I am intrigued by a contradiction about voting intentions and election results in relation to the issue of homosexual marriage. In The Australian, 14/8/13, p. 8, it was reported that Newspoll shows that "All parties gain [votes] from same-sex support." On the same page Graham Young, online pollster and political analyst writes that "Gillard's maths holds true", and that her opposition to same-sex marriage would have resulted in a net gain to her in electorates where the margins were tight.
Well both these poll results can't be correct, and I am inclined to disregard Newspoll's findings because if all parties gain votes by supporting same sex marriage, the benefit, especially to the major parties will cancel out, or the totality of the votes will be over 100% as in Zimbabwe......
I am also intrigued by the inherent contradictions and illogicality of homosexual lobbying for homosexual marriage in the name of "equality".
As an enthusiast for sports such as badminton and tennis, I know that mixed doubles is not "equal" to men's doubles. So how do homosexual lobbyists equate homosexual couples to heterosexual couples?
Indeed the difference between marriage for homosexual couples as against heterosexual couples is far greater than mixed doubles vs men's doubles in tennis. It would be quite possible for a mixed doubles tennis pair which had Serena Williams as the female player to defeat an A-grade men's doubles tennis pair, but it is never possible for a homosexual couple to have a biological child of their own as heterosexual couples can.
So much for the "equality" myth. It is not merely a matter of comparing apples to oranges, it is comparing apples and oranges to bricks - they are totally different entities in biological terms. Apples and oranges are alive and have seeds that can propagate. Bricks do not propagate.
Marriage was often depicted by the political Left and feminists as an oppressive patriarchal institution which held women in bondage - legalised prostitution as some descrbid it. So how has it become so desirable for homosexual couples?
Is it that despite their criticisms of the institution of marriage the Left has subconsciouly recognised its benefis and want these extended to homosexuals?
And why is the Marriage Equality movement opposed to a Referendum as opposed to a vote of Parliamentarians? Is it because they know the majority of Australians would oppose homosexual marriage?
And then there is the intolerance of the movement that is forever demanding tolerance.
The homosexual lobbyists' undertaking that churches, priests and ministers would be exempt from performing homosexual weddings rings rather hollow when in Britain a homosexual couple, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow and his civil partner Tony, will go to court to force churches to host homosexual weddings. He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because "I am still not getting what I want".
"I am still not getting what I want" appears to be the motto of the homosexual rights movement.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
15 posts so far.