Gordon Smith

Discrimination nation: Shelton to call marriage a “child-centric” institution

Approx Reading Time-12Not content with a burning van outside his office, Lyle Shelton’s comments on marriage have immolated the bridge between logic and the rest of us.

 


It takes a certain skill to make someone question their place in society based on their fundamental inability to create a child, and even more an earned skill to tell someone that their legal recognitions would hinge upon biological structure as a whole, yet Lyle Shelton has again done just that.

Fresh from his tirade against the “extreme left” for their van-based assault on his “Christian” (and I use the term very loosely) Lobby headquarters, Australia’s own Nostradamus has again shown us the light in the push to end bigotry in federal law, reminding us that any push to remove discrimination against consenting adults in the same-sex marriage debate, at a federal, secular level, would be tantamount to scrapping gender as a whole.

Indeed, so incensed by a society having the gall to show even the slightest shades of progressivism, Lyle used a submission to the Senate committee examining a same-sex marriage bill (submissions to the Senate inquiry closed on Friday) to defend marriage as a “child-centric” institution, while calling for the allowance of discrimination against same-sex couples on the basis of “freedom of religion” – with “marriage” of course being well known for its exclusivity to those couples of child-rearing age, and of sound maternal clock. How many childless married couples do you know, really?

The answer is “none”, and you know it.

To say that the infertile have a right to marriage would be as ridiculous a statement as arguing that women should have the right to vote, or that our Indigenous people should be recognised as human in our constitution.

Ridiculous. Ludicrous, even.

Such crack pot theorising has no place in the mature debating space that is Australian politics, where Lyle’s most intelligent contributions range from the obviously rational – and in no way deeply offensive – claim that same-sex marriage and the Safe Schools coalition were comparable to the Holocaust, to the even more reasonable idea that same-sex marriage would create an environment akin to the stolen generations.

“Changing the definition of marriage to entrench motherless and fatherlessness in public policy and teaching our kids their gender is fluid should be opposed,” wrote Aristotle’s successor in a blog post on the ACL’s website.

“The cowardice and weakness of Australia’s ‘gatekeepers’ is causing unthinkable things to happen, just as unthinkable things happened in Germany in the 1930s.”

Lyle comforts us by telling us that some of his friends are gay (though, who would admit to being such remains a mystery), and that he knows people will be up-in-arms about his dropping of the Nazi comparison, but that “the issues Australia faces are bigger than the rainbow political agenda.”

Not to be drowned out by such bizarre concepts as “human decency” or “compassion”, the ACL has argued that freedom of religion is a fundamental right, and that “the complementarity of male and female is uniquely defined in the marriage law.”

That is, of course, the marriage law according to Howard, circa 2004.

“Where gender is erased from the fundamental group unit of society, it logically follows that gender becomes increasingly confused at all levels in the community.”

Lyle’s Lobby further called for discrimination law exemptions to be extended to non-religious organisations, so that “people who define marriage as between a man and a woman” not be discriminated against in areas such as employment, their right to discriminate being just as fundamental as the right to freedom of religion.

First we’ll be saying we shouldn’t hire people who consider gay people abominations, next we’ll be saying there’s no place for racism in 2017 Australian society. Political correctness has truly gone mad!

Thank God we have champions of justice like Lyle’s Christian Lobby standing up against this rising tide of love and acceptance. None of this nonsense about sticking up for the poor, the hungry, the needy – Lyle’s Christians are all anti-gay, all the time – so much so that the Christian Lobby has issued five times as many statements on their opposition to same-sex marriage as they have on any other issue:

Domestic violence a national epidemic? Hogwash. Refugees – men, women and children alike – slowly rotting away in indefinite detention off our shores? Small fry.

Two loving, consenting, commit adults seeking to make a life-long legal commitment in a secular society? That’s the big issue.

Now, some people may argue that legal recognition of same-sex couples has nothing to do with a religious organisation. But such a statement is as hole-filled as the idea that marriage exists without children, or that people can create children without a marriage certificate.

Hmm. To think that my calls to be treated as a free and equal citizen in the country I was born in could cause generations of gender confusion, how very selfish of me. My high school tormentors were pure of heart, I was simply too blind to see. What they warned against wasn’t who I was born as, nor the gender I loved; what they warned against was my hard fought war against children.

To ask that my rights be put above those children yearning for a mother and father, it’s a self serving as it would be to not pay taxes, while arguing for more political playing ground.

 

Gordon Smith

Journalist by day, cunning linguist by night. A passion for politics, hypnotically involved in human rights. An Australian born with a Japanese tongue, hoping to hold the big wigs in government to account.

Related posts

  • Neil Aitchison

    Just as well you are a former child psychologist otherwise the homosexual mafia would get you sacked (if you were employed) or name/shame/boycott your practice (if you were running a business). They refuse to consider any medical, scientific, biolofical, logical or historical evidence that shows the homosexual lifestyle to be very damaging and destructive to themselves and society as a whole. Their sabotage of the public service and other institutions (like church and marriage) is purely an attempt to try and make out that homosexuality is acceptable. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  • Neil Aitchison

    Marriage is far more than just a wedding ceremony and calling someone “husband”, “wife” or “partner” and it is also far more than just “two people being in love” (or more likely in today’s way of thinking, a lot of marriages are more built on lust rather than love and so they are doomed to fail even before they start). For same sex marriage advocates to say that “You couldn’t use term husbands and wife in same-sex marriage, but otherwise it wouldn’t be any different to heterosexual marriage” is an incredibly shallow and meaningless view of marriage. Real marriage is a family-based institution for the nurture of children through to the next generation unlike same sex marriage which is a sex-based concept never tried before in the history of human existence. It is for the self-gratification of the individual (ie. to make them feel good) and in a political sense, same sex marriage is solely trying to make homosexuality look acceptable – in other words, there is nothing about same sex marriage that compares to real marriage. Real marriage is a millennia-old institution for procreation and male-female marriage is a proven pillar of successful civilisations since the dawn of time. Same sex couples simply don’t have the biology to do real marriage and the only way that they can make marriage seem plausible to them is to steal the word “marriage” and redefine it to suit their purposes. Even their idea of having a family is to use artificial reproduction and then deprive a child of a mother or a father. Such a confected lifestyle turns children into mere luxury accessories for selfish homosexual parents.

  • Anne Powles

    As a former child psychologist I have to say that an upbringing of children so they are community members and learn to value what others have to offer, as well as their parents or guardians’ viewpoints, is much more valuable than a tight, limited upbringing by a woman and man who want an exclusive relationship (even when it stops short of full scale indoctrination) with such children.

Top