SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

“Queer agenda” post “gay” ‘marriage’: The queering of education policy and queerphobia

by Leave a Comment

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.

References: 

The symbolic victory of same-sex marriage.
by Anne Russell 
April 19, 2013

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1304/S00144/the-symbolic-victory-of-same-sex-marriage.htm

Maurice Williamson MP: ‘Gay Icon’ must answer to a Higher Being

by Leave a Comment

Dominion Post Letter to Editor (24 April) accompanied by colour photo of ‘Gay Icon’ Maurice Williamson delivering pro-same-sex marriage [Marriage Amendment bill] speech on 17 April 2013. In 2004, he voted against civil unions at the Third Reading of the Civil Union Act, along with John Key and 22 other Nation Party MPs.

maurice williamson

National Pakuranga MP Maurice Williamson’s marriage-amendment bill speech would have been half funny were it not for the assumptions he made as facts. He promised that the Sun would rise tomorrow, we’d not suffer skin diseases or plagues of toads, and that the world would carry on. His knowledge of physics assures us eternal punishment will last 2.1 seconds. His major error is to ignore that he’s answerable to a higher authority. It’s an error shared by the bill’s supporters, including some churches and their leaders. Though he and this Government might act as if they govern the universe, the Bible is clear that they will be called to account for their lives. Pussyfooting around, with platitudes about loving relationships and Jesus’ acceptance of everyone, ignores that, faced with an adulterous woman, he said, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” – the later instruction being the condition placed on the forgiveness. The Church must be aware that after 30 years of “normalising ” homosexuality, the future demand will be to marry same-sex people in church because it would be “discriminatory” not to do so. What then, sheep?

Peter Bradley, Aotea.

24 April 2013. The Dominion Post. P. A10.

Redefining marriage is unnecessary – Gordon Copeland

by

THE DEBATE on same-sex marriage lacks context because its promoters have failed to take into account the equal rights already established in New Zealand law for same-sex couples.

Everyone remembers the passing of the Civil Union Act in 2004 because of the publicity it generated. The Civil Union Act was followed by a companion Relationships (Statutory References) Act in early 2005 – the Relationships Act. It was passed by Parliament without fanfare and little publicity. It has therefore been missing from this debate because its purpose and legal effects are largely unknown to New Zealanders. Yet it is of crucial importance.

So what did the Relationships Act do? It amended more than 130 acts of Parliament to add, after every reference to “marriage” , the words “civil union and de facto” so there would be a complete and perfect legal equality between marriage, civil unions and heterosexual or homosexual de facto relationships. It means all couples, in any of these relationships, have the same rights under New Zealand law, with the possible exception of the adoption law.

Therefore, nothing is to be gained from redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, since equal rights have already been granted. That battle was fought and won in 2005.

In 1893, New Zealand was the first nation to grant women the vote, but we did not do that by redefining men to include women, but rather by recognising the equality of women. In the same way the Relationships Act does not alter the definition of marriage but rather recognises the equality of same-sex unions, be they civil union or de facto, at law.

The mantra of “marriage equality” needs to be viewed against that background. In my view, that mantra does not stand up to scrutiny because all of us can surely agree that a marriage between a man and a woman is biologically different from a union between two women or two men. Just as women and men are different, so those relationships are different (de facto relationships are different again because they exist in fact, but involve couples who are not married or in civil unions). Let us not forget that New Zealand law does permit homosexuals, who so choose, to marry [a person of the opposite sex] and some have.

Recognition of the reality that women and men are biologically different does not constitute discrimination, inequality or a denial of rights. We separate women and men for sport and boys and girls for sport and education. Most Wellington secondary schools, for example, are single-sex, but that does not mean boys from Wellington College are not the equal of girls from St Mary’s. Our laws against discrimination are founded on the principle of “different by equal”.

Consequently, although it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, nationality, race, religion, marital status, and so on, in employment, housing, voting and the like, the law also recognises differences in many ways. Indeed, in our language we always, without exception, give different names to different things because life would  become confusing if a rake was called a spade or vice versa.

Marriage is too important to the stability of our society and the raising of children to risk such a radical change to its traditional definition without sound reason. In my view, no such reason has been advanced,

Marriage can result in lifelong loving relationships between the spouses. It remains the best and most stable environment in which to raise children. It has stood the test of time and is common to all cultures and nations. Like democracy, it is not perfect, but it is better than all the other models. It would be greatly strengthened if governments invested in the delivery of pre-marriage preparation and post-wedding marriage enrichment programmes by non-government organisations, because marriage underpins a successful society, while the root cause of much poverty and delinquency arises from causal, stable or broken relationships.

The Relationships Act created “relationships equality” and nothing more is necessary or desirable. The redefinition of marriage bill should not proceed.

____________

Source: Opinion Piece: Published The Dominion Post. Thursday, January 24, 2013. , p. A9

Gordon Copeland is a former MP who was in Parliament in 2004 – 2005 when the Civil Union and Relationship (Statutory References) Acts were passed. He opposed both.

 

 

NZ resident couples overwhelmingly prefer marriage to civil union

by Leave a Comment

There were 20,900 marriages in New Zealand last year, compared to 338 civil unions.

According to Statistics New Zealand, 273 Kiwi couples legalised their relationship in a civil union, of which 73 per cent [199] were same-sex. A further 65 civil unions were registeted to overseas residents.

The 199 same-sex civil unions entered into by Kiwi couples resident in New Zealand in 2010 constitutes 0.9% of the total unions (marriages + civil unions) entered into by NZ resident Kiwi couples in 2010.

Since the Civil Union Act came into force six years ago, and taking account of the growth in New Zealand population each year, the number of civil unions has progressively dropped each year from a high of 430 in 2006.

At the current rate of decline of civil unions entered into each year and the rate of dissolution of such relations, one wonders how long this ‘institution’ will go the way of the dinosaurs – a mysterious extinction that will catch us all by surprise.