Equality and freedom in the same-sex marriage debate

There has been a recent shift in the media marriage debate which the recess in government sitting appears to have given space for. The Irish and US decisions have provided momentum for proponents of same-sex marriage and enabled their advocates to present the appearance of inevitability about such change in Australian law.

Discussion is turning to the importance and practicalities of preserving freedom of conscience and religious belief alongside acceptance in law of same-sex marriage. The possibility, even desirability, of a two tier system separating civil and religious definitions and functions concerning marriage has been raised by prominent church leaders.

While it is healthy to see the debate becoming more thoughtful of the implications that such a radical transformation of government law would mean, it is a disturbing trend to witness the concessions and air of acceptance within part of the Christian community to the propaganda of inevitability. It also seems to me highly optimistic to consider that two paradigms for such a foundational social institution could coexist in society. We need only to look at what has happened in Massachusetts and in Canada since same-sex marriage was legalised in 2003 and 2005 respectively.

The unavoidable consequence of homosexuality being given the legal validation of marriage is that homosexual practice receives the same legitimacy as normal sexual relations in the eyes of all legal, educational, health, business and social institutions. The world changes in a day and those who do not conform in the name of faith and conscience, despite assurances to the contrary, effectively become outlaws who are liable to active discrimination in the name of 'equality'.

The obvious truth is that homosexual and heterosexual activity are not equal. One is biologically geared to reproduction and complementary 'one flesh' union, and when contained within marriage as currently defined, poses no health danger (apart from the trauma and risks of childbirth).

The other is biologically unnatural, non-reproductive, and involves high and well documented health risks. Male-to-male sex accounted for 71% of new HIV/AIDS diagnoses in 2013 according to the Kirby report (UNSW 2014) which reveals that HIV rates have been steadily increasing since 1999, as has the incidence of other STDs among homosexual men. These realities are overlooked in the emotive journalistic emphasis on 'love'.

Yet despite this FACT, the Victorian Government is mandating that schools adopt the misleadingly named 'Safe Schools Coalition Australia' program (already in 190 schools with 6235 teachers trained in its implementation). Funded by $8 million of federal funds, this program was authorised by Penny Wong, claiming to prevent bullying of children with gender disorientation issues. In reality, it is government-sanctioned propaganda promoting the normality of homosexuality to adolescents and children.

This has gone largely under the radar as gay activists and strategists supported by secular humanists increase their sway over the primary levers of influence - the media, education and government - in a strategically coordinated campaign. This is not a groundswell of enlightened indignation.

(Similarly, compare this with the background to the Irish referendum which was instigated and lavishly funded by the injection of €25 million from an American organisation Atlantic Philanthropies, 50 times the amount available to the 'No' case. Moreover, this change passed with a yes vote from only 37% of eligible voters.)

The new Victorian State Ministry of Equality and its appointment of a Commissioner for Sexuality and Gender (a self- identified lesbian) are further instruments by which the State Government is pushing forward with its agenda of 'equality', the new morality.

My point is that the push for same-sex marriage is not a straightforward justice issue as it is portrayed. It is a radical redefinition of marriage, ideologically driven and based on numerous falsehoods. These falsehoods have become accepted by many due to a failure to report damaging health data, intimidating labelling and dismissal as homophobic of any who dare to expose or oppose them, and by the well-known phenomenon that a lie repeated often and loudly enough eventually finds acceptance as truth.

However, to legitimise a lie is a dangerous practice. This has been the pattern of all the totalitarian regimes that have left their oppressive stamp on the twentieth century.

Aristotle's words are apt in this light, 'The worst form of inequality is to try and make unequal things equal.'

This is not a time for compromise. It is a time to look clearly at the ideology and motives behind this unprecedented fervour to dramatically shift the very foundation of society, and to speak the truth while we are still free to do so.