He quotes Dennis Altman, a gay activist:
Altman says: "But this debate is only possible because of huge shifts that have taken place in the larger meaning of marriage over the past few decades. It has moved from being regarded as a lifetime commitment, sanctified by God, with the purpose of producing children, to a more relaxed commitment based on mutual love and respect, with the recognition that something like 40 per cent of marriages will end in divorce."
The argument means that if marriage is not what it used to be about, if traditional marriage is failing, let's open it up for gays as well. If this argument holds any water it should, by logical extension, also open up a debate on polygamy and even group marriage as legitimate forms of marriage that should be recognised by law. Indeed, given the high numbers of Muslims in contemporary Australian society, why not legalise polygyny? The argument is of course patently absurd: "traditional marriage is fractured so lets smash it and remake it as something else".
Wouldn't it be more logical to ask why 40 percent of marriages fail and to then look for solutions to the problems that exist. Otherwise we are likely to end up with all kinds of arrangements being allowed to pass as marriage because the concept of marriage has become meaningless.
On the subject of homosexuals and children, Nicholas writes:
Altman then moves to an attack on the argument that gays having children are against the natural order because improvements in IVF technology and surrogacy have made it possible for them to do so. He even says that given the scrutiny a gay couple has to go through to have children and the financial burden they take on in doing that means they are likely to be better parents than heterosexual couples who may have not planned a pregnancy.
No evidence of the claim is presented. This is sophistry at its best. The natural order has been defeated by science so the natural order should stand aside? Take this to its logical conclusion and science will always trump nature and all ethical and moral considerations could be set aside. "Science is right" becomes the modern day "might is right" maxim. A flood-gate for abortion, euthanasia, eugenics and who knows what else could be opened because science makes them possible; indeed the horse has already bolted on abortion. Euthanasia is not far behind.And the result of all this gay agenda?
The real risk of course, the paradox of modern society, is that the argument for tolerance on a wide range of minority issues, such as homosexuality (yes, it is still only practiced by a minority), is leading to greater intolerance towards the majority. By shutting down the rights of religions and their followers we would actually become a less tolerant society. Religions and individuals who oppose certain beliefs and practices will become the persecuted - ironically, their right to freedom of speech would be sacrificed on the altar of tolerance.
When religious organisations and individuals are told to remain silent on certain aspects of their beliefs we will be living under a new form of totalitarianism. That ultimately is where the debate for gay marriage is headed.
If gay marriage is an inevitability, as I suspect it is, but only because it will be foisted upon us by the vociferous gay lobby and the acceptance of an apathetic majority, it is imperative that the rights of religions to promote their beliefs continue to be protected. Otherwise we are inching our way towards a world in which certain thoughts could be defined as crimes.www.mercatornet.com
It's already happening, isn't it?
Evidence of the above in this article - Gospel singer asked not to attend his own concert. Why? because he was a former homosexual and gay rights activists think he should not be allowed to perform because of that.
Gospel singer asked not to attend his own concert