Antipodean religious nutters seem to be as florid as their American counterparts. Since incest and polygamy are most strongly associated historically with heterosexuality, it is straight marriage which should be banned if they are so concerned about stopping them.
The only way to stop incest and polygamy must be to stop all marriage and to make all churches illegal as they are the promoters and suppliers of marriage.
Incest is mainly a problem within religious communities as the genetic diversity is very limited. Again polygamy is almost exclusively a problem of religious communities.
I have never heard of a single case of incest or polygamy in the LGBT community.
We all know that the Australian prime minister John Rudd is a rampant papist so he will believe this crap.
Joesph Fritzl was gay and married?
Don’t blame gay people for the sick crimes committed by some straight people
“Meanwhile, the Australian Christian Lobby said that the new civil union ceremonies “devalue” marriage and will lead to legal marital rights for polygamists.”
I didn’t notice polygamy or incest being legalised in these places.
These religious people are nutters.
How are the mormons and muslims reacting to the Australian news? They are into polygamy but also opposed to gay marriage?
Simon, I live in Holland and legalising incest and polygamy is on nobody’s agenda. It seems to me that the relinuts are scraping the bottom of the barrel for ‘arguments’. You must be really desperate to suggest that allowing a percentage of a minority to marry will bring the end of the world about. Not even the child abuse in Ireland made that happen, and if I remember correctly, the catholic church, an orginsation of funnily dressed men with funny ideas about right and wrong, was involved in that.
@ Har: If you re-read Simon’s post above yours, you’ll clearly see he suggesting nothing of the sort. Did you read his post fully? It doesn’t seem so.
Bloke? He really used the word bloke? wow!
religious bigots say the same crap everywhere.
poly marriage IS coming (slowly) but its nothing to do with gay marriage
“”A bloke cannot marry his brother; it is not right.”
I assume then it’s OK for a bloke to marry his sister then?
What planet are these people on?
Religious people are forgetting that the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic faiths were founded by polygamists and incest. Jacob, Abraham, and King David, the main founders of these three faiths, are all polygamists, while Lot – from which they are all descended – had sex with his own two daughters. These three religions would not exist without polygamists and incestuous people. So these hypocritical religious leaders should be condemning their own religions.
In a world in which the rational man battles extremism, dogmatism and prejudice at every turn there can be little more topical issue than the legitimacy of homosexuality. The arguments levelled against homosexuality have never had the strongest of bases yet they often prove difficult to dispel. Religious arguments prove difficult to address because they are dogmatic and illogical.1 Nothing will dissuade the zealot from their zeal, save, perhaps, a lobotomy. However, there are several arguments put forward against homosexuality which seem to have, if not logical nor well intentioned foundations, at least the semblance of logic and façade of good intent.
The most complex of the arguments levelled against the legitimation of homosexuality is that it sets a dangerous precedent for the liberalisation of sex and relationships to the point of including things which are; possibly biologically unacceptable (such as incest), presently morally unacceptable (e.g. bestiality), probably abusive (e.g. paedophilia), or exploitative (uni-gendered polygamy). This argument is often referred to by sociologists as the PIB (Polygamy, Incest, Bestiality) defence.
This argument is interesting in that it is not as weak as it may seem – the Millian defence; that these things cause harm and are socially unacceptable, while homosexuality does not – doesn’t hold water in every case, and those who argue against polygamy, incest and bestiality typically do not do so with the harm principle in mind. To them, there is something fundamentally morally objectionable in these things.
However, to examine the PIB argument in depth we must discard the notion of a causal relationship between the acceptance of homosexuality and the legitimation of PIB. It’s just not plausible. There’s no evidence to suggest the rise of gay equality will prompt an upsurge in incestuous relationships, or paedophilia, or bestiality or polygamy. Even hardened proponents of the PIB defence like Hadley Arkes discard this notion and “want to make it clear that [they are] not offering a prediction. [They are] not saying that if we accept gay marriage we will be engulfed by polygamy and other exotic arrangements.” Rather, they argue, the logical equivalence between the legitimation of one and the legitimation of the other is the slippery slope. There is, apparently, no reason to accept homosexuality yet forbid PIB.
A) If homosexuality is morally acceptable, then so must be PIB.
B) PIB relationships are not acceptable.
C) Therefore homosexuality is not acceptable.
Whether we are accepting of PIB or not, this notion is clearly false. The equivalence between homosexuality and PIB is tenuous at best. For, as Rauch persuasively argues,
“the hidden assumption of the argument which brackets gay marriage with polygamous or incestuous marriage is that homosexuals want the right to marry anyone they fall for. But, of course,
heterosexuals are currently denied that right. They cannot marry their immediate family or all their sex partners. What homosexuals are asking for is the right to marry, not anybody they love, but somebody they love, which is not at all the same thing… People who insist on marrying their mother or several lovers want an additional (and weird) marital option. Homosexuals currently have no marital option at all. A demand for polygamous or incestuous marriage is thus frivolous in a way that the demand for gay marriage is not.”
The argument here is not for an extra option, but merely “equal options”. Of course, there have been formalist criticisms of this – namely that homosexuals do enjoy equal options; the option to have a relationship with a person of the opposite sex and asking for anything more is to ask for an “additional (and weird) marital option.” However, it is clear Rauch intends his position to be taken substantively rather than formally. Relations with a person of the opposite sex are, for a homosexual, not at all equivalent to those relations with a member of the same sex.
Additionally, as Sullivan argues, homosexuality is importantly different from PIB relations in that it is “constitutive”. It forms an integral part of human identity, in a way that being polygamous, incestuous or bestially inclined does not. Even that deucedly homophobic organisation the Catholic Church (which has dubbed homosexuality an “objective disorder,”) agrees homosexuality constitutes a “profound element of human identity.” He argues polygamy, incest and bestiality are activities, whereas homosexuality and heterosexuality are states. One can be either homosexual or heterosexual and engage in PIB. They are neither conditional, nor equivalent.
Of course, I doubt either of these will convince the zealot. They see both homosexuality and PIB as sharing a moral turpitude. The only valid means of undermining their argument are to destroy their moral foundations. In order to do this one must ask them “why are homosexual relationships and PIB relationships similar? What on earth do they have to do with each other?” For an excellent discussion of the ways marital traditionalists answer these questions, as well as refutations, I refer you to John Corvino’s 2005 “Homosexuality and the PIB Argument”. However, to answer this fully, as Corvino does, would require 43 pages. At present, what we have seems sufficient to answer most major criticisms, so I shall move on.
The PIB defence is by no means the only non-religious argument against homosexuality. Indeed, from the ridiculous to the purely rhetorical, there seems to be no depth to which heterocentrists will not stoop to revile the act of loving the same sex. From complete fabrications such as ‘AIDS; the homosexual disease’2 to amorphous accusations of ‘unnaturalness’ the list is almost endless.
Indeed, perhaps the most prominent of labels applied to the homosexual is ‘unnatural’. Take one of the favourite slogan of the Westboro Baptist Church: “AIDS cures fags” which, while both disturbing and ill founded demonstrates the presupposition homosexuality is an illness to be cured. In answer to these claims of ‘unnaturalness’ it is necessary to define our terms. Those who use the label have never set out a definition, perhaps hoping their position is strengthened by a lack of clarity.
However, it is quite possible to arrive at an adequate, nearly universally acceptable definition etymologically. The word natural originates in the Latin naturalis – ‘by birth, or according to nature’. Throughout history it has been used to mean ‘free from affectation’. The Oxford English Dictionary defines natural as “the inborn mental or physical endowments of a person; natural gifts or powers of mind (or body)” and nature as “the phenomena of the physical world collectively; esp. plants, animals, and other features and products of the earth itself… In wider sense: the whole natural world, including human beings; the cosmos.”
By these definitions homosexuality is evidently natural; all humans are products and components of nature.3 From womb to worm food all of us are functioning parts of the natural system; the phenomena of the physical world collectively. Thus the term unnatural is at best ill used, and at worst a deliberate attempt at whipping hysteria.
The object being to address the arguments levelled against the legitimation of homosexuality, it behoves us to be generous and assume the term was merely ill used. This makes it necessary to recast our definition. If we accept the term was used incorrectly, and the meaning those who use it strive for is something like “against evolved or god-given purpose – being, at a very basic level, the continuation of the species” we hit the next hurdle.
There is a goodly (and growing) body of evidence for biological influences on, if not causes of, homosexuality. From genetics to the anatomical differences between straight and gay people, particularly in brain structure, the linkages between biological difference and homosexuality seemingly grow stronger and stronger. Critics have argued that these changes may not be the cause of homosexual behaviour, but the result. However, a study published late last year, looking at aspects of brain symmetry and wiring that are probably fixed at birth, found clear differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. (cf. Allen & Gorski, 1992) Those sampled in these studies have grown in average families, been born by natural process and are, all in all, entirely normal human beings.
It is argued that homosexuality is wrong because it’s an evolutionary dead end. After all, the human body has evolved for the act of procreation, hasn’t it? Well, up to a point. Over the past two decades, research has found increasing evidence that “nature” seems to be saying something different to many people. Take genes. In 1993, Dean Hamer at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, identified a region on the X chromosome that might predispose men to homosexuality – a putative “gay gene”. (Hamer, 1993; 1993a; 1995; Camperio-Cianio, Corna, & Capiluppi 2005) And there are findings to support Hamer’s notion that such a gene might increase a woman’s chances of having more children, which would ensure that it persists. This is, possibly, the evolutionary mechanic behind the happy survival of homosexuality. (cf Bailey & Pillard, 1991; Dunne and Martin, 2001)
In dispatching the idea of an ‘evolutionary dead end’ it is important to note a) being barren is socially accepted and b) it is technologically possible, perhaps even common, to have a child without engaging in heterosexual sex. It is also necessary to remember that if sex was solely for reproduction we would only indulge ten or so times over our lifetime. Just enough to reproduce the species. Most sex in humans has nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with pleasure and holding individuals and groups together.
Having dispatched the ‘purposive’ naturalness arguments we find we still lack a suitable definition of unnaturalness. In an attempt to understand the intended meaning we turn to the words of the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola:
“I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals — dogs, cows, lions — we don’t hear of such things.”
and those of an anonymous commenter on the high-profile left wing blog The Political Carnival:
“Here’s a fact for you. The act of homosexuality is unnatural, science proves that. Here’s another one for you, less than 2% of the population is gay, however gays account for 1/3 of all child molestation case”
These words carry three implicit arguments, two of which provide us with new definitions for naturalness;
a) only that which is normal is natural, homosexuality is not the norm, and is thus wrong,
b) only that which is to be found in other species is natural, homosexuality is not practised by other species, and is thus wrong,
c) homosexuals have a higher likelihood of abusing children than heterosexuals, and homosexuality is thus wrong.
These are all logically flawed and factually incorrect. Firstly, merely because something is not normal does not make it wrong. Less than 3% of the population are professional basketball players and yet we don’t consider them morally repugnant. Something doesn’t have to be the norm to be acceptable. The question arises, what authority does the heterosexual conservative have to define a normative sexual type?
Secondly, the notion that because something is practised among other species it is morally acceptable seems an odd one. There are many instances of the natural being frowned upon in contemporary society; for instance, among animals cannibalism is common, yet it is repugnant to us today. By contrast, we live in an ‘artificial’, ‘unnatural’ world. Is everyone who wears sneakers and drinks coke morally reprehensible? Dogs, cows and lions don’t enter into legal marriage contracts, and yet we still marry. Simply because something is not practised by other species does not make it morally reprehensible.
Just as important, however, is that the argument is factually false. Homosexual activity and homosexual relationships can be found throughout nature, indeed, the animal kingdom is replete with same-sex action. Penguins do it, buffalo do it, even female macaques pair off to make sweet, sweet love. Ten years ago Bruce Bagemihl counted 470 species that indulge in same-sex activity, ranging from male anal penetration by males to body rubbing and fellatio. (in New Scientist,7 August 1999, p 32)
Thirdly, because a particular sexual orientation may have a higher reported incidence of an illegal act does not make all people of that orientation liable to commit a crime. Nor does it tar every individual of that orientation with guilt. Those who commit crimes should be punished for it, but those who do not are protected both by the right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. It is also factually incorrect to state homosexuals have a higher incidence of child molestation. For a full discussion of the issues surrounding the reporting of child abuse see Herek’s 1997 Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation.
Having dealt with the more intelligible of the ‘naturalness’ arguments, we come to a point on a Bailey & Pillard, 1991; Dunne and Martin, 2001 note of healthy relationships, it seems only proper to move on to the old chestnut of homosexual relationships being of inferior quality and tenacity.
The case has been made by some that homosexual relationships are doomed to failure.4 This, however, is clearly not the case. In the Netherlands, for the first six months after gay marriage was legalized, same-sex marriages made up 3.6% of the total number of marriages. The numbers have steadily dropped since then to around 3% (the present rate of homosexuality in the Netherlands is 3.4%) with 2,500 gay couples marrying in 2001, 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005. Between April 2001, when gay marriage was legalized, and December 2003 there were 5,751 gay marriages and 63 divorces.
