral compass and reasoning from animals who operate by instinct to support a perverted argument??? You cannot have it both ways. If it is ok for for humans to mimic animals then rule of the jungle is good, dog eat dog is the law and you lose…

    • Sojourner

      My friend, no number of arguments attempting to justify homosexuality will ever account for the simple fact that it is an aberration. Without gender difference in relationships there would be no “us” today. The same applies to any other species.

      I don’t hate homosexuals, not at all. I am just fully convinced that homosexuality, as an entity, adds absolutely nothing to the existence of any species that is not already contributed by heterosexuality. The whole “pride” claim is simply bizarre. I can only put that down to human nature and most people wanting to feel justified in the choices they make and ratified by others.

    • athousandmonkeys

      Yes, “homosexuality is found naturally in over 1,500 animal species”.

      SO FUCKING WHAT, you piteous inbecile?!

      Many of them also regularly rape and eat their young, so WHY aren’y you pushing for that as well?!

    • Dom Inic

      Homosexuals animals. What is your point. Your a human right?

    • Malcolm Smith

      Funny you should mention that, because I used be a zoologist involved in the study of animal behaviour. Indeed, my animal is included on the list. That is why I happen to know that the vast majority of these examples have little similarity to human behaviour. The human pattern of homosexuality is very rare among the non-human animals. I wrote an essay on that, which you can read at:
      https://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/homosexuality-in-lower-animals.html

  • Yuri.A

    Homosexuality is an abomination,indulged in by perverted degenerates.
    A homosexual lifestyle is a choice. A choice made by immoral dissolute and debauched libertines.
    Homosexuals are wracked by guilt.
    Why do you think they have used euphemisms like gay/rainbow/pride/ and stupid aphabet acronyms?
    Because they are ashamed of what they are,and they know it.
    They are afraid to call themselves homosexuals.
    It’s not enough they themselves are unwholesome and warped, they wish to drag normal heterosexuals down to their debased levels and ultimately destroy the family unit.

    • Meowfsy

      “Homosexuality is an abomination”, please can you write a paper or something. I’d LOVE to read it. You are an absolute riot.

      • potenz walker

        No Meowsfy. You’re the riot! I laugh at all your comments. Please provide more and more and more of them. We wait with bated breath…fists in our mouths…breathless and bosoms heaving…just waiting for the latest piece of wit to leave your mind and be bestowed upon us.

    • Sojourner

      I don’t agree with homosexuality. However, none of us is good; no not one…

      • GusD

        Homosexuality is an innate sexuality – there is nothing to agree or disagree with. They simply are and you aren’t meant to have feelings for or against.

        • Caitlin1488

          fags will burn in hell for their sodomy…rightly so…..pillow biters

          • GusD

            Hell doesn’t exist. It was made up in the middle ages to scare people into submission and then embellished by the likes of Dante. But I wouldn’t expect a lick of knowledge from you or your ilk – do you also believe the world is 6000 years old and that wearing garments of two different cloths is punishable by death?

    • GusD

      Gays aren’t wracked with guilt, people like you are wracked with hate. You are failing at being human.

      • Caitlin1488

        fags are degenerate animals…rutting in another mans asshole…..

  • Bill Kelly

    Where are all these “adopted children” going to come from. People do not seem to realise that the same sex mob have changed the definition of adoption and surrogacy. Now first you buy a child from a surrogate {sorry, pay their expenses} then you get the adoption papers as a receipt. Now as far as I know buying a person even a child is still slavery. Surrogates when first presented were women who would carry another woman’s fertilized egg to conception, having no biological relationship to the child, now it seems any woman who agrees to get pregnant and give up the kid for cash is a surrogate. Then there are the third world surrogates who “agree” to be impregnated to help their families “ie:hubby who might burn them alive if they disobey”. I could go on, but.

    • Meowfsy

      No, please go on.

    • Slavery for the woman, reduced to being an incubator and losing her own child to men who will most likely be perverts, slavery for the child who will be debased and degraded from an early age.

      There is nothing about this that is not evil.

      • GusD

        You’re a bad human being.

        • Caitlin1488

          brilliant comeback for a 10 yr old

          • GusD

            It wasn’t a comeback it was a statement of fact. Gee you aren’t very good at this.

        • And the pervert appears.

    • GusD

      Really? aside from the fact that gays can have their own children, there are shit tons of children who need good, stable families and you seem to think that gay families are going to exhaust the supply of kids out there. Jesus bloody christ you people are mental.

      • Caitlin1488

        homos are pedos

        • GusD

          They’re clearly not and anyone who thinks they are is more than confused about the two definitions and what sexuality is. But confusion about sexuality from the like of you is not at all a surprise.

  • Steven Chung

    One of the weakest argumentative pieces I’ve read. No, make that the worst. The title seems to suggest that writer has discovered some secret motive and that the gays are on to something more sinister than fighting for basic legal rights, then went on to list 14 absolutely stale, rhetoric, ungrounded observations abt gays being unnatural. Nothing we never heard before, and one point weaker than the next. The last 3 were farcical, to the point of ridiculing his own stand and proving further the LGBTs’ agenda IS about equality, and not about the rights of straight people.

    • Steve B

      The points stand, There is no argument that will convince you marriage perversion supporters otherwise. You will blindly discount every sensibility against this abhorrent cause. Here is a point against that has not been mentioned as yet. Marriage perversion makes me sick to my core. Argue against that one…

    • athousandmonkeys

      Yet the point still stands that THE ‘weakest argumentative piece’ insupport of changing the definition of marriage is that it’s about ‘equality’.

      Desperately bleat all you want, but facts are facts.

      Unfortunately for you, your pathetically ignorant delusion has no bearing whatsoever on the actual truth. But by all means, keep desperately lying to yourself if that’s what it takes for you to cry yourself to sleep just a little less each night.

      • Steven Chung

        Your truth you mean…
        facts are indeed facts, just don’t see them in your case.

        • athousandmonkeys

          No, little snowflake, THE truth.

          But as I said, keep desperately lying to yourself if that’s what it takes for you to cry yourself to sleep just a little less each night.

          • Steven Chung

            And that will be?
            You’re right abt the delusion part tho – I have to lie to myself To cry a little less, pretending that the world is now a nicer place. This article, you, and many like you bring us back to reality every now and then.

            Snowflake… haha, I like that.

          • athousandmonkeys

            It’s an irrefutable FACT that Australian homosexuals ALREADY have ‘marriage equality’.

            They have just as much right to ‘marry’ a consenting member of the opposite sex as any heterosexual Australian.

            TRUTH hurts, little bitch.

          • Steven Chung

            That’s one classy way to end the debate

          • athousandmonkeys

            Awwwwwwwwwwwwww. The poor widdle leftard snowflake can’t handle the TRUTH.

            Back to your ‘safe space’, snowflake.

    • Dom Inic

      “ungrounded observations about gays being unnatural”

      Yeah, like that ungrounded observation that men don’t have babies?

      • Steven Chung

        Sorry is this supposed to be funny?

  • phoneyid

    Yes youngsters; I’m in the 6th decade of my life; and I too use to know everything, but I’m not 30 anymore.
    You have been suckled on the Ann Frank Diaries, Mary’s Two Daddies, and All Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.
    Our education system has encouraged boys to get in touch with their “feminine side”, and tells girls they aren’t sluts if a man pries their legs open with a few drinks.. apparently that’s now called rape.
    Tell you what girls… If your dad goes out on the town with the boys for a few drinks tonight, and comes home with a condom 1/2 hanging out of his arse… believe you me… he’s a poof. The drinks had nothing to do with it. Think about that for a moment.

    The universal moral evolution of many millennia has been turned on it’s head in the matter of decades; not by human interests but by market forces as promoted by TV (formerly known as the idiot box) and now by your pide-piper George Sorros with his Get-Ups, Move-Ons, Slut Walks, etc.
    Plain and simply, homosexuality is a suicidal tendency in any species.

    Where are the Marxist Feminists now, the Germain Greers of this world that once saw marriage as an “oppressive instrument of patriarchy”.
    They almost understood, that in recognition of the old idiom “..’tiss a wise child that knows it’s own father”; men also restrained and committed themselves to marriage with a good woman as a way of knowing that they aren’t raising another man’s children.
    That is logically how the practice of marriage came to be. Logically that is it’s purpose; to raise offspring.

    Some in Germany are calling for decriminalization of incest; using your same reasoning, can you tell us why that is wrong?? … Say between a same sex parent and adult child.. “If it feels good for them, let them do it”; isn’t that what you’re saying??
    I’m guessing that you can’t really give an argument against a same-sex incestuous relationship, other than a moral one. And being that many of you have bee raised to be not only gender fluid but morally fluid too; then you support that too.

    Perhaps if your son comes home wearing a dress one day, you’ll realise how you have been suckled on bullshit.
    Until then, with a fluid morality, you will never fully grasp why mummy and the other mummy grinding each other, or daddy with a condom 1/2 hanging out his arse, is more than just kinky.

    • GusD

      There is no such thing as a universal moral evolution, you drunk old fuck. You haven’t become wise in your age, you’ve become sad.

      • Caitlin1488

        you are a sad homo

  • Dom Inic

    15th reason why the term “marriage equality” always will be a stinking lie?

    Marriage between a man and a woman worked for your parents your grand parents your great grand parents your great great grandparents your great great great grandparents and your great great great great grandparents. Did they have it wrong?

    • Steve B

      Well argued Dom Inic…

    • GusD

      Yes, they did. Ask me how.

  • Dom Inic

    Many people young and old honestly believe that extending the borders of marriage to include same sex couples is a good and fair and equitable thing to do. A civil right, just like allowing interracial marriage or women to vote. How could this possibly hurt anyone! Well you are oh so wrong! You have been duped by the cunning architects of evil as many before have.

    We should all take some time go back at least as far as that grubby German Philospher Karl Marx who in 1848 called for “Abolition of the family” in his “Communist Manifesto”. He did not believe in any higher authority than himself, he was his own god and he wanted destruction of religion, private property marriage and the family. Followers of his rebellious sect have sought to do just that – “smashing monogomy”, breaking up the family. They have “transformed societies” enslaving, raping, pillaging and murdering literally millions of people. Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao. If you were born after 1980 you’ll be lucky if you were taught a damn thing about the horrors of these communist, socialist experiments in any Australian school. You will need to go to your library.

    Back to my main point if you reject the authority of God then you submit yourself to be ruled by a tryant. Without some moral compass, some order outside of yourself, some higher authority then you become no more than an animal. In general this is how Marxists have lived their personal lives. Even then they were mostly homophobic, racist, the communist men couldn’t bring themselves to sexual relations with other men no matter how much they truly wanted to pervert sexuality. Communisim was all pretty “heteronormative” until they realised this idea of “gay marriage” was their ultimate weapon to destroy real marriage. That brings us to where we are at now. Redefining something necessarly destroys the old meaning. The Marxists in our education, health and politics are licking their lips right now.

    There has been some debate as to whether there is examples of homosexuality in the animal kingdom of which there may be. So what? Do you want to join them? Then go to New Zealand. Perhaps the next frontier for marriage equality in Australia may be just that – the right to marry your dog, cat or budgie. progressives will cry foul murder at that suggestion today (as Penny Wong did) but give it some time and they will have an open mind. That’s what it means to be progressive. Always changing – no compass, no higher authority “Ye shall be Gods”. Abortion is an example – the left’s demand for pro-choice has now become a cherished right to murder the most defenceless human lives and we are asked to pay for it with medicare too. Unthinkable.

    If you see yourself as a young LGBTIQ or other acronym and you are contemplating suicide after reading this post. Please don’t do it. Start searching for God, do some research, take a stand against the perversion of marriage, family and society. .

    • Bunyip

      i/ Which “god” should I submit to and
      ii/ What makes your choice of “god” any better than the pantheon of other “gods” available
      iii/ Your “god” created homosexuals et al. Are you saying s/he/it made a huge mistake?
      iv/ Why is it not possible to have a “moral compass” without submitting to the whims of a “god”?
      v/ The animal kingdom is replete with same sex activity from dogs to chimps and beyond. Why then would we not expect that sort of behaviour in humans?

      • Dom Inic

        Bunyip you have some good questions.
        i) There is only one tGod.

        • Bunyip

          Dom Inic thank you, I do try to post good questions rather than waste a person’s time. I used Roman numerals because I was bored with a), b), c) etc and basically to separate the questions rather than write a long paragraph. I have done research on Roman numerals as well as Sanskrit, Japanese and various Australian Aboriginal systems (did you know that their counting only goes to two, after that it is “lots/many”!
          a) How do you know that your god is the true one? Every other religion makes the same claim. No religion can prove the existence of any god. The Australian Aborigines have belief systems that predate the JudeoChristian beliefs by about 48,000years. Every claim made about any god is equally valid. “God exists in faith only” comes from your bible.
          b) What do those buildings have to do with the price of fish on a cold day in Copenhagen. Have you seen the Taj Mahal, The Red Fort or the Petronis Towers. All remarkable buildings but referring to The Pantheon etc means you’re talking about the Greek gods. Non sequitur.
          c) Your is described as omniscient as such knew that some people will be intolerant, pretty twisted if you ask. I’ll agree that people should be accepted for who they are.
          d) I’m glad that you’ve expanded your knowledge base. My compass is set firmly to “do no harm”, “do your best” and generally being a nice person. I do not need a god to fear or the interpretation of the multitude of changing interpretations of morality set by others. I am always amused by people who pray to various saints to intercede, I’m sure your Jesus said that the only way to god is through him. Another human fallibility for those of faith.
          e) The ‘animal argument’ was to show that homosexuality is widespread amongst the animal (man included) kingdom.
          I am against SSM for legal reasons.

        • GusD

          You mention roman numerals being significant so i’m going to assume your chosen God is either Saturn or Mithras.

  • Peter Uren

    Well you’ve certainly made some great arguments why knowingly sterile heterosexual couples (or those choosing not to have children) should be banned from getting married, (afterall they know there is no potential of childbearing) as well as the illegitimacy of adoption since it involves ‘unnatural’ parenting.

    Apparently a natural crack addict teenage mum with no financial support, or a natural child of domestic violence, or being placed in an orphanage, is better parenting than a loving gay couple who can provide a safe and stable environment with exposure to female role models through friends and family. While it might be unfortunate that both male and female role models might not be present in the form of mum and dad, the same could be said of single parent families.

    If you are planning to deny same sex marriage on these criteria, then you better start making a stricter definition of marriage and family law to uphold the same criteria for heterosexual couples.

    • Dom Inic

      “while it might be unfortunate that both male and female role models”. You reckon! Just “unfortunate” for the poor child! It is a miserable situation to put a child to satisfy adult selfishness. Your argument is flawed. Single parents can not physically have children either. You mean children of existing broken families. Now mum or dad has gone. That is unfortunate and unavoidable. Same sex or for that matter one sex single parent marriages are avoidable. Just vote No!

    • Möwe

      A natural crack addict teenage mum, natural child of domestic violence… Straw men, fella. Did I mention any of that in the article? Did I say or imply that children who are being neglected or abused should stay where they are? You ought to be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that I implied or said this in the article. However this type of emotive argument is usual for advocates of same sex marriage.

      Some facts: male-female sexual relationships can produce offspring. It’s the norm. same-sex couples can’t. That is also the norm. A same sex couple with a child is raising a child that is not being raised by one or both of its natural parents. Ergo, same-sex couples and male-female couples are not equal.

      Do you understand these facts? Do you understand that therefore, the argument that same sex marriage is about equality is disingenuous?

      Could you allow that perhaps, advocates of same-sex marriage might even know that it is a disingenuous argument, but use it anyway because it gets people onto their side? I mean, wouldn’t you like to be thought of as someone who supports ‘equality’?

      Can you allow that advocates of same-sex marriage might just want to get undecided people on their side, and are using whatever means at their disposal to accomplish that?

      What we must aim for is good marriages and loving families. But you have to know what ‘marriage’ means, and what ‘love’ means. Hint: it doesn’t mean letting people do whatever they want. It doesn’t have anything to do with hedonism. It’s not about being on crack and hooking up with some guy then having a kid for Centrelink benefits or whatever. It is very much about sacrifice, wise choices and hard work, and a good understanding of what we human beings really are. Loving, real marriages are very beneficial to children. They are the best. We should aim for the best.

      I’ve known several gay guys who would have made great dads. But why should they have the legal right to deny a child of its mother to be a father? Why give a ‘right’ to someone by taking one away from someone else? Sorry fellas, but I reckon you should choose one or the other.

      As for infertile couples, well they can at least adopt a child, and give that child a male and female parent, as is its natural right. It’s not an ideal situation but it’s better than abortions or orphanages.

  • athousandmonkeys

    As usual, the ignorant delusion of the left is only exceeded by their hypocrisy.

  • Jessica C. Solomon

    Yes it is about changing the definition of marriage BUT in order for that to happen, it does boil down to equality. If it’s not treated to be equal then the lines of communication would be shut off and no progress will be had.

    All you have done in this article i’s grasp at straws. You claim you are not meaning to make cheap shots, which I agree that was not your motive. Unfortunately, every observation you have made is reaching and taking the word “equality” out of context. The LGBTQ true aim is to be accepted. Therefore, we believe that we should have the same equal opportunity to marry the person we love. The balance of scales were uneven and we fought to change that. That’s called equality.

    Picking apart what same sex couples can and can’t do has nothing to do with the true purpose behind the community. Just because we can not produce children does not have anything to do with equality and the community as a whole, has never claimed that.

    You have twisted everything. I won’t sit here and write out everything false about each point you made. Idk what your real purpose was for this article. I can’t figure it out since everything I have read is a ‘piss take.’

  • Fags gonna fag…..

    • GusD

      Dickheads gonna dick…

      • Caitlin1488

        you should know

        • GusD

          I sure do.

  • Suaria

    1. It is true that those are different but I am failing to see why this point is relevant.
    2. Same sex couples still have the potential to create a child due to modern day science.
    3. Just because same sex marriage is allowed doesn’t mean everyone is going to be gay. There will always be people who marry and have kids with the opposite sex. Also there is 33 million more boys than girls in China. That is hardly a ratio of 1:1,
    4. Yet same sex couples can still have sex.
    5. Again same sex couples can have kids.
    6. The same goes for a same sex couple.
    8. This seems like it would be a common case for any adopted child. Should we not allow adoption? Should we let orphans be on the streets because their biological parents aren’t around anymore? Should we make it mandatory that kids stay in abusive homes instead of going into the foster system and having a possibility of being adopted?
    9. No matter who you are raised with, you will still have a representative. For instance a child being raised by two dads will have aunts and grandmothers who will be a representative of females. Vice versa for two females.
    10. Look at point 9 for this.
    11. Being married to someone who you are not attracted to or love romantically is hardly a marriage. But hey now a straight person can be married to the same sex. It is equal now.
    12. I highly doubt this. If a man is talking about his husband, he’ll say his husband. If a female is talking about her wife, she’ll say her wife. If a man is talking about his wife, he’ll say his wife. If a female is talking about her husband, she’ll say her husband. If you’re talking about a friend’s spouse, the person you’re talking to will probably know the gender of the friend and spouse from your context. There won’t be need of female wife or gay husband.
    13. Do you think people would be alright with having their marriage abolished?

  • Stephen De Bruyn

    For those that reject moral norms, tell me, what was wrong with what Josef Fritzl did with his daughters in the privacy of his own home?

    • The pedo homosexuals pushing fag marriage would have no issue with Fritzi. Hell, they would probably join in, the degenerates.

  • Pingback: 14 Reasons that Same-Sex Marriage is not about Equality – | Cranky Old Crow()

  • Malcolm Smith

    Here are 7 reasons why same sex “marriage” is a bad idea.
    http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/08/same-sex-marriage.html

  • Kelly McIntyre

    What is with the rampant paranoia about same sex marriage? It’s not the end of the world. Humans aren’t going to go extinct. We’re talking about a tiny segment of the population.

    • GusD

      It’s hate, or people who have such shitty lives of their own that they think they have the right to be busy body poke noses into everyone else’s.

      • Caitlin1488

        fags poke their noses into anuses…nice one…..not

        • GusD

          Heterosexuals do too. You must have a very plain sex life.

  • Pingback: Homosexual “marriages” are just another attack upon our traditional institutions()

  • Gill Payne

    Well written! Am sharing this!

    • GusD

      No, it was written rather poorly.

  • Gill Payne

    This seems pretty STRAIGHT forward!
    But seriously…good article thanks.

    • GusD

      Was it, though? Was it really?

  • Doric

    Reverent Daniel C Maguire is a Professor of Moral theological ethics at Marquette University Wisconsin. Past president of religious consultation on population, reproductive health and
    ethics. Holder of a degree in sacred theology from the Gregorian pontifical university in Rome and author of 11 books on the subject of theology and ethics.

    Reverent Maguire says it’s not the job of Christians to moralize over same sex marriage or abortion…that is not being Christian. Being Christian is recognizing the horrific deprivations
    suffered by millions working in third world sweat shops whose slave labor makes our clothing, cars and computers etc affordable and the war crimes carried out by our leaders who have murdered and displaced millions and holding them to account to for their crimes

    Amnesty International has recently accused the Turnbull government of being complicit in the mass murder of 13,000 civilians in Mosul.

    Reverent Maguire thinks those on both sides of this debate are hypocrites and suck, and I couldn’t agree more. Australians are infantile idiots who are full of shit.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et2Kxn01WR4

  • GusD

    1. Yes, unless you’re a cunt.
    2. Marriage isn’t required for procreation, it is a social and legal construct.
    3. See answer to 2.
    4. So what and plenty of heterosexual couples have the buttsex so what’s your problem, prude.
    5. Homosexual people can and do have children and do so all the time. Marriage is not required. Again, see answer to 2 (It does seem like we’re covering a lot of the same ground in different points, doesn’t it).
    6. Again, so what.
    7. Not necessarily.
    8. Now you’re just being a fucken cunt. All children are equal you judgemental bitch. Families don’t need to stick to your particular brand of what they ought to look like an children of gay couples are exactly the same as any of conventional – if you can all them that, because they aren’t very often conventional – relationships.
    9. Gay people by their very nature often embody both genders in the same person and where they don’t they are just like anyone else and you’d not guess they were gay at all so this is yet another point you’ve managed to bring up that is pretty steamy horse shit.
    10. Not even relevant, these aren’t really points you’re making, are they.
    11. Factually incorrect. In other words, bullshit.
    12. No language shift will occur it will still just be husband and wife as terms, or partner.
    13. We can abolish the institution of marriage altogether only when each citizen has the equal access to it. I’ll happily help you out if you wish to start the movement, but not till gays are on equal legal terms.
    14. Because it isn’t ‘the left’ that is pushing for it. It’s gays and those who love them and care about their welfare and also who care about legal equality under the law.

    You could have saved yourself some time and just written “One reason why I don’t want all citizens in my country to be legally equal – I don’t believe they’re equal to me” and that’s fine because we all have our views and beliefs and prejudices. It doesn’t mean you’re right, though and it opens you up for scrutiny and god help you if the gays one day get to vote on your personal business that has nothing to do with them. You’re fucked on that day if they haven’t forgotten this nonsense by then…

    • Caitlin1488

      what a vile piece of work you are

      • GusD

        No, I’m not – you’re just emotionally ill-equipped and unable to cope properly.

  • Pingback: Is it an error to reduce love to a vote? – The National Protection Scheme()