Helpful ABC contribution on SSM

h/t Dover Beach. Traditional marriage matters.

If the nuclear family is a human good worth protecting, it is the responsibility of all members of society to do so, including homosexual members of the community. An extension of this is upholding the institution of marriage as between and man and a woman. This does not imply repudiating their own committed unions, nor where the exigencies of life require it, raising children.

Dover Beach, the poem by Matthew Arnold.

Update: 1. Why SSM has to be seen as a part of a larger agenda. h/t Snoopy in comments.

2. How many SS couples wanted SSM before it became an identity issue and a part of the larger agenda?

3. How many SS couples are suffering for want of SSM in the way that people are suffering from many other things, including lack of free speech, that have been starved of political oxygen by the division of the non-left forces due to this distraction?

This entry was posted in Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Helpful ABC contribution on SSM

  1. Sinclair Davidson

    This is a Type III error – a true but irrelevant statement.

    The arguments about the nuclear family are not arguments against gay marriage, they are arguments against divorce. As best I can tell nobody is suggesting that no-fault divorce laws be repealed.

  2. stackja

    Sinclair Davidson
    #2491650, posted on September 8, 2017 at 8:23 am

    My parents were married until death, did them part. Divorce is not a solution.

  3. Rafe Champion

    The push for SSM has to be seen as a part of a larger agenda.
    Besides it is a sign of seriously misplaced set of priorities. Nobody is suffering for want of SSM but people are suffering from the impact of a raft of Green and trade union policies ranging from Native Vegetation laws that have stripped the property rights of farmers, through so called Fair Work laws, to the climate obsession which threatens lives, jobs and the very industries of the nation. Not to mention free speech.

  4. Driftforge

    The arguments about the nuclear family are not arguments against gay marriage, they are arguments against divorce. As best I can tell nobody is suggesting that no-fault divorce laws be repealed.

    This presumes that the conflation of marriage in the traditional sense with marriage in the homo sense will have no negative effect on the notion of marriage.

    Oddly, the conflation of gay(homo) with gay(joyous) has largely resulted in the complete disuse of the first meaning.

    Another aspect to this that I realised lately; those in the church are going to be least effected by this. The church has an independent metric that it will (by and large) retain. The real consequence of this change is going to fall on our bogans, our working class. And there it will be devastating to nuclear family formation. And that is exactly where nuclear family formation is so important in the maintenance of good communities.

  5. stackja

    Driftforge
    #2491711, posted on September 8, 2017 at 9:07 am
    The arguments about the nuclear family are not arguments against gay marriage, they are arguments against divorce. As best I can tell nobody is suggesting that no-fault divorce laws be repealed.

    This presumes that the conflation of marriage in the traditional sense with marriage in the homo sense will have no negative effect on the notion of marriage.

    Oddly, the conflation of gay(homo) with gay(joyous) has largely resulted in the complete disuse of the first meaning.

    Another aspect to this that I realised lately; those in the church are going to be least effected by this. The church has an independent metric that it will (by and large) retain. The real consequence of this change is going to fall on our bogans, our working class. And there it will be devastating to nuclear family formation. And that is exactly where nuclear family formation is so important in the maintenance of good communities.

    Left don’t want ‘the maintenance of good communities’. Stalinism’s legacy.

  6. Up The Workers!

    Kim Jong Un comes from a ‘nuclear family’.

    The Trumpster is just busting to test out their bona fides.

  7. Sinclair Davidson

    The push for SSM has to be seen as a part of a larger agenda.

    Actually no, it doesn’t.

    Nobody is suffering for want of SSM …

    Maybe not you, but how can you know what other people feel on the issue.

    … but people are suffering from the impact of a raft of Green and trade union policies ranging from Native Vegetation laws that have stripped the property rights of farmers, through so called Fair Work laws, to the climate obsession which threatens lives, jobs and the very industries of the nation.

    Yes – that is very likely correct. But it does seem far removed from the issue of marriage.

  8. Leo G

    The arguments about the nuclear family are not arguments against gay marriage, they are arguments against divorce

    About marriage equanimity then rather than equality?
    But isn’t that the very stuff of political correctness- the right answer to one question, wrongly applied to another question?
    There are no such errors in PC space, where close encounters of the third kind are normal.

  9. Driftforge

    Left don’t want ‘the maintenance of good communities’.

    Well no, of course not. The left holds bogans in utter contempt.

    The basic progression of the left is towards complete societal decay. The family unit is part of what resists that, so its got to go.

  10. Snoopy

    The push for SSM has to be seen as a part of a larger agenda.

    Actually no, it doesn’t.

    Yes. Yes it does.

  11. Iampeter

    If the nuclear family is a human good worth protecting, it is the responsibility of all members of society to do so, including homosexual members of the community.

    This is entirely a straw man. The issue is about what you think the proper function of a government is (as are all political issues NOT what your personal beliefs are on anything.

    The push for SSM has to be seen as a part of a larger agenda.

    And? If there is some larger agenda to impose the beliefs of some on everyone by state force then it needs to be opposed just as much as the current agenda of religious/traditionalist collectivists to impose their beliefs on everyone by force should be opposed. I’m curious what you think you are for or against on the SSM issue, Rafe.

    Besides it is a sign of seriously misplaced set of priorities. Nobody is suffering for want of SSM but people are suffering from the impact of a raft of Green and trade union policies…

    Yes and most of these issues were created by Conservative government in this country over the last few decades. But Conservatives don’t want to face up to how incredibly bankrupt their movement is and evade the real issues entirely with the focus on SSM. Why are you OK with this?

  12. A Lurker

    The push for SSM has to be seen as a part of a larger agenda.
    Actually no, it doesn’t.
    Yes. Yes it does.

    Those who are promoting the Yes case don’t want pesky things such as facts ruining a perfectly good narrative.
    I would have thought that the potential erosion of fundamental freedoms such as speech, association, expression and religion would have been a hot-button issue for Libertarians. Also, what should be mentioned is the other pesky fact that we’re being asked to vote Yes for legislation that has an unknown form. That also should have been a hot-button issue for Libertarians.
    Evidently I was wrong.
    LDP Libertarians seem quite happy to give Parliament a ‘blank cheque’ in regards to this legislation, and also seem to be quite happy to allow further erosion of our fundamental freedoms (I wonder if they were also AWOL when S18C was written into law).
    So much the price for continuing to get invites to all the correct parties.

  13. pbw

    The demand to re-define marriage assumes that marriage is a matter of definition…

    Aye, there’s the nub.

  14. a happy little debunker

    When people dare to claim before our High Court that their family units will be negatively affected by simply asking the question, ‘Should we change the marriage laws?’ – then it logically follows that in asking our elected representatives in parliament, the same question, will negatively affect those same family units.

    The only solution to that amount of butthurt – is to never, ever ask the question.

    Unfortunately our High Court did not agree.

    They played for an own goal and still couldn’t score!

  15. pbw

    Sinc,

    An extension of this is upholding the institution of marriage as between and man and a woman.

    true but irrelevant

    If this is true, how can it be irrelevant?

    arguments about the nuclear family

    Who said anything about the nuclear family? These are arguments about the fundamental biological reality of human families.

  16. pbw

    Well, John Ozolins said something about it, but the term “nuclear family” has taken on particular connotations of isolation.

  17. Ellen of Tasmania

    The push for SSM has to be seen as a part of a larger agenda.

    Actually no, it doesn’t.

    But many of the people who are promoting this are very open about the fact that they see it as part of a larger agenda. Why should we not believe them?

    As best I can tell nobody is suggesting that no-fault divorce laws be repealed.

    I know lots of people who are suggesting that very thing.

  18. Marriage and family are the foundation block of society. Two people generate an ever widening sphere of collateral relationships, horizontally within their own generation and vertically across prior and subsequent generations – children, in-laws, grandparents, cousins, uncles & aunts. Altering the foundation alters the basis of the whole structure.

  19. RobK

    If children are to be involved with a homosexual union, then by definition some third party is involved. Whilst this can work out ok, statistically the odds are considerably less favorable and in that sense it is in the same category as a failed or dysfunctional marriage from the outset. Call it something else, it’s only natural. I do not question the love homosexuals feel for each other, monogamous or not. Marriage needs the anatomical plumbing to facilitate procreation between the two parties or it’s something else.

  20. Garry

    Same sex marriage is simply another Trojan horse adopted by the far left to get a wedge in the door for progressive gender bending policies like the safe schools garbage. The left has realised that things need to be done one progressive step at a time if it’s agenda is to get past the average punter. Get SSM accepted and then move on to the next related item. Eventually everything we hold as true moral principles will be gone and we won’t even have seen them going!

  21. candy

    SSM surely means more babies will be procured into homosexual couples’ lives, so that the child is devoid of half it’s culture/biological beginnings, all that. Will never know from whence they truly came from. Not even know any medical or genetic problems or who they look like.

    I think that’s cruel. Still, it SSM looks quite certain.

    I think Malcolm Turnbull was very clever to think of the postal vote. Like Bill Shorten, he wants to be known as the PM who legislated SSM, and will receive honours around the world for it.
    It surely will get Newspoll up, the support from the gay community. So, well done to him for coming up with the idea, it’s quite clever. He really is very smart.

  22. candy

    I also think Tony Abbott’s time will be over, and that was always Malcolm Turnbull’s plan as well, if he could legislate SSM.

    You see, the conservatives will be a spent force after M.Turnbull legislates SSM. Tony Abbott will simply have to move on.

  23. RobK

    For those who may have missed it, Augustus Zimmerman did a well researched peice in Quadrant:
    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/08/childrens-welfare-sex-families/

  24. Garry

    Yes Candy you are correct. The conservatives are a spent force. We effectively have the two major parties pushing very similar agendas on the climate change myth, SSM, taxation on superannuation, energy policy, immigration levels etc. not a lot of difference between them. This is the lefts time in the political sunshine – but the left should be aware that their purple patch will last only as long as the silent majority remain largely unaffected. When the correction comes, and it will come, it will probably be an over correction. Poke the bear once too often and who knows what will happen and I suspect a single term of the next Shorten government is about all the poking the bear will tolerate

  25. Ruprecht

    The push for SSM has to be seen as a part of a larger agenda.

    Actually no, it doesn’t.

    Actually, yes it does. It’s obviously all-of-a-one with the toxic identity politics strategy employed by the left to destroy the family as an alternative source of authority and support to state.
    Mark Latham belled the cat in his recent interview with Alan Jones – what exactly are we voting on? Isn’t it true that the draft legislation previously prepared by the Turnbull government to legalise SSM was not limited to homosexual marriages, but would apply to a whole range of heretofore unknown genders and couplings? Do you imagine this will stop with homosexual marriage? Why? The end game is a world where the only marriage, and the only family, is between the servant and the state.

    Vote ‘yes’ and you are a fool. If being a holy fool comforts you, I pity you.

  26. RobK

    Spelling correction:AUGUSTO ZIMMERMANN. My apologies.

  27. ArthurB

    I believe that the most insidious aspect of SSM is its effects on children who have been created for same sex couples. Advocates of SSM assure us that when rearing children, love is the most important thing, but I disagree: while same sex couples may love each other, they are still deliberately depriving a child of either a father or mother. I suspect that the children who will suffer the worst consequences are boys raised by lesbians, who tend anyway to be man-haters. I have observed that boys raised in fatherless families often have emotional problems. A boy may be able to accept the death of his father, but is less able to cope if his parents separate, and he is denied contact with his father. And: what will be the effect on boys when they learn that their father was an anonymous sperm donor?

    BTW: I was dismayed when I read Janet Albrechtsen’s piece on SSM in Wednesday’s Oz. She treats the matter as something that is inevitable, and ignores the fact that SSM is but one stage in the Left’s campaign to destroy the family.

  28. Catfeesh?

    Do you imagine this will stop with homosexual marriage? Why?

    These are the two questions that those planning to vote YES need to ask themselves. Logically, why would it stop there? Some might say that anything further is not on the agenda. Sure! It’s not on their agenda, at least, right now. It also wasn’t on the Labor Party’s agenda to go for SSM in Gillard’s time either. What has changed since? Everything.

    If you vote yes for SSM, you’re not just voting for that. You’re voting for everything that follows as well, you just don’t realise it yet. Oh, and everything else that follows? You’re unlikely to get a plebiscite on that.

  29. stackja

    The Enabling Act (German: Ermächtigungsgesetz) was a 1933 Weimar Constitution amendment that gave the German Cabinet – in effect, Chancellor Adolf Hitler – the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag.

    A little law change. What could possibly go wrong?

  30. Eddystone

    Sinclair Davidson

    #2491650, posted on September 8, 2017 at 8:23 am

    As best I can tell nobody is suggesting that no-fault divorce laws be repealed.

    That’s another question, but in my opinion, there has been a continual weakening or undermining of the institution of marriage, from no fault divorce, to single mothers payments, the elevation of de facto relationships to have equal legal weight with marriage (and same sex relations have also been elevated in this way).

    Now the SSM activists want to change the definition of marriage, and they dissemble by calling this marriage “equality”.

    Heterosexual and homosexual relations are no more equal than a Granny Smith is equal to a Valencia.

  31. one old bruce

    “Nobody is suffering for want of SSM … Maybe not you, but how can you know what other people feel on the issue.”

    Touche to JS Mill’s non harm principle of liberty and liberalism.

    Anything can be ‘harmful’ to someone. Liberalism’s failure, majoritarian utilitarian solution.

  32. Helen

    Problem with Howard’s “Show us the protecting legislation” is that legislation can be changed.

    Better not open the Pandora’s Box in the first place.

  33. Helen

    Reading that Quadrant article leaves me so anguished for the pawns in this game – the children.

  34. Helen

    I wonder if the will be a stolen generation class action in the years to come? Against the government for allowing and encouraging gay adoption and IVF?

  35. This is a Type III error – a true but irrelevant statement.

    The arguments about the nuclear family are not arguments against gay marriage,…

    If the argument is true, and a premise of the argument is that marriage is a relationship between the sexes, how can it not be an relevant argument against gay ‘marriage’, which proposes that marriage is not a relationship between the sexes, but simply a relationship between persons of whatever sex? It just seems bizarre to argue that it is true but irrelevant without any further explanation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *