miércoles, 13 de septiembre de 2017

Subversion, liberty, and ‘marriage equality’ | September 13, 2017 | MercatorNet |

Subversion, liberty, and ‘marriage equality’

September 13, 2017 | MercatorNet |

Subversion, liberty, and ‘marriage equality’

Why did The Guardian reject this analysis of the consequences of legalising same-sex marriage?
David van Gend | Sep 13 2017 | comment 1 

Dr David van Gend, the spokesperson for the Coalition for Marriage, which is lobbying against same-sex marriage in Australia’s postal plebiscite, submitted this article to The Guardian for publication.
The editor of The Guardian’s Australian edition is Lenore Taylor. Although the strongly gay-friendly newspaper has insisted that it is open to contributions from the “No” side, Ms Taylor rejected Dr van Gend’s article. She said “I do not think this piece succeeds in providing evidence to support its arguments and assertions and I am therefore going to decline to publish it.”
Make up your own minds.
“Same-sex marriage is a breathtakingly subversive idea”, according to lesbian social historian E.J. Graff. Russian-American journalist Masha Gessen told the Sydney Writer’s Festival in 2012, “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there.” Likewise, Michelangelo Signorile urged the LGBT community “to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”
Beyond the LGBT community, feminists like Ellen Willis celebrate this subversion of patriarchal power: “Conferring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart.”
Lying about marriage, redefining it completely, introducing an implicit revolt… These are not the words of easy-going citizens who just want to fit in with the established norms of marriage and family. These are the words of culture warriors intent on deconstructing the despised heteronormative institution and - to quote lesbian lawyer Paula Ettelbrick - “radically reordering society’s view of reality”.
In other words, this is a revolution. The completion of the 60s sexual revolution, but also the culmination of that century-long assault on marriage and family incited by Marx, inflamed by Marcuse and Millett and implemented today by out and proud Marxists like Roz Ward, founder of the “Safe Schools” gender fluidity programme.
Collectivists of every stripe have identified the natural family as the one rival centre of authority to the state and have long sought its subjugation. Obviously, most of the kind souls who support ‘marriage equality’ have no such motive. Yet the collectivist hard-heads understand that revoking the primal truth of man-woman marriage revokes the primal institution of the family - what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights calls “the natural and fundamental group unit of society”: mother, father and child. With that archetypal structure demolished in law, Big Government moves in to fill the void.
Even a libertarian leftie like Brendan O’Neill alerts us to this danger: “Gay marriage chimes brilliantly with these governments’ insatiable desire to diminish the sovereignty of the family and intervene more in our personal lives, and to police what we think.”
O’Neill understands the danger of giving the state definitional power over our deepest bonds of kinship: “The ruling elites of Canada, the UK and elsewhere have rewritten public documents to excise mentions of “mothers”, “fathers”, “husbands” and “wives” in favour of a more neutral language to suit their homogenisation of all relationships as “marriage”.”
In Canada, same-sex marriage in 2005 led to the term “natural parent” being replaced by “legal parent”, a chilling demonstration of the subjugation of the family to the state.
Likewise in Spain, same-sex marriage in 2005 led straight to the abolition of “mother” and “father” on birth certificates, to avoid offending same-sex couples.
In Canada, Spain and other gay marriage jurisdictions, the eyes of government look down with indifference at the genderless relationship of all parents and all children. My child is no longer “my child” in any primal sense that government must keep the hell clear of. Parenting is now defined by government, not by nature; and what Big Government gives, Big Government can take away.
This genderless revolution, like every other revolution, knows there are two conditions for success: first, control the education of children; second, suppress dissidents. A law for “marriage equality” makes that possible at last. For once homosexual marriage is the law of the land, the power of anti-discrimination law to silence conscientious objectors and indoctrinate children into approved LGBT views will be complete.
On the indoctrination of children, parents at present can object to radical gender programmes like “Safe Schools”, and we can repel those who would impose indecent and disturbing material on our children. But if “marriage equality” is law, parents will have no grounds to push back. As we have seen in Canada, LGBT dogma becomes entrenched in schools after same-sex marriage becomes law, and parents are powerless.
The logic is simple: if the law says homosexual/bisexual/transsexual marriage is normal and right, schools will be obliged to teach that homosexual/bisexual/transsexual behaviour is normal and right. Vote for genderless marriage and you get Safe Schools on Steroids.
On conscientious objection, queer Canadian lawyer barbara findlay (she eschews capitals), speaks of “a showdown between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation.” Asked about such a showdown, Barack Obama’s equal opportunity commissioner Chai Feldblum answered, “In almost all cases sexual liberty should win, because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”
A law for same-sex marriage will tip the scales for sexual liberty against liberty of conscience. It will be used to harass religious leaders (and their insurers) into silence with the relentless threat of anti-discrimination lawsuits; traditional teaching on marriage and family will become something to be whispered in private.
And still people say there are no consequences.
We begin to understand that “marriage equality” is not just about marriage; for serious activists it is about capturing the legal high ground from where the entire LGBTQ agenda can be implemented. This ranges from imposing radical gender theory on our kids to passing laws that let cross-dressing males use girls’ bathrooms; from bankrupting bakers who don’t want to write a gay marriage slogan on a cake to prosecuting pastors for preaching their doctrine on marriage; from removing “mother and father” from birth certificates to changing “husband and wife” into “partner 1 & 2”. Such is the seamless garment of the genderless revolution.
If you love Big Government, disdain religious liberty and want the state, not parents, to guide the moral education of children, vote ‘Yes’ in the marriage plebiscite. The hour may be near when you will no longer have to endure the “spurious” arguments of deplorables, because we will be silenced to your satisfaction under a regime of ‘marriage equality’.
Viva la revolución!
David van Gend is a spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage


September 13, 2017

Every huge disaster is followed by a huge fund-raising drive, especially in the United States. But who gives all this money? It turns out that the median donation is between US$50 and $100. Celebrities give, companies give, foundations give. But millions of little guys give too. Almost half of Americans gave money for disaster relief after Katrina and almost three-quarters donated after 9/11. We tend to complain about self-centredness and egotism in our culture. There's truth in that negative vision, but it clearly is not the whole truth. Read the full story here

Michael Cook
American generosity after disasters: 4 questions answered
By Patrick Rooney
Religion and higher education are associated with readiness to give.
Read the full article
Invisible circus unveiled
By Jennifer Minicus
Micah is determined to find a magician to save his grandfather.
Read the full article
Subversion, liberty, and ‘marriage equality’
By David van Gend
Why did The Guardian reject this analysis of the consequences of legalising same-sex marriage?
Read the full article
Irish women like cooking more than men do. How evil
By David Quinn
But are they really less liberated than German women?
Read the full article
The intellectuals who want to deep-six marriage
By Michael Cook
Some people are asking why we need marriage at all
Read the full article
Mr Damore, welcome to the Prophet Club
By Karl D. Stephan
Is it possible to have a reasonable, logical debate about gender diversity?
Read the full article
Boys will be boys. Girls won’t
By Laura Perrins
Why an all-girls Lord of the Flies must be a defeat for women.
Read the full article
Something in the water: the Pill and feminised fish debate continues
By Gerard Migeon
A scientific institute is anxious to downplay contraceptive pollution.
Read the full article
MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AU | +61 2 8005 8605

No hay comentarios: