Guest Post: B.P. Terpstra – Latham slams Labor’s same-sex marriage romance

Mark Latham has slammed the ALP’s culture of identity politics, including its romance with same-sex marriage. Writing for Fairfax’s Financial Review, the former Labor leader advances the view that his party is out of touch with mainstream voters.

“The tragedy of modern Labor is that it no longer talks about poverty,” argues Latham. “It’s too busy fussing about gay marriage, defending the rights of heroin traffickers and facilitating asylum-seeker drownings to tackle the problems of public housing estates (such as Mount Druitt on SBS’s Struggle Street).”

Young political hopefuls, he proffers, also need to “stop knocking around with privileged feminists and other identity-urgers and recapture the true meaning of social justice.”

Same-sex marriage, to be sure, remains an ice-cream headache for the ALP.  In the recent past, Bill Shorten rebuked Tanya Plibersek’s plans to ban a conscience vote for Laborties while demanding one for Liberals.

Former Labor PM and atheist Julia Gillard, by way of contrast, opposed same-sex marriage on traditional feminist grounds.

And who could forget former PM Kevin Rudd’s remarkable flip-flops? The alternative Christian was ridiculed for his unorthodox conversion to “marriage equality” against the teachings of mainstream Christianity. Moreover, media predictions that KRudd’s decision would win Labor thousands of youth voters were more about wishful thinking.

Even same-sex marriage fans have sarcastically aired their disapproval of Labor’s processes and priorities. News Corp’s Chris Kenny, puts it this way: “As they say, if you look after the tampon tax and gay marriage, the budget deficit and national security will look after themselves.”

More importantly, though, typical voters don’t rate “gay marriage” as a priority. In weighed data collected by the ABC, for instance, 250,000 respondents were focused on issues such as the economy, so-called asylum seekers and health/hospitals etc.

Another problem for Labor: Thoughtful progressive and conservative critics alike are questioning the party’s marriage logic. How can Labor be for “marriage equality” when it seeks to privilege two-person unions?  If love-feelings alone make a marriage, then why are polygamous folks forced to sit at the back of the bus? And who buys Shorten’s view that Australia is a rogue nation for upholding traditional marriage? After all, only 8.5% of UN countries have redefined marriage, not 91.5%.

Also significant: Twelve national and international tribunals in eleven countries have explicitly upheld male-female marriage as consistent with human rights.

Revealingly, gay unions are more likely to dissolve, according to solid science. So is Shorten selling false hopes to homosexuals while dismissing children’s rights? Indeed, same-sex unions are breaking up at such a rapid rate in some places that they’re already beating dysfunctional Scandinavian heterosexuals. In Norwaymale-gay marriages are 50 % more likely to end in divorce than straight marriages. That figure jumps to 167% for lesbian marriages!

A case of good intentions gone wrong or narcissistic adults-first libertarianism? The fact that Shorten isn’t prepared to even acknowledge same-sex breakup rates is telling.

Of course, prominent gays and feminists, from Dolce and Gabbana to Germaine Greer have come out against “marriage equality” spin, whereas Latham’s stand highlights the fact that within the ALP, same-sex marriage is still a contentious issue.

As Latham told 3AW Drive, Laborites have lost their moral compass. They’re not focused on key social justice issues. “They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.” Indeed. “It’s a legal document. It’s a piece of symbolism. It might make some people feel better to have a marriage document but it really is a low order priority,” Latham says. “On the Richter scale of social justice Struggle Street is a 10, gay marriage is a point one.”

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

88 Responses to Guest Post: B.P. Terpstra – Latham slams Labor’s same-sex marriage romance

  1. Sinclair Davidson

    I realise this is a bit late – I received it last week while in the UK and couldn’t post it then.

  2. Gab

    I received it last week while in the UK and couldn’t post it then.

    No internet in the UK then?

    😀

  3. blogstrop

    Revealingly, gay unions are more likely to dissolve, according to solid science. So is Shorten selling false hopes to homosexuals while dismissing children’s rights? Indeed, same-sex unions are breaking up at such a rapid rate in some places that they’re already beating dysfunctional Scandinavian heterosexuals.

    Once again the activists have stolen the debate with the connivance of left-leaning media. Honest gays (even those some several years ago featured on the ABC’s coverage of a big gay conference) say that faithful monogamous marriage is not what they’re lobbying for. They want “something different”. I suspect it’s really a “poke you in the eye” (or anywhere) retaliation for feeling offended by mainstream society’s non-acceptance. A tantrum of no other description, a grudge match, not a love match.

  4. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    Well, the ALP is crammed with accused rapists, perverts, p3ddoes, junkies wives, whores, catamites, pederasts and thieves and has been reefing Australia in general (and da wukkas in particular) up the freckle for so long they think it’s normal.

    And it’s true. Their real constituency IS accused rapists, perverts, p3ddoes, junkies wives, whores, catamites, pederasts, thieves and the frecklely be-reamed. And that Wong Chap’s maaaaates.

    Anyone here think that if The Accused rapist ‘Tits’ Shorten was elected, his first thought would not be ‘grab yer ankles Australia, I’m coming in dry’?

    That’s EXACTLY what pallychook’s doing to the pointy-heads up here – and they seem to love it.

  5. Robert Crew

    @MK50 Although your tone suggests I’m wrong to do so, I give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are not a troll: please save your ad hom attacks for another audience – logical fallacies usually fail pretty quickly here. There’re enough real, proven issues against those scum without resorting to unproven allegations and guilt by association, and yes I know all about Penny Wong’s former living arrangements (I lived directly across the street from her front door at the time, and used to aim election posters at her (and his) house). If there was anything criminal there I would have exposed it already, but peoples’ personal lives are their personal business and none of yours.

  6. candy

    All our political commenters are guessing at the level of acceptance of gay marriage in Australia. Despite Ireland, no-one knows how it is in Australia.

    My opinion is that despite his views as a private citizen, Tony Abbott will lead the way and we will have same sex marriage in due course, but probably later on. I don’t agree with it either but I’ve a hunch it just has to happen.

  7. Sinclair Davidson

    No internet in the UK then?

    Not quite. But you’ll not believe how crap the mobile coverage is – my father was saying its worse than being in a 3rd world country.

  8. C.L.

    Great post.

    The international angle is a very telling one – and, oddly, missing from the local ‘debate.’

    And there is a good reason for that, as Fran Kelly found out the hard way this morning.

    Australia is signatory to conventions which stipulate that all children have the fundamental human rights to know and be cared for by their biological parents. That rules out absolutely homosexual adoption and IVF. I feel certain that case law on this of the Stolen Generation kind will emerge in the not too distant future.

    Also – as you point out – gay “marriage,” internationally, is a lunatic notion supported by virtually nobody on the planet, excepting left-wing white elites.

  9. Toiling Mass

    The way it is portrayed in the media is lots of pictures of gleeful gay couples surrounded by equally joyful and congratulatory.

    In short, they are making it look like marriage is just about being in love and dreaminess. Who can deny the validity of that?

  10. MareeS

    Every now and then (not very often, mind) I think Mark Latham would be an interesting lunch partner. as long as he was taking his pills.

  11. Andrew

    Every now and then (not very often, mind) I think Mark Latham would be an interesting lunch partner. as long as he was taking his pills.

    Agreed, and he makes more sense than numerous Liberal politicians.

  12. Oh come on

    Latho is a lunatic who often talks sense. My opinion of SSM is neutral-leaning-anti, because I distrust the motivations of those attempting to ram it through. They won’t stop until it’s illegal for the pope to refuse to marry two blokes in the Sistine Chapel.

  13. Yobbo

    Australia is signatory to conventions which stipulate that all children have the fundamental human rights to know and be cared for by their biological parents. That rules out absolutely homosexual adoption and IVF.

    It also rules out heterosexual adoption. Or adoption of any kind. Or foster care. Or pretty much anything.

  14. MareeS

    Of course Latho is a lunatic. I’m married to someone who takes the same medication, and can easily recognise the signs. However, he’s right about mainstream attitudes to SSM and its low-order ranking with normal people out here in voter land.

    The SSM pushers know it, too, which is why they’re pushing so hard for a parliamentary decision asap, whereas a plebiscite at the next federal election will allow calm thinking and a result that everyone can accept, whatever it might be.

  15. Token

    It also rules out heterosexual adoption. Or adoption of any kind.

    That has been the social policy ruthlessly implemented over the last 30 years. It has been very successful. The kids are killed instead.

  16. Felix Kruell

    Why won’t anyone think of the children? I’m betting most kids would do better with a gay couple than with an aggressive, taxi-driver-bashing lunatic.

    As for gay couples not staying together as long as straight couples, apparently marriage has this magical ability to tame males and bind them to their partners, never to stray again (or so we keep getting told is the benefit to society from straight marriage). So let them marry and watch the monogamy spread?

  17. Robert Crew

    @Sinclair @Gab, outside of the City of London, it’s pretty much all Satellite, e.g. dialup with slightly faster upload speeds. When you can see the dishes sticking out of every house, that’s how you know you are in a backwoods region (and it starts in the inner suburbs). Whatever mobile plan you thought you paid for, just assume that it ends when you see a satellite dish, or leave the country (if you are lucky). You’ll never see any more value from that SIM card, no matter how many hours you spend with their billing support.

    Back to the gay-marriage issue: once upon a time, marriage de facto was considered superior to marriage de jure. My Scottish ancestors would have sincerely agreed that statutory recognition of marriage is a nice English afterthought, but not anything considered by God when determining marital status – any two people can swear an oath before their god(s) to each other and be married, it’s the recognition of that marriage that can form a legal and ecclesiastic conundrum.

    Again, as always, I come back to the Libertarian argument – Marriage is a blessed sacrament of the Church, and the State has no business interfering. If the State wants to create its own “marriage-lite” – as it has, and is welcome to – so long as nobody is _forced_ to participate, whether by officiating or even merely decorating a cake, who cares? No Christian believes that a government of Men can bind God to recognise false marriages, just as few bureaucrats believe that Marriage remains a sacrament of the Christian Church. My God is a powerful God, He is not concerned by such petty human trifles.

    Let those with their phoney statute-marriages brag about their pieces of paper on Judgement Day, it won’t affect the Holy Sacrament of Marriage in the slightest. As a side note, recognition vs authorisation of marriage was the central issue of several early SA elections (1840s-1850s), now mostly forgotten, and overridden by the Federal Constitution’s unjust abrogation of the Marriage power (our Constitution was one of the first to “authorise“, rather than “recognise“, marriages, extinguishing the Common Law, and the forced annulment of all South Australian marriages is barely a historical footnote).

    I totally support the right of homosexual couples to equal protection of their relationships under the law, but I will never agree that the Government has a right to determine what constitutes a marriage – if it’s not ultra vires, then it should be, as a forbidden Establishment of Religion.

  18. Leo G

    I realise this is a bit late – I received it last week while in the UK and couldn’t post it then.

  19. Splatacrobat

    Great post. This should be used on any how to vote flyer if ever it comes to a referendum.

  20. C.L.

    It also rules out heterosexual adoption. Or adoption of any kind.

    No it doesn’t.

    It is accepted throughout the world that a child without parents must be adopted to a man and woman couple. A homosexual couple is not a man and a woman.

    Article 7 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (which is law in Australia, pursuant to section 51):

    Children have the right to a legally registered name and nationality. Children also have the right to know their parents and, as far as possible, to be cared for by them.

    This seems to make homosexual IVF use illegal.

    On adoption, Article 21:

    When children are adopted the first concern must be what is best for them. The same rules should apply whether children are adopted in the country of their birth or if they are taken to live in another country.

    As it is axiomatic that what is best for children is a man and a woman acting in loco parentis and in a committed relationship, homosexual adoption would also seem to be illegal under the convention.

    Article 42:

    Governments should make the Convention known to all parents and children.

    Indeed.

  21. Splatacrobat

    So on a marriage certificate will it become Spouse number 1 and Spouse number 2 or Husband and Wife?

  22. Badjack

    Off ‘gay marriage’ and onto plain old ‘gay’ and a little bit of light banter………Can anyone tell me how and why homosexuals chose the word ‘gay’ as a name for themselves. It seems to be an oxymoron, like a lot of minority groups they are always whining and moaning about their lot in life and that sort of tells me they are an ‘unhappy’ bunch of little vegemites. If they were hellbent on a 3 letter word to describe themselves surely “sad’ was the correct descriptor. I think there’s another word that is probably more applicable…’sod’. they could have chosen either ‘sads’ or ‘sods’ and been on the mark.

  23. MareeS

    The term “partner” is the big over-reach for proponents of SSM under the Marriage Act, as proposed by Labor/greens.

    Partners operate businesses, the term is widely used in de facto relationships, and, indeed, gay relationships.

    The term “spouse” is particular to marriage, as is “husband” and “wife”.

    Changing the language changes the essential meaning, and that seems to be part of the ambition of SSM.

  24. MareeS

    Badjak, one might also ask why school kids slag off at anything suss as “gay” and then are sent to re-education/aka detention?

  25. Robert Crew

    I should add that this is part of why I get so angry when idiots say that the Common Law is irrelevant – it was not irrelevant to my great-grandmother when her Marriage was annulled after 20 years because some Parliamentary Idiot failed to follow the proper form when incorporating the Common Law into SA law. A dirty secret of the “City of Churches”, is that virtually all Marriages in the first decades of the SA Colony were legally annulled due to misunderstandings of the Common Law as inherited and applied, so all Old South Australians are bastards of some sort.

  26. Badjack

    Maree S….I guess the kids are not easily fooled and ‘smarter’ than the re-educationists

  27. MareeS

    Strange about the “gay” thing when our kids were young, whingey whiners were the really pale, creepy unpopular ones, but the funny articulate ones were always in the friendly mix, and still are in the adult group of my offspring.

  28. Pusnip

    I agree with Latham that the ALP spend too much time generally chasing green votes and ignoring genuine social justice maters. Nevertheless, as a Libertarian, I’m pleased that Shorten is supporting giving gays the same freedom to marry as straight people.
    Let’s face it, most of the ‘arguments’against gay massive are hopelessly weak, and in truth are just pretty transparent attempts by bigots to rationalise their prejudices.

  29. Gleambright

    I love this Latham bloke, he keeps getting better with age, like a bottle of wine.

  30. Oh come on

    Just thank Christ he was never PM.

    Actually, in hindsight, Rudd was less sane. I’d go a PM Latho over Rudd, if I had the choice.

    Never forget that the ALP on three occasions proposed mentally unstable Prime Ministerial candidates.

    Recent proposals – Evatt doesn’t count. And Gillard, whilst being a opportunistic liar, couldn’t be diagnosed with anything. Just another careerist. Whereas Rudd and Latham had and have serious issues.

  31. Yobbo

    It is accepted throughout the world that a child without parents must be adopted to a man and woman couple. A homosexual couple is not a man and a woman.

    But you said kids have a right to be raised by their biological mother and father. That rules out adoption of any kind. And foster care. And IVF. And sperm donation. And a whole lot of other things.

  32. Labor carries on about gay marriage only and solely because it can wield it like a club against Tony Abbott while engaging in spittle-flecked screaming about his supposed homophobia.

    Labor’s HUGE problem in this respect is its failure to pass a same-sex amendment to the Marriage Act while it held both Houses with support of the Greens, who above all could have been expected to help them rush it through. It shows them up for the opportunistic hypocrites that they are.

  33. faceache

    Homosexuals who get “married” need not ever get a divorce. They can have the marriage annulled on the grounds of non consummation.
    A marriage that cannot be consummated can never be “equal”. I think a penis and vagina are required for consummation, not a penis and anus. We have enough little shits around the place already.

  34. Old School Conservative

    Pusnip
    #1707222, posted on June 11, 2015 at 1:34 am

    Let’s face it, most of the ‘arguments’against gay massive are hopelessly weak, and in truth are just pretty transparent attempts by bigots to rationalise their prejudices.

    If gay marriage was to be argued in a plebiscite, your argument would turn many people off a yes vote because of your personal attack and inflammatory language.

  35. Tel

    Young political hopefuls, he proffers, also need to “stop knocking around with privileged feminists and other identity-urgers and recapture the true meaning of social justice.”

    Therein lies the rub, there is no true meaning, it means whatever you want it to. The only philosophical basis is envy, which is unique to each person.

  36. Stimpson J. Cat

    please save your ad hom attacks for another audience – logical fallacies usually fail pretty quickly here. There’re enough real, proven issues against those scum without resorting to unproven allegations and guilt by association

    I see what you did there Robert, the question is do you?
    I think not. 🙂

  37. Gab

    Lol disagree with homosexual marriage and you’re a bigot. Won’t be long before they start with the ‘racist’ name-calling, you know like how the left sneers people are ‘racist’ against Muslims.

  38. Stimpson J. Cat

    Gab
    I have tremendous respect for Mark Latham.
    He gives people like me hope.
    How many other people do you know who:
    Are the scourge of taxi drivers everywhere.
    Have invented their own special handshake, known as “The Crusher”.
    Prove that metal illness is no barrier to ascending the dizzying heights of political irrelevancy. 🙂

  39. Peter

    Honest gays (even those some several years ago featured on the ABC’s coverage of a big gay conference) say that faithful monogamous marriage is not what they’re lobbying for. They want “something different”. I suspect it’s really a “poke you in the eye” (or anywhere) retaliation for feeling offended by mainstream society’s non-acceptance. A tantrum of no other description, a grudge match, not a love match.

    Perhaps most accurately described as a desire to legally deny heteros – particularly religious heteros – from saying; “What we do, is DIFFERENT from what you do”.

    Marriage has acquired legal recognition and protection because its value to society has been convincingly argued. Gays have not shown that their relationships are equally valuable and worthy of protection. If they wish to do so, they should create their own institution and argue for it on its own merits.
    That they have not done so is a tacit admission that they cannot. Instead, they have attempted to piggyback onto a distinctly different institution to acquire benefits that they have not earned.

    This is not something supported by Libertarian principles. Neither is denying heteros the right to distinguish themselves and their institutions.

  40. Rabz

    Latham is the personification of the clock that tells the correct time twice daily.

    Other than that, he is an irrelevant insane imbecile and best ignored.

  41. Rabz

    aaarrghhh! the stopped clock.

  42. Mr Johnson

    You mark my words, just as they try and do a: ‘wear a hijab and be a Muslim for a day’, thingy to show solidarity, then soon, there’ll be a ‘pork yer mates’ day, to do the same for gay understanding. Oh where will it all end (oops).

  43. min

    Oh come on described Gillard as an opportunistic liar, try pathological liar as well as some other characteristics that cannot be treated by drugs . Mentally unstable well not on medication , but try and manage narcissism or sociopathy .

  44. Roger

    If the State wants to create its own “marriage-lite” – as it has, and is welcome to – so long as nobody is _forced_ to participate, whether by officiating or even merely decorating a cake, who cares?

    I think you’re underestimating the SSM movement, Robert.

    It’s not really about marriage equality, at its heart it’s an attack on marriage as it has been defined in the long-standing Augustinian tradition of the West – marked by permanence, fidelity and being open to procreation – altogether.

  45. Roger

    Delete “- altogether”.

  46. Stimpson J. Cat

    ‘pork yer mates’ day

    Mr Johnson
    -1 for insensitivity to gay muslims.

  47. Seza

    The Certificate of Marriage conferred by a church or celebrant conveys no legal right. The only acceptable proof is the registration certificate provided by the state, and this has the same power as a registered same-sex relationship, so what do they think they are getting by redefining marriage? As an aside, I am aware of people that thought that they were legally married based on their Certificate of Marriage, only to find that it had not been registered by the minister and therefore they had no official relationship.

  48. Lem

    The Certificate of Marriage conferred by a church or celebrant conveys no legal right. The only acceptable proof is the registration certificate provided by the state, and this has the same power as a registered same-sex relationship, so what do they think they are getting by redefining marriage?

    Exactly, the whole gay marriage thing is a total non issue, a look over there event, and not surprisingly raised impotently by Shorten right at the moment that Caesar Melham and his union were in front of the Royal Commission for fraudulent behaviour. The coalition were right to boycott Shorten’s stunt.

  49. Fred Lenin

    Tge Labor party lost its “Workers Party” credentials years ago as soon as the tertiary “educated” muffins ,who couldnt get a Real Job ,and found being a chattering BS and Lies mhad better prospects than teaching and the law trade ,if you were incompetent at those trades . You had to find a political party to get into tge job ,since the conservatives of those days had capable people ,that ruled them out ,so Labour was the way to go . The end result is obvious ,Rudd who was encouraged to leave DFAT ,as even amongst thise incompetents he stood out ,and giliard who got sacked from an Ambulance Chasing law firm. Along with many others ,Rixon Shorten ,Bandt ,spring to mind . Its time we made politics a no go area as a career path someone suggested raising the eligibility age to 40 ,that might. Work .( unlime politicians ) .

  50. C.L.

    No Yobbo, the convention states that “Children also have the right to know their parents and, as far as possible, to be cared for by them.”

    Clearly this means – by way of logical corollary – that IVF-ing children into existence with no plan whatsoever for them to have a mother or a father is illegal, according to Australia’s Constitution (section 51). This isn’t true for a man and a woman in a relationship using IVF.

    Regarding adoption, the convention states that when children “are adopted the first concern must be what is best for them.” What is best for them is a man and a woman in a committed heterosexual relationship. So that means homosexual adoption should also be illegal.

  51. Roger

    The Certificate of Marriage conferred by a church or celebrant conveys no legal right.

    That requires some clarification.

    For purposes of proving identity institutions and government agencies require a certificate that lists the full details of the marriage, much for the same reason that full birth certificates are required rather than extracts. But, notwithstanding that, those ceremonial certificates are issued by the state with a serial number and ministers and civil celebrants must account to the state for each one – in that sense they are “official” even if they don’t meet the preferred requirements for some purposes.

    When a religious celebrant presides at a wedding he is serving as an authorised functionary of the state. The marriage is legally solemnised when he declares it to be so “by the power of the Commonwealth of Australia” vested in him (provided all legal requirements have been properly carried out). An unregistered but properly solemnised marriage is a valid marriage in the eyes of the law.

    Because they serve as authorised functionaries of the state when solemnising marriages, ministers of religion who object to SSM on conscientious grounds are particularly vulnerable to any change in the definition of marriage by the state. Even exclusions from prosecution under anti-discrimination laws could be subject to testing in the courts if the amended marriage legislation isn’t drafted in such a way as to somehow preserve the definition of traditional marriage. Personally, I just don’t see how that is possible. Hence my advice to such clergy would be to get out of business of authorising marriages on behalf of the state if there is a change in the Marriage Act.

  52. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Australia is signatory to conventions which stipulate that all children have the fundamental human rights to know and be cared for by their biological parents. That rules out absolutely homosexual adoption and IVF.

    It also rules out heterosexual adoption. Or adoption of any kind. Or foster care. Or pretty much anything.

    Sometimes it is just not possible for the biological parents to do the parenting. Adoption has been the result, with many scarred children and adults being produced when the biological parentage has remained hidden and inaccessible. So now, accessibility to records has become paramount in all adoptions.

    I’ve no fundamental objection to gay people adopting if that is best for a particular child, as long as all details concerning biological parentage are accessible and the child is told of their origins and the gay couple are aware of the importance of valuing both genders for the child. I do object to legitimating the loss of a biological parent by obscuring the biology of parenting and legally authenticating this obscuring via ‘gay marriage’. Marriage authorizes human biological consummation for the production of biological children; it sets the ‘gold standard’ of parenting. Leave it be.

  53. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    if that is best for a particular child

    I put the above proviso, CL, because in today’s world of fragmented socio-sexual relationships, sometimes a child is better off living with a stable homosexual couple, who may be close kin for instance, as parent-figures than living with their biological alcoholic drug addict parents etc. There are occasions when the ‘not-ideal’ is sometimes ‘the best’ available at the time.

  54. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    marked by permanence, fidelity and being open to procreation

    Yep. That’s marriage. It’s essence is procreative, relating the child to the biological pair.

    All the rest is fluff and bubble and wedding cakes.

  55. Tom

    Today’s pile-on by the Fucktard Media Industrial Complex foreshadows the totalitarian blitzkrieg that awaits anyone who refuses to have their face rubbed in SSM (including caterers, venue operators and churches), once the state gets involved and “anti-discrimination” laws are used as a Big Brother battering ram:

    Google headline: ‘This is absolutely disgusting’

    A CANBERRA couple has announced their intention to divorce if gay people are allowed to get married too.
    Nick Jensen, who posed with his wife Sarah on the cover of the latest issue of Canberra CityNews, writes of the Christian couple’s decision to end their marriage under the headline, “Gay law change may force us to divorce”.
    “My wife and I just celebrated our 10-year anniversary. But later this year, we may be getting a divorce,” he writes.
    “The decision to divorce is not one we’ve taken lightly. And certainly, it’s not one that many will readily understand. And that’s because it’s not a traditional divorce.”
    Mr Jensen goes on to explain the divorce plan, where the pair will continue to live together, have more kids, and refer to each other as husband and wife, but will legally end their marriage because they believe “marriage is not a human invention”.
    “Our view is that marriage is a fundamental order of creation. Part of God’s human history. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman before a community in the sight of God. And marriage of any couple is important to God regardless of whether that couple recognises God’s involvement or authority in it,” he writes.

    The story is also being used as clickbait by ShakeMyHamas.com.

  56. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    I am so annoyed I was in America for the screenings of ‘Struggle Street’.

    Mt. Druitt – that’s my home town. Long ago …..

  57. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    That story has about 600 comments praising and barracking for ‘equal love’.
    That is the agenda and that is the meme. Who could, after all, disagree with ‘equal love’?
    What a side issue. The issue is the future of parenting and child-rearing.
    gay marriage = stolen children. A better meme; a realistic one.
    Gay people are free and equal to love right now, and to make legal arrangements and have a great big celebration of their sexuality with a cake. I’d bake them a cake, happily (they may not thank me because I am not much of a cook, but the intention is kindly).

  58. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    I would be much more adept at giving them fashion advice.
    I have a good eye, having been well trained by gay friends and in the past a gay lover (not a girl!!).
    And since my marriage, by Da Hairy Ape’s generosity with his credit card. 🙂

  59. Yep. That’s marriage. It’s essence is procreative, relating the child to the biological pair.

    Since procreation can only ever biologically be possible in male-female partnerships I think we can accurately refer to any SSM children – in whatever way they are obtained- with the word ‘anticreation’.
    It’s just a word after all, you know, those things the left have no issue with changing, redefining, bastardising and using to browbeat their opponents.

  60. C.L.

    Lizzie, if a child who needs to be adopted can be adopted by family (even when that kinsmen or woman is in a homosexual relationship), that may be a good thing.

    Granted and agreed.

    But children adopted to strangers – the majority – should be adopted only, and strictly, by a heterosexual couple in a committed relationship. Married, in other words.

    The goal is to replicate a truly, literally parental guardianship and that means the child has a fundamental right to a mother and a father. This we know is best for the child and is our obligation under international law.

  61. .

    C.L. I think it would be great if more stable, traditional families put their hand up to do that.

    How could they afford it though?

    We’ve taxed and regulated ourselves into a low birthrate and expensive housing costs.

    Family stability would be much easier to achieve if it was affordable.

  62. JohnA

    Roger #1707341, posted on June 11, 2015 at 9:55 am

    Personally, I just don’t see how that is possible. Hence my advice to such clergy would be to get out of business of authorising marriages on behalf of the state if there is a change in the Marriage Act.

    Position papers have been drafted and discussed already.

  63. JohnA

    Mr Rusty #1707434, posted on June 11, 2015 at 11:44 am

    Yep. That’s marriage. It’s essence is procreative, relating the child to the biological pair.

    Since procreation can only ever biologically be possible in male-female partnerships I think we can accurately refer to any SSM children – in whatever way they are obtained- with the word ‘anticreation’.
    It’s just a word after all, you know, those things the left have no issue with changing, redefining, bastardising and using to browbeat their opponents.

    I prefer the term “sterile” to describe the relationship.

  64. Yobbo

    Regarding adoption, the convention states that when children “are adopted the first concern must be what is best for them.” What is best for them is a man and a woman in a committed heterosexual relationship. So that means homosexual adoption should also be illegal.

    I’ve said this to you many times before but you seem to ignore it every time.

    Adoption by strangers inside Australia is practically non-existent. Less than 100 cases each year. Most adoptions that do occur are by extended family members or step-parents.

    Most gay couples adopt children from developing countries (mainly China). There is no shortage of babies to be adopted. Do you think what’s “best for the child” is to remain in a Chinese orphanage rather than be adopted by a gay couple in a Western country? Because by making gay adoption illegal, that’s what you would be doing.

  65. Yobbo

    I honestly agree with you that it’s better for any baby to have both a male and a female parent. But in reality, that isn’t an option for a lot of children. I think being adopted by a same sex couple is better than growing up in an orphanage with no parents at all.

  66. But in reality, that isn’t an option for a lot of children. I think being adopted by a same sex couple is better than growing up in an orphanage with no parents at all.

    Sure it’s an option, there are orders of magnitude more opposite-sex couples presenting for adoption than same-sex ones. Moreoever, you’re admitting that surrogacy is of the table for same-sex couples.

  67. Yobbo

    Sure it’s an option, there are orders of magnitude more opposite-sex couples presenting for adoption than same-sex ones.

    And there are millions of babies looking for parents.

    Moreoever, you’re admitting that surrogacy is of the table for same-sex couples.

    Do you ever post without putting words into mouth? You are completely incapable of arguing honestly, which is why I rarely bother replying to you. At least CL has some class.

  68. Yobbo

    Any argument you can make about SS adoption, surrogacy or IVF also applies to single parents. So unless you are willing to say that should also be illegal, we will consider to just put your objection down to bigotry.

  69. Yobbo

    consider continue

    And by “we”, I mean the people who read this blog who aren’t anti-gay bigots.

  70. Stimpson J. Cat

    Yobbo, I think you’re being a bit intolerant towards those holding different opinions from you.
    Isn’t there a word for that?
    I forget.

  71. Yobbo

    It’s not a matter of opinion when you are talking about taking away someone’s rights. You also need good reasons, and “I don’t like it” is not good enough.

  72. Chris M

    One study showed children are six times more likely to be sexually abused by their same-sex parents than having normal (conventional?) male-female parents.

    Not sure who is winning here but it isn’t the children. Lawyers I suppose.

  73. Squirrel

    Had then Opposition Leader Mark Latham talked about mainstream issues like congestion and under-funded infrastructure in our major cities, instead of about reading to kids before bedtime, he might have come dangerously close to moving into the Lodge.

    Hindsight is (in so many respects) a wonderful thing.

  74. Old Ranga

    What moral compass?

  75. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    Robert Crew:

    Although your tone suggests I’m wrong to do so, I give you the benefit of the doubt, that you are not a troll: please save your ad hom attacks for another audience – logical fallacies usually fail pretty quickly here.

    Hmm. Been here seven seconds (your handful of posts in 2013 hardly count) and throwing your weight around. Interesting. I’ll take you seriously in June 2019, after, say, a few hundred posts.

    There’re enough real, proven issues against those scum without resorting to unproven allegations and guilt by association,

    ‘Unproven allegations’, eh? Oh, wait….
    accused rapists – Shorten
    perverts: the rockspiders and such all count
    p3ddoes: Milton Orkopolis and he’s merely the worst example.
    junkies wives: Plibersek (it’s a common nomenclature for her here, which you’d know if you were not such a noob)
    whores: political (Garret)and other (Evans’ moll)
    whoremongers: Shagger T, The Sleazey
    catamites (the keeping there of) Bill D’Arcy,
    pederasts: Keith Wright (also a p3ddo&pervert)
    thieves (Theophanous, Shagger T, pretty much every senior member of the union movement)
    frauds; Gillard… (and just how did Keating become a multi-millionaire?)
    all-round corruptionists: Gordon Nuttall. Eddy Obeid, you name it

    Your pretence to be truly unaware of the astonishing record of the most vile criminality by ALP politicians is quite amusing. The labour movement and ALP (and their greenfilth coalition partners) are far, far more corrupt and criminal than all the other political groups, and as we are seeing in the TURC daily, and as yet we can see merely the largest turds floating on the top of an ocean of union corruption.

    and yes I know all about Penny Wong’s former living arrangements (I lived directly across the street from her front door at the time, and used to aim election posters at her (and his) house). If there was anything criminal there I would have exposed it already, but peoples’ personal lives are their personal business and none of yours.

    What on Earth are you gibbering about? Why are you so utterly obsessed with homosexuality, as you so blatantly and obviously are here? I could not give a crap who or what That Wong Chap bumps uglies with. She can bugger Muscovy Ducks for all I care.
    You fool, she’s called ‘That Wong Chap’ here due to her manner of DRESSING. Which is masculine. Go to this amazing thing called ‘google’. Hit ‘images’ put in ‘penny wong’. There is ONE photo of her in a dress – 20 lines of images down, and it’s an old family shot when she was a little girl.

    Her maaaates (which again you automatically and bizarrely attached a homosexual-criminal connotation to: I have no idea why anyone except a loon would associate homosexuality to criminality) are the cli-fi charlatans, spivs, liars and academic frauds, as well as the greenfilthers and her fellow ALP corruptionists. Were you not just another ignorati and know-nothing you might know this.

    Had you ever been in her ‘Department’ of ‘Climate Change’ you’d have observed how these tax-hoovering grants-hungry gaia-cult true believers swarmed there like maggots on a rotting feral pig. And every one of them wanted their bulging bag of that delicious free taxpayer money. Which That Wong Chap freely disbursed.

    Had you any non-ALP/greenfilth friends who ‘infiltrated’ that ‘Department’ or friends from Customs/Defence who hung out with them at ‘Emissions Café’ there at 2 Constitution Avenue you might even know that their interview processes routinely and seriously breached the APS Code of Conduct – no-one who did not express personal religious belief in AGW made it through. And that question was deliberately asked by the panels.

    Y’see, I know a couple of canny sods who did jump from Dept X into ‘Space Cadet Central’ as they named it to obtain a promotion – and who just as promptly jumped back out into another Dept before association with the incompetent ignorant wastrel-kiddies who manned that pustule on the APS ruined their professional reputations – they did their research thoroughly and simply lied to the panel on the basis of ‘what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’. Lying to a corrupt process run by a corrupt panel for a corrupt department knowingly and deliberately breaching the APSCC is hardly a sin, is it? Two thirds of time they were also asked if they were Greens party members. At interview.

    Knowing their enemy, one of the ones I know who made the jump actually joined the Greens before applying, and always left greenfilther promomaterial on the desk. Perfect cover for a conservative in enemy territory.

    Another, (a real wag) took a photo of Wilhelm Frick in and had it on his desk as ‘his green hero, the man who first centralised all state control of all environmental matters into one department, in Europe’. This was really quite admired by the space cadets in That Wong Chap’s ‘department’.
    Go google just what Wilhelm Frick really was.
    Hint. T4.
    And none of them were bothered by that, because he centralised so much power in one state authority, just what they wanted to do.

    They were saving the planet, you see.

  76. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    There is one reason why homosexuals must never be permitted to adopt children.

    Here it is.

    Anyone who supports homosexual males adopting children is willing to risk this – but of course they are not the ones who’ll pay the price, are they? They can feel cool and smug and hip – while a two year old screams and begs for it to stop as he’s being sodomised.

    Nice moral position, that.

    Mark J. Newton and Peter Truong are homosexual p3ddoes who deliberately adopted a baby boy to use as a catamite – a live sex toy. He was being raped when he was a few weeks old. He was being sodomised when he was two. he was being pimped out to other homosexuals when he was Four. Years. Old.

    Anyone want to tell me they are fine with this ever happening again?

    Because if homosexual males can adopt young children, it most certainly will happen again. Anyone want to think about NAMBLA’s view on homosexual males adopting small children? Hmm?

    Reckon they might be wildly in favour of homarridge and adoption of small children for some strange reason?

    if you support homosexuals adopting children, then this is what you are supporting.

    And that makes you morally responsible too.

  77. Pusnip

    Yobbo gets out right, in the process exposing the bigotry-maskerading-as-ethical argumentation that is so common among anti-SSM types. I would not be surprised to find such risible ‘arguments’ on a church web forum, but this is meant to be a Libertarian site. Appalling.

  78. Chris M

    ^ this one is anti-child liberty apparently. Liberty only for the homos eh.

  79. Austin Mangosteen

    Evidently, Latham belongs to the noisy minority.

    From the BBC Canberra correspondent Karen Middleton

    Gay couples still waiting for Australian recognition

    Crosby Textor managing director Mark Textor says the silent majority “have spoken in the clearest possible way and said ‘get on with it'”.

  80. Do you ever post without putting words into mouth? You are completely incapable of arguing honestly, which is why I rarely bother replying to you.

    What a load of cobblers. Apparently, people cannot derive an implication from your own words, something you yourself try and do in your very next statement?

    Any argument you can make about SS adoption, surrogacy or IVF also applies to single parents.

    Yes, it does, and some of us do.

  81. exposing the bigotry-maskerading-as-ethical argumentation that is so common among anti-SSM types. I would not be surprised to find such risible ‘arguments’ on a church web forum

    Pusnip, your anti-Christian “bigotry masquerading-as-ethical argumentation” isn’t fooling anyone.

  82. It’s not a matter of opinion when you are talking about taking away someone’s rights. You also need good reasons, and “I don’t like it” is not good enough.

    No one has a ‘right to adoption’, so no one’s right is being taken away. And good reasons were provided above for limiting the privilege of adoption to married opposite-sex couples where there are no familial ties.

  83. Yobbo

    And good reasons were provided above

    No, they weren’t.

    All the same “reasons” apply to single parents, aboriginal parents, parents of low SES background, etc etc. You can’t just single out gays and pretend you’re not a bigot. Give us a full list of the kind of people you think shouldn’t be allowed to raise children and then at least we’ll know you’re being honest.

    What you are talking about is collective punishment. Gays shouldn’t be allowed to raise children because of slighter higher amounts of negative outcomes. The same principle applies to aboriginals, catholics, parents married before age 21 etc.

  84. No, they weren’t.

    All the same “reasons” apply to single parents, aboriginal parents, parents of low SES background, etc etc. You can’t just single out gays and pretend you’re not a bigot. Give us a full list of the kind of people you think shouldn’t be allowed to raise children and then at least we’ll know you’re being honest.

    Single parents have a right to raise their own children, period, as do aboriginal parents or parents from low SES backgrounds because those children are their children, literally. The only thing that could vitiate that right is gross manifest neglect in the care and education of those children by their parents. CL, I believe, agreed that gays with ties of kinship to potential adoptee children should be allowed to adopt those children. I agree. Further, I’ve always argued and repeated this ad nauseam that gays or lesbians that have children from previous hetero-relationships do not lose custody of those children simply in virtue of becoming gay later on. Those children remain their children.

    What you are talking about is collective punishment. Gays shouldn’t be allowed to raise children because of slighter higher amounts of negative outcomes. The same principle applies to aboriginals, catholics, parents married before age 21 etc.

    Honestly, this is just absurd. CL’s argument was an in-principle objection re adoption, surrogacy and IVF, the former which could be diminished by ties of kinship, the latter were, however, absolute because they involved deliberately bringing children into the world with the intention of denying them the care of either or both biological parents. The diminished outcomes simply re-confirm the in-principle objections.

  85. Pusnip

    I wouldn’t need to attack Christians if my goal was for them to be discredited, DB, as their clergy have already all that would be needed on that front. The church’s, current disgrace is all its own doing.

    Mine was rather a call for people who are seeking to disguise their bigotry to instead either own or, preferably, revise it.

  86. Austin Mangosteen

    And all they want to do is get married…So they say.

    Gay Divorce

    1. Gay Divorce in the Gay Marriage Debate
    Generally, the only mention of gay divorce in the gay marriage debate has been as a reason to ban gay marriage. Anti gay marriage groups bring up instances of gay divorce to show the instability of gay relationships. However, gay divorce is one more reason that gay couples should be allowed to marry. …

    2. Massachusetts Gay Divorce
    Gay couples began seeking gay divorce around seven months after same sex marriages were legalized in Massachusetts.

    http://loveandpride.com/GayDivorce

    The other side of equality: Lesbian Divorce

    The first gay divorces took place in Boston in the months after the legalization of same-sex marriages in 2004, and gay marriages first made the census in 2010. Gay divorces are more common than you might think, and the only thing harder than finding a foothold in marriage equality might be finding a common ground with the legal hassle surrounding its dissolution; or dissecting such a distressing topic when all we want to do is celebrate our victories.

    By Erika Star on April 1, 2014

  87. Mine was rather a call for people who are seeking to disguise their bigotry to instead either own or, preferably, revise it.

    Who are these people and where are their disguises?

  88. Driftforge

    Bigot is just another term of denigration that means something quite different operationally than in definition. It generally means that the person who used the term is limited to the use of rhetoric and can be ignored for purposes of rational discussion.

    These days, anyone who recognises that restraint of dyscivic individual impulses is for the greater good is a bigot.

    It’s all about the feelz.

Comments are closed.