The passing of Louisa Wall’s so-called ‘same-sex marriage’ [SSM] bill “represents a symbolic and semantic change rather than a transformation of the material conditions of people’s lives” according to Anne Russell (Scoop 19/04/13). Furthermore, it is merely a “symbolic and semantic victory” for LGBTIAQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, intersexual, asexual and queer) communities – also known collectively as “Queers”.
The term “same-sex marriage” [SSM] is of course an oxymoron: a figure of speech in which incongruous or seemingly contradictory terms appear side by side. SSM is a meaningless term.
Repeatedly calling a chair a duck, does not make it duck. It may have a back curved like duck’s neck, but no duck has ever had four legs! No chair quacks like a duck! Repeatedly calling and treating a SSM as defined in Louisa Wall’s bill – as “marriage” – is to engage in verbal deception.
Repeatedly referring to a stone one keeps tripping over as a “bleeding stone” does not give it a blood circulatory system! Repeatedly heralding SSM as “marriage” is dishonest and puerile. It degrades, demeans and destroys the true meaning of marriage which always involves the complementarity of both sexes.
The amendment to the Marriage Act 1955 offers same-sex couples seeking legal recognition nothing more than what is already available to them under the Civil Union Act – namely a civil union – which entails receipt of all the rights and privileges of marriage….
with two arguable exceptions. Both have been addressed in the bill that has been passed.
(1) Queer couples can now make a legal commitment to one another that can be ackn0wledged in law to constitute a “marriage”. This was not possible under the Civil Union Act 2004. However this is a semantic ploy given that civil unions have been widely treated by same-sex couples and the general population as equivalent in practice to heterosexual marriages. “Gays” or “Queers” assert that “equivalence” of relationships is not the same as “equality of relationship”. That is why they have coined the term “Marriage Equality” and vigorously opposed the unique and special character of traditional heterosexual marriage as defined in the Marriage Act 1955 – with the obvious exclusion of SSM.
(2) same-sex couples will be able to jointly (as a couple) adopt a child, as opposed to only one member being able to adopt. However, a “gay” person was already able adopt a child prior to Louisa Wall’s bill being passed . If a lesbian was the birth mother of a child, her partner in law was defined as the second parent. The lesbian’s partner had the right to apply to the Courts for guardianship of the child if the child’s birth mother died or was ever declared mentally unfit to care for the child.
Despite acknowledging all the rights “gays” gain under a civil union, “gay” rights activists argue publicly that civil unions are “meaningless”. Such a tactic makes it clear that the LGBTIAQ communities want to see any vestige of traditional marriage eradicated from society and have replaced with a “gay” friendly vision of sexual relationships involving the normalisation of “gay sex”.
Anne Russell wrote:
“After all, this bill in itself is not a victory for all queers. The proposition that same-sex marriage will have knock-on benefits for lower-class queers is no more than queer trickle-down theory, an excuse to direct extensive activist forces primarily at middle-class issues…….”
“It will be interesting to see where the queer movement goes next. The marriage equality bill represents a symbolic and semantic change, rather than a transformation of the material conditions of people’s lives. Action like queering education policy across the board, allocating tax dollars to transgender healthcare, making bathrooms gender neutral, and enabling adoption rights requires redistribution of power and material resources. Moreover, issues like poverty and poor housing, that were arguably sidelined by the marriage equality debate, disproportionately affect the queer community and need queer attention.”
Here we gain insight into what the Queer agenda is – the tireless “gay onslaught” against the institution of traditional marriage and morality, the ceaseless striving to normalise “gay” sexual practices such as sodomy and the relentless pursuit of “special rights” for the LGBTIQ community.
The first objective of the Queer agenda identified by the openly lesbian Labour MP Louisa Wall is “queering education policy across the board”. In plain terms this includes:
(1) developing teaching strategies and resources to be delivered to our children and young persons that treat heterosexual sex within marriage as no different to sexual practices engaged in by same-sex couples, (2) teaching that traditional marriage is no different to SSM, (3) teaching that children raised a traditional marriage compared to a SSM benefit equally and (4) that children should not see gender differences as fixed in any sense but rather as completely fluid and part of a very broad rainbow-coloured spectrum.
LGBTIQ communities have proved masters at subverting the English language to favour and advance their “gay agenda”. Just witness the manner in which the meaning of the word “gay” has been so radically altered. Terms such as “homophobic” have been coined by “gays” as terms of abuse to be used against those who speak against the “gay” lifestyle etc.
The second item on the Queer Agenda is persuading government to allocate tax dollars to transgender healthcare
LGBTIAQ communities are already demanding special rights – the right they claim to tax-payer funded medical programmes to enable them to produce children – medically assisted procreation (in vitro fertilization and surrogacy services etc.) and undergo sex change operations.
The third objective of the Queer Agenda is to get so-called “hate speech” legislation through Parliament
Such legislation has been introduced into a number of countries and it serves the Queer agenda well in its “chilling effect” on any public criticism of “gay” sexual practices and/or lifestyle choices.
Banning the term Homosexual and Homophobe
Some within LGBTIAQ are wanting even more changes to the English language in line with “Queer Theory”. The use of the term “homophobe” by “gays” to describe those who oppose the SSM may soon be replaced by the term “Queerphobe” as the word “HOMOsexual” is considered offensive as it is too narrow to encompass the wider GLBTIAQ community. “Homophobe” and “homosexual” are considered offensive and discriminatory terms that undermines modern Queer theory and Queer political aspirations.
However, if the term “homophobe”, which is widely used as a term of abuse by “gays”, is to be eliminated, its replacement with “Queerphobe” seems a very queer alternative! The latter lacks the distinctive, chilling, derisory, degrading and derogatory linguistic “feel” of the word “homophobe” – one which the LGBTIAQ community seems to have developed a passionate love affair with. Losing such an effective verbal weapon like this one might leave the LGBTIAQ community very vulnerable and lead to its demise due to verbal abuse infertility.
The symbolic victory of same-sex marriage.
by Anne Russell
April 19, 2013