Contrary to the anti-gay marriage myths circulated by sexual conservatives, homosexual relationships are often long lasting and are founded in educational and social equality and even advantage – in statistics taken from couples filing cases for gay marriage in America, the couples fighting for the right to marry have been together for an average 10 years. When San Francisco legalized gay marriage, 4,037 marriage licenses were issued and 3,995 gay couples were married in the several months before the state intervened and voided the marriages. In a review of the names of couples it was found 57 % of the couples were lesbian. Demographic information also showed most of the couples were older and better educated than average newlywed couples, with more than 74% over 35 years old and 69 % holding a college degree.
This argument is also extended to depth, emotion and meaning within relationships. Sexual conservatives have often argued that “relationships can only be real between a man and a woman” and that “everything else is a pale shadow in imitation.” (in Bruter, 1945, pp.43)
The evidence against this is overwhelming, but can, I think, be justly summarised in this response to a survey by a homosexual Church of England priest:
I think there is a problem in being a practising gay Christian in that most of the churches, I suppose, they are still saying you shouldn’t be. I suppose God has called me to do two things and that is both to be a Christian priest and to be in this relationship. I do think this is important. I have got a sense of vocation to [his partner] . . . one can be a gay person and one’s relationship can be as much of a way of holiness and as much a vocation as marriage for heterosexual Christians…. And the relation-ship works .The fact that, in a way as everybody says this kind of relationship doesn’t last, or you can’t be a real Christian and do that kind of things . . . the fact that it does last and does work is in a sense an important proof. That’s what makes you feel confident. (Resp. no. 56A) (Yip, 1997)
If a man such as respondent 56A can extol the virtues of his lasting relationship with another man it seems clear homosexual relationships can be just as deep, meaningful and long lasting as heterosexual ones. They imply no loss of quality of life, no lack of education, no abuse. These are myths perpetuated in part by a sex-fearful media and in part by a disgustingly dogmatic theocracy. (Lewin, 2004)
Arising from these beliefs is the notion homosexuality will destroy the institution of ‘family’. In this case family means the nuclear family of a heterosexual couple acting as parents to heterosexual children. Considering this is a very rare commodity in this age of rampant divorce, trial separations, de facto relationships, mail order brides, IVF, adoption, abortion, gender ambiguity and divergent sexualities, the notion homosexuality will alone will destroy it seems just a little overblown. Either the institution of family is an outmoded fallacy, or it is resilient enough, and adaptable enough to change to meet the times.
An alternative understanding of family is necessary in our modern world. The only understanding which can encompass the myriad of familial relationships in the world today is ‘the loving relationship shared by individuals; bonded people brought together.’ Trying to be more specific seems pointless, serves only to exclude worthy possibilities and creates an artificial justification for discrimination and bigotry.
Of course, associated with this pervasive anti-family dogma is the notion homosexual couples provide less effective parenting and a less valuable family unit than heterosexual couples. This is patently false. The American Psychological Association has reported
“there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children…research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.”
In conjunction with this it is often argued, most often by those clinging to their outdated conception of family, that homosexual parents will necessarily raise homosexual children. However, in a 1995 study by Allan and Demo on the sexuality of children raised by homosexual couples, it was found the proportion of children raised by homosexual parents likely to be, themselves, homosexual, was approximately the same as that raised by heterosexual couples.
Having dealt with the misguided arguments surrounding homosexuality and family, it seems apt to move on to arguments dealing with more general social dysfunction. The first among these is a simple one; if everyone was homosexual, society could not continue. This, at first, seems logical – exclusive homosexuality runs counter to biological continuation – however, on deeper examination the flaws are evident. Firstly, society is flexible. If every person was homosexual society would develop methods of either overcoming the boundaries of rigid sexuality and reproducing naturally, or develop scientific means of reproduction. Secondly, it is not presently the state, and never will be. It is almost biologically impossible for society to evolve in such a way as to achieve uniform homosexuality as it is highly prejudicial to genetic continuation.
The second, and final broad social argument is that homosexuality is a bourgeois fad; that only when one has achieved affluence can one even contemplate homosexuality. This attitude presents homosexuality as something of a rich person’s lifestyle choice. However, in open and tolerant societies such as the Netherlands the percentage of openly homosexual people is fairly stable among all demographics; rural and urban, rich and poor. Acceptance and education are all that are needed for homosexuals in all levels of society to come out. Further evidence of this is the UNHCR 2007 report on the Punjab and West Bengal, where homosexual couples were forced to flee from their poor (almost squalid) villages for fear of hate crimes. Some of those who could not flee committed suicide rather than face the wrath of their religiously motivated, intolerant neighbours.
In regard to hate crimes motivated by religion, I realise it is largely pointless to argue sexual morality with those who follow the purported whims of a fictitious being. However, I still believe it is worthwhile to direct all interested Christians to Yip’s 1997 “Attacking the Attackers: Gay Christians Talk Back” and those interested Muslims to Boellstorff’s 2005 “Between Religion and Desire: Being Muslim and Gay in Indonesia”. Both of these provide an analysis of the issues surrounding homosexuality and the Abrahamic religions as well as detailing personal stories of men who have managed to reconcile homosexuality with their seemingly intolerant faith.
To conclude, it seems to me the vast majority of arguments levelled against the legitimation of homosexuality are merely a veneer for bigotry founded in religion and fear. All presented to herein fall down in the face of scrutiny, and leave the scrutineer questioning the motivations of those who advance them. In response to those bigots who remain, Corvino put it best; “I believe there is something perverted about the fact that we hate some people because of who they love. We commit violence against some people because of the affection that exists in their lives… It’s time we stopped judging people by who they love, and start judging them by whether they love.”
1 As Douglas Adams wrote “proof denies faith and without faith [God] is nothing.”
2 It has been argued that homosexuality necessarily connotes the propagation of diseases such as AIDS. Considering the findings of a study by Veugelers, et al. in 1993, which demonstrated the rate of HIV infection among homo- and bi-sexuals in Amsterdam was similar to that among heterosexuals, this seems to be an erroneous belief. While it is true the prevalence of unsafe sexual practices among homosexuals is higher than among heterosexuals, this is not an inherent problem with homosexuality (as evidenced by the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa) but rather a problem with education. Homosexual sexual education is nigh on non-existent in Australia, the US and many other first world countries, in sharp contrast to heterosexual equivalents.
3 Whether the reader ascribes to creation theory, evolution theory, or something in between, it is obvious at a very basic, very real level babies are the result of a natural process. Indeed, all human life can be said to be the result of nature; we are born, grow and change within the natural system. If the reader is a fundamental creationist, use of the term unnatural is patently ludicrous.
To the creationist everything is a direct creation of a god. Hence everything is either unnatural – being an artificial product of an entity, rather than a natural, organic or geological occurrence – or entirely natural, in that everything is a product of god, and is a part of nature. The term loses much of its meaning.
4 Including, humorously, by Jimmy Carr – “I’m against gay marriage, not because I don’t like gays, but because gay marriage will lead to gay divorce… and that’ll be bitchy.”
What about all the other things the bibles states? Jesus himself refused to free a slave telling him to be the best slave he could be.
“According to The Age, Family First senator Steve Fielding told the Senate inquiry on gay marriage: “A bloke cannot marry his brother; it is not right. A woman cannot marry their sister; it is not right. A bloke cannot marry a bloke because it is not right, and a female cannot marry a female because it is not right. I don’t support this.” ”
Uh huh – that makes perfect sense. Not. I haven’t noticed many gay people clamouring to marry their siblings. He might aswell have said that allowing gay marriage will hasten the demise of the honey bee. Oops! Better not give him ideas!
So does that mean that a man marrying a woman will lead to a brother marrying his sister? Oh well, guess that Senator better start campaigning to ban straight marriage as well then eh?
Simon, quite right, the list should also include the American states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa.
Actually, these religious nutters should go back to the jewish part of the bible, the old testament. Therein they’ll find that polygamy (straight polygamy) was practiced and not exactly condemned either as was incest if you believe that Adam and Eve were the first parents of the human race who “begat” several children. These religious nutters never own up to it when you ask them how the planet became populated using the Adam & Eve fairy tale. The only obvious conclusion one can draw is that their children must have committed incest among themselves and with their parents. Go figure.
Simon Hukin: Jeezus mate, you’ll need a new keyboard after writing all that drivel. Please be more concise, most of us really can’t be arsed to wade through “War & Peace” just so you can get a point across.
So ‘civil unions’ devalues marriage!!! WHAT ABOUT HETEROSEXUAL DIVORCE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is it that those who claim that gay marriage/civil unions etc… undermines marrige/the family NEVER mention the issue of divorce and hetro adultery.
The reason is that the aim of the homophobic agenda is to make the gay community the scapegoats for the social ills committed by the heterosexual majority. (A bit like the way the Nazis scapegoated the jews in the 1930s)
The Epistle according to Simon Hulkin,
The point is, are you living in the real world? And Jimmy Carr is a Crap-head!
Steve Fielding is an absolute a*se… nobody here has any respect or understanding of his ‘christian’ values. He’s now claiming to have been molested as a child; hence his homophobia. Really, he just needs to come out of the closet.
Some so-called Christian Sects do practice Incest and Poligamy and like Oedipus Rex you may have heard about his odd complex, his name appears in Freud’s index ‘cos he Loved his Mother. Now his rivels used to say quite a bit,that as a Monach he was quit unfit, but after all they had to admit that he loved his Mother. He loved his Mother like no other, his Daughter was his Sister and his Son was his Brother. One thing that you can depend upon is; he shure knew who a boys best friend is. When he found out what he had done, he tore his eyes out one by one. A tragic end to a Loyal Son who loved his Mother. Now be good and kind to Mother, now and then have a chat, buy her chocolates or Flowers or a brand new hat. But mabey you had better let it go at that! Or you my find yourself with an odd complex….complex! And, you may end up like old Oedipus, I’d rather marry a Duck-billed Platterpus than end up like old Oedipus Rex!
“Some so-called Christian Sects do practice Incest… [etc.]”
Quoted from Tom Lehrer (e.g. in http://adam.pra.to/public/docs/leherer-songs.html ).
I am not 100% certain but I am under the impression that the posting by Simon Hukin (November 28, 2009 @ 10:34 – sorry, the posting numbers are not displayed here) refers to, and possibly quotes from, a very interesting book called “Same Sex Marriage: Pro and Con”, ed. Andrew Sullivan (Vintage, 1997).
The empty headed fundies have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and that goes for empty headed politicians as well. And so ignorance is bliss.
Quotation or not, I for one enjoyed Simon Hulkin’s contribution, which I do not think is ‘drivel’, rather a useful and logically water-tight demolition of pretty much every argument that’s ever been wheeled out ‘against homosexuality’. Thanks for taking the trouble (even if only to copy & paste;-))…
“Meanwhile, the Australian Christian Lobby said that the new civil union ceremonies “devalue” marriage …”
I wonder if “devalue” is the word they really mean? It just occured to me that maybe these people are simply afraid of losing [or having to share] their privileged status, because that is what marriage often is – a privileged state. They want the all the so-called benefits of marriage for themselves, and don’t want to share them.
I totally agree with Mark (November 29 @ 21.26). I ordered Sullivan’s book because of Simon’s contribution.
Being a ‘CERTAIN’Families First Senator leads to madness!!!!!
Kitty Channel…Are you a tin of Cat Food?
Check out, Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else on youtube. It really sums it all up really.
‘Josephine’: “why would a guy want to marry another guy?”
‘Daphne:’ “Hell Osgood; I’m a man!”
‘Osgood:’ “No body’s perfect!”
Bless `em, they just can’t help themselves, can they?
Check out Australia’s political scene now. The major conservative party have elected a guy with the nickname of “The Mad Monk” to lead them to the next election.
Pundits are predicting as a result the Greens led by out gay man, rights activist and of course environmentalist will gain the balance of power with Labor in the next Parliament.
Senator Stephen Fielding will lose his seat.
So all in all things are looking good for gay marriage into the future.
I believe the Ozzie PM also said the word CRAP in parliament this week; I am sure me Bercow would not allow that….(!)
I actually wrote the thesis, and have posted it in several places, hence confusion in regard to copy-pasting. I apologise if people were put off by its length. However, my purpose was not necessarily to be entertaining. I was attempting to provide a foundation for the destruction of arguments against the legitimation of homosexuality. I hope some find it useful in addressing those arguments leveled by the misinformed or bigoted. If not, flaming me is not overly useful, as I take no notice of them.
If people are interested in a similar (if much shorter, and less well referenced) article on Polygamy, I direct them to an article by my friend Chad Satterlee on the Australian Fabian Young Writers’ Awards website: