When one considers the relative importance of the agenda items of the Labor National Conference, it is remarkable that one third of the time was taken up dealing with an issue relevant to such a tiny minority (less than 4 per cent) of the Australian people. It is also remarkable that there was so little logic displayed by those who spoke in favor of so-called “same-sex marriage’. For example, it is illogical to argue that a same-sex relationship can be treated as marriage, as it has been understood since the beginning of human existence. Marriage has always been a social institution which legitimises the natural desire of a man and a woman to live together in a life-long loving relationship with resulting procreation of children and the creation of a family, the basic and most important unit of society. Marriage must always involve a man and a woman. A same-sex relationship, regardless of the love expressed by the two people, can never be called “marriage’ because it doesn’t meet the two essential criteria of this institution.
It is also invalid to argue that this is a discrimination issue because there is no discrimination against same sex relationships just as there is no discrimination against a man and a woman living together. Furthermore, there is no benefit from calling these relationships “marriage’. Calling a same-sex relationship “marriage’ will not have the slightest effect on that relationship. There is therefore no basis for the claim that maintaining the true meaning of marriage, as it is defined in the Marriage Act, is discriminatory against homosexuals. It is a matter of truth versus falsehood. But truth has usually been a casualty in the claims of homosexual activists.
This revolutionary change to Labor Party policy is another example of a broken promise by Julia Gillard at the last election when she stated that “The Marriage Act will remain unchanged so marriage will be defined as it is in the Marriage Act as between a man and a woman”.
The Labor Party is possibly more committed to political correctness than any other political group. Hence, in our multicultural society it is strongly opposed to any actions or words which may be offensive to our ethnic minorities. But when it comes to meeting the desires of the homosexual community, this concern flys out the window, because same-sex “marriage’ would be offensive to the cultural and moral values of every minority culture existing in Australia, as well as the Christian-based culture of the Australian majority. Labor politicians who support same-sex “marriage’ apparently regard the so-called rights of this tiny minority of homosexual people as more important than the sensitivities of our ethnic communities.
I.C.R. Holford,
Tamworth
