Monday, March 9, 2009

Follow-up to my posts on the N.S.W. Upper House Inquiry into same-sex adoption: what the future holds

I don’t think there’s any doubt that the proposal will pass into law (as the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (G.L.R.L.) points out, this proposal is the last big hurdle to full equality of same-sex couples with opposite-sex ones, and somehow I think Parliament won’t be drawing a line in the sand here); the only question is whether an exemption will be granted to Catholic and Anglican adoption services to continue refusing to put children in same-sex pseudo-families. One must never underestimate the bloody-mindedness of the Sodomites’ League (see the first comment in this combox for a sample of its in-your-face triumphalism; I wish that this, its true face, could have been on show at the public hearings), and indeed the G.L.R.L. made clear at the public hearing (Day 1) that it won’t support any such exemption. Nonetheless, I think secularism isn’t quite as rampant in Australia as in the U.K., so it won’t surprise me if such an exemption is indeed granted.

So as I mentioned, the G.L.R.L. says that this is the last significant piece of discrimination again same-sex couples to be dismantled. (Or is it? More on this in a moment.) It’s worth pausing here to think about the amazing success, over a period of only about ten years, that these degenerates have had in conforming society to their own image. The strategy has been a brilliant one: piecemeal, patient alterations to the law so that anomalies are opened up, allowing them to plead for further legislation in order to remove the inconsistencies. Now of course, in general, when there is an inconsistency between two things such that one is good and one is bad, one can eliminate the inconsistency in one of two ways: one way is to replace the bad thing with a good thing so that we have two consistently good things, and the other way is to replace the good thing with a bad thing so that we have two consistently bad things. Either of these two ways will eliminate inconsistency, but it’s clear which way is to be preferred. Yet it is the latter way that the Government no doubt will opt for, eliminating the inconsistency of same-sex couples being allowed to have foster children by letting them have adopted children too.

So what next? The G.L.R.L. regards this as its crowning achievement, so what more could it want? As I mentioned in an earlier post, by achieving equal access to adoption, same-sex couples will be able to put forward an irrefutable argument for so-called gay marriage legislation: if a formal marriage provides the best foundation on which to raise a family, they will point out, then how can the law deny same-sex couples with adopted children the right to marry? Thus the Sodomite’s League will have turned pro-family forces’ (rightful) preference for de jure marriage over mere de facto marriage against them.

But that won’t be all. The narcissism of the gay supremacists will not leave them content with mere public tolerance of their depraved lifestyles: the rest of us will have to celebrate this debauchery. A regular commenter at Mr. Muehlenberg’s blog, Mr. David Skinner, offered the following warning:

Having spent some years in Australia, first as a ten pound pommie and then years later as an exchange teacher and since it is where God found me; I naturally have a special love of the Australian people. May I alert you therefore to what is in store for you?

In 2006 the UK Labour government brought in the Sexual Orientation Regulations; a year later this was followed by the Gay Adoption Bill and then last year they brought in the Incitement to Homophobic Hatred Bill. This last bill would have carried more destructive power if it had not been for a Lord Waddingon who successfully got an free speech amendment to the bill that said:

“In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”

For those interested in looking in Hansard this now forms section 29JA in the Public Order Act 1986. That clause is going to be overturned this year, barring a miracle wrought through prayer. This will mean that anyone not wholeheartedly supporting the gays could be deemed as inciting hatred and could face up to seven years in prison. ...
So just as liberals won’t hesitate to trample on ‘freedom of conscience’ (see, for instance, the recently-passed Victorian Abortion Law Reform Bill), neither will they hesitate to spit on ‘freedom of speech’. And there won’t be anything wrong with that, of course; it’ll just be a matter of destroying the diversity in order to celebrate it, I suppose.

Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. Frances of Rome, Widow, A.D. 2009

No comments: