It’s okay to vote NO….It’s natural, not inequality

A few months ago, I made the conscious decision of joining a political party. Of the two predominant parties, Labour and Liberals, I chose Labour. First and maybe subtly, I don’t like the name liberal. It connotes to me a view that is fluid. It’s going to always be a little to the right and a little to the left, no firm stand on any issue. It connotes anything from “generous” to “loose” to “broad-minded.” Importantly, I chose Labor because I believe in its two objectives of “maintenance of and support for a competitive non-monopolistic private sector” and “the right to own private property”. At the time, I was not unaware that Labour’s leadership was actively supporting equality in marriage. It was supporting equality in all forms. All things considered, I do not support this objective but this did not deter me from joining the party. I knew that there will always be “issues of the day” in which the party and I will hold opposing views. That will happen, no matter which political party anyone joins.

For those who may be unaware, Marriage Equality is a movement that aims at legalizing marriages between people of the LGBT orientation. Simply put, it makes gay marriage legal and changes the definition of marriage being the union between a man and a woman.

Last week, the two law suits standing in the way of the Australian Postal Plebiscite on marriage were ruled out as lacking merit by the High Court. Consequently, the surveys will be landing in the postal boxes this week. The Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has been very vocal on where he stands on this plebiscite. He is all over the news urging that people vote YES and has expressed that he and his wife will be doing the same. Bill Shorten, the leader of the Opposition and of the Australian Labour Party, is not singing a different tune. He is also campaigning for a Yes Vote. Their arguments? It’s the fair thing to do as the current marriage definition promotes inequality. The cacophony of voices, all drumming into the public ears, is to vote YES. The argument is unconvincing and I really struggle to understand it.

On this issue, the opposition and the government are unusually united. United not because the change being requested is right, but because they are afraid. Afraid of standing affirmatively with the truth. It is for this that I commend Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister. He stands affirmatively with voting NO because to him, that is the right thing to do and unlike the rest, he isn’t campaigning that the populace change their minds but they should vote according to their conscience.

 

A few weeks earlier, the accomplished Margaret Court, sounded a note to differ with the cacophony of voices saying yes. She seemed to be the only loud voice opposing this impending doom to society, as we currently see it. Following Qantas Airline’s promotion of same-sex marriage, she wrote the airline and stated:

“I am disappointed that Qantas has become an active promoter for same-sex marriage…..I believe in marriage as a union between a man and a woman as stated in the Bible….Your statement leaves me no option but to use other airlines where possible for my extensive travelling.”

All hell broke loose, when the content of this letter became public and got published in the West Australian. Kill her! Crucify her! Remove her name from the “Margaret Court” Arena! Erase her history from the Australian Open!. These were the shouts and screams coming from the lobbyist. The bullying from the LGBT community was without bound. It was a repeat of what had been experienced in a certain Australian business where a Director was summoned to resign from the board of a Christian Charity if he wants to continue to hold his office. His membership of the charity was said to be a cause of concern to certain employees in the company. Pastor Margaret, as she is called by many of us, her church members at Victory Life Bible Church in Perth, was perturbed but gladly would not give up. The way the argument for the YES vote has been conducted, any dissenting view is killed and cursed, striking fear and terror in the heart of the populace from speaking and expressing their views.

In fact, the whole premise of Bill Shorten’s request that the plebiscite should not take place but be voted on by parliament was to assure that the very few vocal voices in Parliament were the ones that would vote on this and hence assure the result they wanted – a redefinition of marriage.

So one would ask, why is this important? It is important because it hits at the very foundation of family. For a reason, God created us male and female. Many reasons could be adduced for this but it is not farfetched to know that both sexes are required for procreation. Marriage is simply the union between a man and a woman and this institution has been established, from the foundation of the earth, when God saw that Adam needed help. He could have created another man for Adam but he did not. In his wisdom, he went into Adam’s bones and brought out a woman, an help sufficient to complement the man.

Taking the Bible out of it, this vote strikes at the freedom of millions of other Australians were the Yes team to have their way. The freedom of speech and religious freedom would soon be thrown out of the window. We have seen what is happening all around the world. In Sweden, the PM is threatening that Christian Pastors should get ready to celebrate gay weddings or get another job. That isn’t a helpful statement to anyone or is it?

On another front, it is frightening to think of what will happen in schools. Currently under the Australian Safe Schools programme, the Gender Fairy book is being read to students as young as 4 years old and are being told no one can tell you whether you are a boy or girl, only you can. In essence, identity is becoming very fluid. You can be a boy today and tomorrow become a girl. The reconditioning in the classroom will be so swift and massive and yet as a parent, one would not have the right to pull his children out from such wrong education.

 

Nature will have the last laugh, it always does. We have seen experiments where male plants have been grafted on female trees. No matter what you do to them, they still retain their genes, male genes. Scientist can go ahead and pump men up with female hormones and give ladies testosterone and muscle building injections, the original nature of the being cannot be erased. 

Now, peradventure you are asking where I stand. I do not support LGBT as a life choice. I love them as fellow humans but I detest the choices they have made. Some have argued that homosexuality is natural, I say no. it is not natural in animals, not in plants and of course not in man. A group of baboons have been pointed at as evidence of homosexuality in animals. My position is that these are the exceptions and not the norm. Homosexuality is a choice. A choice like any other and is not a creation of nature.

Asking for equality in marriage for homosexual is an abuse of the English term “equality”. If you are still both men or women, there is no way you can be said to have become equal to a man-woman relationship. So what equality are we talking about? The freedom for a man to marry a man or the freedom for a woman to marry a woman? If this is the equality, by the very definition of the word marriage, that cannot exist. And this is why if the LGBT decide to choose another word to refer to their relationship, perhaps there would be a cause for less concern with many. You can’t fain marriage

For those who are undecided and too afraid to take a stand. Please be assured that you are not a bigot, not homophobic, not irrational if you choose to say No. It is marriage equality today, what will the LGBT be asking for tomorrow? We simply don’t know and neither can we see where the line will be drawn and this ends. Simply put, where does the frontier stop?

Leave a comment

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

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>