Or so goes the general sentiment. The "same-sex marriage" plebiscite is upon us and the most remarkable aspect of the lead up to the decision is the lack of robust debate. None of the commentators in the Murdoch press, including but not limited to Mark Latham, Rita Panahi, Janet Albretchsen, the Christian Lobby or even our friends at Quadrant appear to be willing to engage with the issue of homosexuality beyond the tired and flaccid whimperings about "protecting religious freedoms". In a mere forty years, what was considered a perverse act of criminal sexual abuse by a tiny minority has now become one of the most prominent social, cultural and political issues in Australian society.
Yesterday I was handed a rainbow wrist-band by an enthusiastic "marriage equality" activist wearing a purple t-shirt. All around the CBD office workers sported similar bands and wore purple items of clothing to express their solidarity with the "Yes" vote to extend the definition of marriage to same-sex couples. Office circulars and tea-room posters exhort staff to "Wear it Purple" to "highlight those in the rainbow community who provide happiness, demonstrate the diversity, help bring together the community, work to raise awareness and ensure there are good times for the rainbow community". Corporate Australia and the public service is falling over itself to promote this campaign in an act of partisanship that would be unthinkable less than a decade ago. Credit must be given to the organisers of campaign. The propaganda of "marriage equality" is seductive to a broad swathe of the population, especially those under sixty. One of the more innovative features of their branding is that this is 'not about politics', rather it is merely 'about equality'. How can one engage with what amounts to an article of faith? What is it exactly about sexual deviancy that precludes family formation and spreads disease that is fun, exciting, daring or child-like?
As Guillaume Faye explains:
Another revealing feature of "gay pride" is the adolescent and infantile character of the demonstrations of the homosexual lobby and of their ideology. The passage to psychological adulthood has not yet been travelled by these gentlemen. Often not quite young anymore, they march half naked, despised, caressing one another sometimes obscenely to shock the petty bourgeois hetero (who doesn't give a damn), to the sound of musical instruments, and are even protected by homosexual policemen! These are provocations by people suffering from arrested development, like boys flashing their weenies in the schoolyard.
Since the introduction of the Family Law Act in 1975 by the Whitlam government, establishing "no-fault divorce", divorce rates have skyrocketed, as has the number of children born out of wedlock. The De Facto Relationships Act of 1984 gave unmarried couples co-habiting an equivalent legal status to married couples. From an outside observer it would appear that marriage is no longer a foundational institution of modern Australian society, a direct consequence of the political and social agenda of "progress".
It is a long established view on the radical left that marriage is bourgeois, patriarchal and an artefact of the system that has oppressed and marginalised women and deviants. It is this very system that created their identities in the first place - solidarity through non-conformity. It its heart, homosexuality is a breach of the social contract, and from the its beginnings in San Francisco in the 1960's, gay culture has sought to embrace this. This change of tack, from a deliberate and theatrical rejection of conservative sexual morality through "Pride Parades" to a simultaneous embrace of state-sanctioned monogamy cannot be explained by so-called defenders of traditional marriage.
More from Faye:
We are sufficiently aware to what extent the very idea of homosexual marriage (which emerged in a Western mindset that had already been bludgeoned by anti-values amid sugary talk of 'rights) is novel, though one suspects that it is unprecedented in the entire history of humanity. This notion (which had appeared to be only a provocative gag just thirty years ago) is perceived by all mindsets in all societies as a veritable and revolting rape of nature.
Well-balanced minds that tolerate homosexual practices in the private sphere, who allow homosexuals to discreetly cohabit within their own four walls, who reject all social discrimination against homosexuals nevertheless consider the idea of homosexual marriage to be pure and simple madness: all the more so when it is an attempt to mimic heterosexual marriage. It is seen as a servile imitation, a ridiculous carbon copy.
In any case, the whole thing amounts to a denial and devaluation of marriage, depriving the union of husband and wife of all legitimate distinction when in fact it is the keystone of our society's reproduction and survival. Raving egalitarianism, confusion of values, mental pathology: these things preside over the idea of the homosexual married couple[..] Indeed, one might ask whether, beneath the demand for homosexual marriage, there is not an unavowed and perverse need to undermine the heterosexual couple by imitating it; by presenting it as 'one possibility among others' and no longer as a norm.
It is this 'lifestyle choice' that is presented as just as valid as heterosexual marriage, rather than a selfish, dangerous and anti-social abberation that perhaps best encapsulates the triumph of liberal ideology in Western countries. Extreme individualism asks nothing of its adherents - one's choices are naively deemed to exist in a kind of consequence-free social vacuum. If you want to raise a family, investing your energy, resources and life purpose into giving rise to the next generation, then this should be seen and treated as no different to childless homosexuals whose sad lives are marked by disease, promiscuity and psychological disorders.
The cover-up of the depraved and self-destructive nature of homosexual lifestyles has been marketed with great skill, and the saddest part of this story is the countless victims of this ideology who fall prey to the false promises of self-actualisation, community, eternal youth and fashion that characterise 'gay' culture. Whilst same-sex attraction has always existed in small numbers, its prosletysation and promotion as a viable and socially acceptable lifestyle option, married or unmarried, is a kind of moral horror that only a thoroughly brainwashed person could not object to.
The Gay lobby's posture of ideological victimhood has managed to sustain itself despite decriminalisation and its widespread social acceptance. Homosexual infiltration of government, education, the media and major corporations is rife at the highest levels. Homosexuals have higher incomes and their political representatives have enormous weight to throw around in the political process. Their early attempts to block the plebiscite were grounded in a realistic concern that they do not yet possess a democratic majority, and risk a "No" result, thereby de-legitimising a free-vote in parliament which can be repeated time and time again until the a majority of MPs are on board. It is easy to forget that just a four years ago, cabinet Labor MPs including Penny Wong, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd were all against same sex marriage. Now that the plebiscite is going ahead by fiat, the lobby, including the Liberal Left faction, have set their activism campaign in motion.
The cultural colonisation of the 'Gay' lobby has further reaching consequences than most are aware of. Much of what was considered an ordinary part of maleness has been tainted by Gay Inc, forcing men to become more brutish and unsophisticated in order to avoid accusation or association with homosexuality or femininity. As James O'Meara's title, The Homo and the Negro suggests, these are the only two acceptable male archetypes in modern culture. Beauty, high culture, refinement and elegance have been stolen by 'gay' culture, so much so that terms such as 'stray' ("straight men who act 'gay') have been created for the subset of heterosexual men who go to the Opera or read novels. Gays have killed the Dandy, and instead we are left with the Whigger.
By using the latent social stigma surrounding homosexuality as a shaming tool, homosexual propaganda has succeeded in pushing a once-cultured middle class into various forms of negro thug or monster-truck masculinity. Not even working class male culture has been left unmolested, with men using face-saving mechanisms such as 'no-homo' to guard against presumed charges of homosexuality when risking a compliment to a fellow male.
There's little doubt that a talented sliver of homosexuals dedicate themselves to their life-long projects in art, business or career and achieve great successes that we are all the better for, and like childless men, may redeem themselves in this way. But these types do not justify the actions majority, let alone the subversive normalisation of deviance and the elevation of sexuality as a legitimate form of identity.
The conservative media's response to the debate has been for the most part pre-emptive admission of defeat, accompanied with a move to higher ground. Having already accepted "same-sex marriage", Mark Latham pleads for the exclusion of 'transgender' and 'intersex' types from the definition of 'person' in the proposed amendments to the Marriage Act:
Complete with allcaps to ensure highest levels of Boomerposting possible
Wording of Marriage Act amendments the key. Should write in Gay marriage provision, not sweeping "two people" clause including TRANSGENDER— Real Mark Latham (@RealMarkLatham) August 21, 2017
This is pathetic modus operandi of modern conservatism. The only way they are allowed to speak in polite society is to agree with the principle and inherent goodness of 'inclusion', widening the goalposts yet again, whilst reserving their objections to the next-to-arrive fringe group which is only a year or two away from mainstream acceptance and political enfranchisement.
Only Tony Abbot has had the courage to place the debate within its true cultural and political context, albeit with many placating caveats and concessions such as those written in The Australian. Here is what he said to the media:
"If you’re worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote ‘No’, and if you don’t like political correctness, vote ‘No’ because voting ‘No’ will help to stop political correctness in its tracks."
Of course, our very own guest of The Convict Report, Chistopher Pyne argued back that his embrace of same-sex marriage is in fact more conservative than Abbot's rejection. Take that, Tones!
“I’m not in favour of marriage equality in spite of being a conservative, I’m in favour of it because I’m a conservative, and I think more people should have access to the institution of marriage. I think the children in same sex households should be able to have the stability that that union brings,” Mr Pyne told 5AA radio.
Even if you feel that every battle appears to be a losing one, there is no good reason to give in to same sex marriage campaigners. A numerically inferior army does not relinquish territory voluntarily, just because their odds are worse. Same-sex marriage doesn't need to be a hill to die on, but it's worth pushing back on and making sure you vote and understand why it matters. The vote could go either way. Regardless of the end result, social approval and acceptance ultimately lies outside of the government's legislative function. A sham is a sham, and no law can ever change that.