Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
The "gay" lobby is leading a major assault on liberty.
I must generalise because though there may be a few sensible "gay" folk, the current spate of bullying by this group is getting out of control.
Extracts from Angela Shanahan's article in The Australian yesterday illustrate the grave threat to liberty from those who have NO IDEA about what it means. Liberty is not license. Liberty is underpinned by accountability. Liberty MUST be consistent with nature. Gay marriage is NOT consistent with nature.
FREEDOM of speech has been dealt yet another whack by the gay lobby determined to get its way on same-sex marriage and, what is worse, it was done in the name of human rights.
Last week the deputy chief psychiatrist of Victoria, Kuruvilla George, resigned under pressure from his position on the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission.
His resignation came after Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young and various members of the gay lobby queried his professional judgment and his deeply held views on marriage. His crime? He signed a petition against same-sex marriage, as part of a doctors' group called Doctors for the Family.
The petition pointed out that the health of the natural family is vital to the health of society and that homosexual relationships are not a suitable environment in which to bring up children. The petition was signed by 170 doctors and had numerous academic medical references (and some interesting non-academic ones from the likes of Andrew Sullivan) to back up their opinion.
The irony here is that the gay marriage lobby, by pressuring the unfortunate professor into resignation, has used the human rights commission to effectively abuse someone's human right to express an opinion. But that is par for the course. The use of the human rights mantra to intimidate will become even worse. There was no bar on the professor signing the petition, either as a citizen or in his private capacity as a doctor, as both the attorney-general of Victoria and Deputy Premier made clear. George made no mention of his office as deputy chief psychiatrist. Nor is the professor anti-gay. He told me this week: "I am not anti-gay or anti-anyone for that matter. The submission was purely about changing the definition of marriage and legalising 'same-sex marriage'. Nothing about being anti-gay, which I have been portrayed to be. It is this injustice that has pained me the most."
The intimidatory "Right Think" of the political gay lobby now includes the entirely confected notion of "marriage equality". If one opposes this artificial notion, it is now seen as tantamount to gay bashing.
The gay lobby embarked long ago on a policy of using human rights law and human rights bodies to get its own way. It has already gone a long way to achieving its aims.
Plenty of lay people feel in conscience that the homosexual lobby is pushing a distorted, artificial view of marriage in order to further normalise a sexual preference. We have enough problems with children born in ordinary families without wantonly playing with the lives of any more children.
The issue here is that a confected idea of "human rights" is being used as a form of ideological intimidation
George told me: "I feel rather battered and bruised from the events of last week. I was shocked by the way I was targeted, though I did not make any mention of my various positions when I signed the submission to the Senate. I have learned the hard way that 'human right' and 'freedom of speech' is relative and it depends on how politically correct one is."
But there is worse. Freedom of conscience is threatened because human rights commissions are now seeking, through legal change, to overturn conscience. That goes to any issue, not just gay marriage. The diktats of human rights commissions are replacing conscience.
I'm extracting from the doctor's petition below. Original can be downloaded by clicking this.
We believe that marriage as reflected and proclaimed in the Marriage Act 2004 “…the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” to be the basis of healthy marriage and family.
We believe that marriage as defined is the basis of a healthy society. We submit that the evidence is clear that children who grow up in a family with a mother and father do better in all parameters than children without.
We believe it is important for the future health of our nation to retain this definition and we oppose moves to alter this definition to include “same-sex marriage”. We also believe marriage as currently defined is more stable than so-called same-sex “marriage”.
We further submit that legalisation of same-sex marriage will have significant ramifications that have been confirmed by research.
I fully support these sentiments, but I don't base my arguments on "significant ramifications" or research.
This is NOT a scientific issue. Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL natural institution of society that can't be changed by man. Children have evolved to grow naturally with a father and mother (even if one of the parents dies at an early age). Marriage is a protected species of human institution and no "natural right" accrues to those who want to destroy it.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:
Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.
Related posts:
- Hindu Dharma and capitalist institutions #1: Human rights
- Hindu Dharma and capitalist institutions #4: Natural rights and equality
- Hindu Dharma and capitalist institutions #2: Property rights (including womens’ property rights)
- There is no natural “right” to marriage, hence no “right” to “gay” marriage
- Proportional representation exposed as the DANGEROUS form of government it is
- My position on gay “marriage” summarised in a table
- Property rights and land acquisition
- Vijay Mohan on a roll. India’s tendency to make meaningless laws exposed
- The huge contribution of Edmund Burke to human liberty – and to India
- The delusion of human perfection
To spread the message of liberty and critical thinking, please share this post
Gays’ distortion of human rights, well exposed: http://t.co/MAieLnh8 #liberty #philosophy
Gays’ distortion of human rights, well exposed: http://t.co/3jSGcK00
Gays’ distortion of human rights, well exposed: http://t.co/MAieLnh8 #liberty #philosophy
Sanjiv,
I disagree with your views in this post.
I agree with the principle that with Liberty comes Accountability. But, if a gay couple is erring against Nature, then Nature itself will punish them (through diseases, etc.).
Why shuld we snatch from them their right to make mistakes if their mistake has no externality for us?
Saurabh
Saurabh
I’m NOT denying the “right” of “gays” to live together in a contractual arrangement. I FIRMLY opposing the concept of “gay” marriage. These are two different things. There is NO natural “right” to a gay “marriage”.
s
Sanjeev, you say that you are not denying rights to homosexuals, but you are.
It’s funny, the very same arguments that you use (such as homosexual unions being against nature etc.) are the exact same arguments that people used to try and prevent interracial marriages and the suffrage of women.
It’s perhaps time for you to buck up and admit that you’re on the wrong side of history, and it’s perhaps time to think about how people in 40 years are going to look back on your views and what they will think of you as a person.
Sanjeev : Based on your previous posts on the subject & the comments therein, I sense a huge loophole in your argument.
You say that liberty should be consistent with nature – no disagreements on that. But the problem starts when you portray marriage as a natural construct. Marriage, as we’re all aware, is a purely social construct. And unless you present some empirical evidence to show otherwise, your argument doesn’t hold much weight.
What comes across from your posts is that your opposition is primarily towards using the word marriage for a same-sex union. Interestingly, the word (or its etymological siblings) itself has been in use since the 13th century only. So, are we to say that nature suddenly created the institution of marriage in the 13th century? If your opposition is towards same-sex unions itself, then there’s historical evidence to show that these unions existed even before the term came in use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage#Same-sex_marriage_in_ancient_times
By the way, what are your views on heterosexual live-in relationships & couples in such relationships adopting children?
I don’t know why you keep coming back here, Matt. You don’t read, nor care to understand.
I’ve NEVER said anything about “homosexual unions being against nature etc”.
I’ve said that CHILDREN can NEVER be born of a gay relationship. That is IMPOSSIBLE. Is that something you can’t understand? Why do I have to repeat myself so much?
If that is correct, which it is, then there is SIMPLY no justification for a gay “marriage”. There can be couples/relationships, even legal rights. But NO marriage, and NO right to raise children (since they CAN’T be produced in a gay marriage).
Sameer, I did NOT portray marriage as a “natural contract”. It is absurd to attribute such language to me.
I’m claiming very simply, that CHILDREN can NEVER be born of a gay relationship. That is IMPOSSIBLE. If that is correct, which it is, then there is SIMPLY no justification for a gay “marriage”.
There can be gay couples/relationships, even legal rights.
But NO marriage, and NO right to raise children (since they CAN’T be produced in a gay marriage).
QED.
I’m sorry Sanjeev, you do not have the luxury of telling me that I “don’t read, nor care to understand” without severely looking like a hypocrite yourself.
I wonder, if marriage is only for creating children as you assert, if you would rule that my wife and I had no justification for being married. Afterall, at the time we were married we were told by doctors that we could never bear children – that it was IMPOSSIBLE!
So, other than your arguments being demonstrably IRRELEVANT to the issue of marriage equality (and I note that you dishonestly did not approve my last comment on this in your last foray into bigotry and homophobia), it’s also relying on the fallacious logic of marriage only being for the purpose of raising children. It’s really not; it’s for two individuals to enter into a loving, consensual & committed relationship at the highest level.
As a Human Right, you have no call to define marriage for another person.
And if you’re against children being adopted into homosexual relationships, you are still yet to provide any evidence that this “damages” children as you have asserted as the positive claim. The signatures of religious doctors are not peer reviewed studies.
Eagerly awaiting your response.
Matt this is NOT about homophobia! I’ve NEVER said anything about gays per se. ONLY about what marriage is and so I oppose gay marriage. I don’t oppose gay relationships which are voluntary/contracted. But these are NOT marriage. These CAN’T have children.
This is about basic principles that marriage means X and Y. Whatever other relations exist may be called K and L.
And no, there is no need for any “evidence” to deny gays the right to bear children. It is in the genes of children to want a mother and father. That is the ONLY natural position.
s
You didn’t address the issue I rose that my wife and I could not naturally have children despite being married.
As for you not needing evidence to back up you advocacy of holding back homosexuals from true equality in society, Carl Sagan once said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
To say that homosexual marriages will cause “damage” to children is indeed an extraordinary claim, which is why I continue to ask you to back it up with evidence.
Matt
I find your insistence on “evidence” for such an obvious fact amazing!
Can a gay couple produce children? Since when?
Why did nature not allow for such a thing? Do you want to ask god/nature/creation?
s
Sanjeev : I was referring to this statement of yours (written in bold in this post) when I said that you’ve stated marriage to be a natural construct.
“Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL natural institution of society that can’t be changed by man.”
Hence, there’s no absurdity in my attribution of the language to you. If we could now get on to the rest of my comment.
As an aside, there’s a raging argument amongst anthropologists on the very definition of marriage. So, to claim that the definition held by you is the only valid one is also erroneous scientifically.
What bothers me is to see someone with your scientific temper plainly dismiss science in this case & resort to emotional arguments in a social conservative mode.
Why is it amazing to ask you to back up your assertions? Again, as you are making positive claims as fact you have the burden of proof.
There are three things that your argument relies on, none of which you have substantiated so are meaningless.
-The only purpose of Marriage is children
-Nature does not allow for homosexuals to naturally conceive, therefore they have no right to raise adopted or surrogate children
-A child that is raised by two parents of the same gender will be significantly developmentally worse off, or “damaged”, than a child that is raised by any other parental unit.
I know that you say that you have nothing to say for or against homosexuals because you have not looked into any of the science behind homosexuality, but this just makes your position all the less defensible.
I would ask that you look into some legitimate, peer-reviewed studies & meta analyses that show your conclusions to be false. I know you’re probably a smart and empathetic enough man to be able to look objectively at the issue and adapt your stance based on the evidence presented.
Here is one but example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yMLZO-sObzQ
Dear Sameer
Please let’s try to use words very carefully. There is a huge difference between saying that marriage is a natural “construct” and marriage is a “fundamental natural institution”.
Nature did NOT construct marriage. Man did. Society did. But why did society do so? Why did the society not invent “gayrriage”?
Because marriage is a NATURAL requirement. The child, who can ONLY be created by a man and woman, NEEDS care and attention. That’s why the father and mother live together (or try to do so). It is therefore a NATURAL institution, not that nature created the institution, but that there is no other natural outcome in such a case.
I don’t really care for anthropoligical debates about marriage. I’m not even going down the path of analysing this institution. How different societies might have dealt with the child-upbringing problem is not a matter of any great interest to me. I do know, however, that right from THOUSANDS of years, in India at least, marriage (vivah) was deeply etched into the system. A variety of marriages were instituted, but NEVER a “gayrriage”.
s