Home > Equality > Another day another homophobe.

Another day another homophobe.

marriage 1960 vs 2006Another day another homophobe.  Today’s is yet another followup to Lisa Pryor’s article in the Sydney Morning Herald.  This one comes from Chris Meney director, Life, Marriage and Family Centre, Catholic Archdiocese and it’s about as closet homophobe as one can get.  Not a single argument applies purely to homosexual couples, they can all be applied equally to heterosexual ones and in doing so the arguments are completely destroyed.

Lets analyze his response shall we?

Marriage is different from other relationships. The social benefits of committed, exclusive heterosexual unions include the generation of children and the raising of future citizens

So in other words he’s saying that marriage should be reserved only for couples who intend to or can have children.  Too old to have kids?  Annul your marriage.  Intending to get married?  Fertility test as a requirement.  Tubes tied or vasectomy?  Unless you already have kids, annul your marriage.  I’m sure he wouldn’t agree to any of those, so why does that argument apply to homosexual couples and not to hetero?  Special pleading and homophobic bigotry, that’s all it is.

a safe environment for the nurturing of those children; two complementary parents who can provide appropriate gender role modelling; parents who are biologically connected to their child and who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of that child; and a vital intergenerational connectedness within families and societies.

So parents should only be male and female, and they should only be biologically connected to the child.  Does this mean he wants to ban all adoption as both parents aren’t biologically connected?  What about parents made single through illness or injury, should the surviving parent have their child taken away due to not having two complementary parents?  His second last point, he’s saying (for no good reason) that it’s not possible for homosexual parents to have enough empathy to make personal sacrifices for a child.  The last point isn’t an issue with the parents but with the homophobia and bigotry of society pushed by the likes of him.  Special pleading and homophobic bigotry, that’s all it is.

Such unions provide a mechanism for more effectively connecting children to their fathers – to satisfy children’s longing for their father and to ensure a more equitable distribution of the parenting burden.

Once again, single parents.  His argument also applies to them as they’re in the same situation.  If he thinks they should have their child taken away then that’s an appropriate argument, otherwise it’s just special pleading and homophobic bigotry.

State interests have never been based on the extent of private affections.

If that’s the case then why do heterosexual private affections afford tax breaks and incentives that homosexual private affections which are just as strong can’t?  If it’s not based on the extent then why do these interests only apply to married people and not everyone living in a group (such as flatmates).  It’s the extent of their private affections that determines who gets these benefits.

Most marriages have the capacity to conceive children and all children have natural rights, including the right to know and be raised by one’s biological mother and father.  Such rights do not originate from the state. However, the state has an obligation to ensure biological parents fulfil their parental duty to the fullest extent they are able.

Actually, they do originate from the state.  We are not discussing here whether homosexual people should be allowed to have children, we are discussing the rights and recognition of the love two people have by the state.  To have the very same affections and feelings they have for one another be recognised as marriage and be afforded all the same benefits as heterosexual couples who have the exact same affections and feelings.

Marriage has already been redefined more than enough times throughout history.  You probably think it is something given by the ruling government or church which defines a union between man and woman.  If we look even earlier neither church nor government had anything to do with it, all a couple (straight or gay) had to do was make a public announcement to the village.  It was purely between them, nobody else.

I am straight.  The idea of me being with another guy disgusts me just as much as (and for the same reasons as) the idea of being with Bronwyn Bishop, but if someone else makes that choice then that’s up to them.  It doesn’t affect me in the slightest and dammit there are NO good arguments against homosexual relationships, marriage, or anything else.  It’s just like the agenda 50 years ago against interracial couples, and 150 years prior to that against couples of other skin colour – purely phobias and bigotry.  It angers me to see such stupidity and illogical thinking being passed off, such hatred treated as love.  Homosexuality is only seen as being something unusual because of this illogical stigma it has been given when in reality it is nothing more than ones sense of taste, just applied to the much stronger emotion of love.

Two consenting adults should have just as much right as two other consenting adults no matter what their race, religion or sexuality.

  1. 23/06/2009 at 12:36 pm

    Excellent response.

    One other point you could add relates to the “safe environment for the nurturing of those children” ‘argument’. What about the many children that get abused emotionally and/or physically by their own (heterosexual) parents? Having a parent of each sex is no guarantee the child will be brought up in a positive environment and that both parents will provide “appropriate gender roles” (whatever that is).

  2. Homophobic Racist
    03/06/2010 at 12:32 am

    The fagots can go to hell. Since you’re so keen on arguments, here’s a few:
    Adoptions and single parent situations are not the norm, but the exception, and often result because of circumstances out of the parent’s control. It is certainly not always in the best interest of the child, if one or both his or her parents die. Since you so eloquently compared these situations with single sex relationships (per definition they are not marriages) I put it to you that they too are not in the best interest of children. So to get back to my original point, you and the rest of the compost pumps can go to hell.

  3. 03/06/2010 at 6:12 am

    If you are going to troll, the least you could do is try to not use proper punctuation, spelling and grammar.

  4. Astelle Spiritamante
    10/08/2012 at 3:28 pm

    Some people say that LGBT is “unlawful” and “immoral” because “you were meant to be with a member of the opposite gender to reproduce”.
    Excuse me? I can smell the bullshit. If we’re gonna follow that train of thought then isn’t inter-racial marriage equally as “unholy” as seeing that the only way two people of different nationalities can be together is to meet overseas, by “unnatural methods”?
    Dear “Bastard Sheep”,
    You’re not a bastard, you’re someone who has at least two brain cells to knock together. Sadly, “Homophobic Racist” doesn’t, along with the Anti-Madonna Russian ministers.

  1. 09/08/2010 at 7:36 pm
  2. 31/08/2010 at 11:49 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: