WE ARE COMING FOR YOUR MARRIAGE ACT, BOYS AND GIRLS
Harry Richardson is a long-time student of Islam and author of best seller, "the Story Of Mohammed - Islam Unveiled', http://thestoryofmohammed.blogspot.com.au
Gay marriage is the hot topic of debate these days. It seems like everyone is talking about it and most people who are prepared to voice an opinion seem to be in favour. To be honest, it isn’t a subject I have much interest in. However, something about this whole debate has my spider senses tingling.
Let’s just do the math here. The latest poll I could find in Australia in 2013 suggested that 1.9% of men and 1.2% of women identify as homosexual. Let’s call that around 1.5% of the population being gay which sounds about right to me.
Now, out of those people who identify as gay, how many are in a steady relationship and actually want to marry their partner? I have no idea but let me go out on a limb here and guesstimate that it might be around one third (I suspect that would be a wildly optimistic scenario).
That would suggest that around a half of one percent of the population might benefit if we changed the marriage act. How much would that benefit be worth to those people?
Currently, gay men or women can throw a mock wedding, have a mock ceremony and make real promises to their true love. They can then tell all of their friends that they are now married for good.
Under current law, they can also register a “Civil Union.” Although I am no lawyer, as far as I can tell, there is no real difference in legal terms between a Civil Union and a Marriage.
OK .... we'll vote NO
If we decide to change the Marriage Act, that half a percent of the population will also get a piece of paper from the Government which is a contract called marriage. This is a contract which either party can break at any time they like.
I couldn’t find figures for how many gay couples have rushed to register a Civil Union, but anecdotally, it doesn’t seem to be an awful lot.
So, there is the benefit in a nutshell. If we pass this law, then a fraction of one percent of the population can have a piece of paper which in the long term, may or may not make them feel a little bit better about themselves.
What then, is the possible downside to Marriage Equality?
Some more conservative or religious types have suggested that a change in the Marriage Act could affect a whole swathe of legislation and provide a taxpayer funded “Lawyers picnic” for years to come.
Greens prove you don't have to be gay to be a dickhead.
Some suggest it could open the door to polygamy and/or increased adoption by same sex couples (which is already legal). There is a real fear that it could be a source of religious discrimination and create a watering down of the currently accepted family unit.
Some people think it is just another attack on the foundations of our society by Cultural Marxists whose ultimate goal is to “trash the joint.”
Given that none of these possibilities has been conclusively ruled out, politicians should be applying what is known as the “Precautionary Principle.” This principle is similar to the doctor’s guiding ethos which is to “Do no harm.”
In effect, politicians should not pass a law if the possibility exists that the law could produce unintended harmful side effects, particularly if the potential benefits are negligible at best.
Libs' Zimmerman puts the hard word on Shorten
So, my question is, why are our politicians spending so much time and energy discussing this issue? Don’t they have more pressing issues to talk about?
“What issue could be more important than Marriage Equality?” I hear you ask.
“Oh, I don’t know?” How about the fact that we could be less than 18 months away from a [email protected]#%g nuclear war between the USA and North Korea. Bear in mind that this oversized lunatic asylum, borders China and Russia, both physically and ideologically.
Is that a situation which could affect the wellbeing of quite a lot of Australians?
So you'd like to smack my bottom eh? ....um, OK
Or how about the fact that, thanks to our idiotic politicians, in the last ten years we have gone from having a 20 billion dollar surplus, to a 400 billion dollar deficit (and counting) during a historically unprecedented mining boom?
Or how about the fact that a shed load of our politicians have failed in their solemn duty to ensure that they have no potential allegiance to a foreign power? This could call into question decades worth of legislation and see many of them facing serious jail time.
Navratilova says Margaret Court is a "homophobe".
I could think of about a hundred pressing issues without even trying. Yet our politicians want to put all of these things on the back burner while they worry about their newfound passion for gay marriage. Does anyone else smell a rat here?
Call me a cynic if you will. Call me homophobic if you want to (I get called much worse). If you are one of those people hoping for a Government stamp of approval of your relationship I am genuinely sorry. I just don’t think the Government gives a dam about you or your partner. I think this issue is being used as part of some larger agenda.
I've let you all down.... I tried so hard but I'm not gay
I don’t know exactly what that agenda is, but if Malcolm Turnbull, Bill Shorten and Sarah Hanson-Young are all in favour, then I’ll be voting no on principle.