Senator Smith’s Family Values, by David Archibald.
The WA branch of the Liberal Party currently has 16 people in federal parliament. Of those, one quarter are childless female lawyers, which is a very narrow demographic from which to draw your representation. Of the males, two are homosexual, which means that over a third of WA’s federal Liberal representatives have never changed a nappy, so to speak. They have very little in common with the people whose interests they are supposed to defend.
Our story relates to one of the homosexuals: Senator Dean Smith. At the time of the 2013 election, Senator Smith went doorknocking in the industrial suburb of Rockingham with the Liberal candidate for the seat of Brand, Donna Gordin. He and Ms Gordin were surprised by the number of households in which grandparents were bringing up their grandchildren because the generation in between had been destroyed by their drug habits. He undertook to do something for these people when the Liberals were returned to power.
Now Senator Smith has mooted a private member’s bill legalising homosexual marriage. … The purpose of the private member’s bill is to deny the Australian public any say in the matter [via a plebiscite, which is current Liberal Party policy].
Framing marriage as about reproduction, not fulfillment:
Cicero said that marriage is the founding bond of society, and it has been ever thus. Every human tribe has had a form of marriage. In fact humans couldn’t have evolved without marriage. In Stone Age tribes, the female does not become a net positive food contributor until the age of 43. Until then she relies upon her mate to bring some food home or, otherwise, her children would starve. Non-procreational sex was also invented to help glue the pair bond against the forces, such as adversity, that might rend it.
What began as a biological imperative acquired a cultural overlay; thus the marriage ceremony. Culture is the continuation of evolutionary pressures by non-physical means. This was understood by the ancients who put the fear of God into those who sought society’s blessing for their unions. …
As the Book says, marriage is about bringing children into the world. Such an enterprise is not to be entered into lightly, or abandoned at the drop of a hat. …
It follows that anything which lessens the dignity of the estate of marriage reduces the seriousness of its undertakings, the first of which is the protection and succour of the fruit of the union. If anyone can marry anyone else, then marriage doesn’t mean much. ….
Homosexuals are 1.4 percent of the male population and lesbians are 0.7 percent of the female population. They will be with us to the end of time, are part of the human condition and God’s creation. Disparaging homosexuals would be as self-loathing as being a refugee advocate. It seems that in the chemical warfare in the uterus between mother and foetus, homosexuals are an acceptable loss so that the rest of the males can be more male-like, much in the same way that sickle cell anaemia developed in parts of Africa to mitigate the effects of malaria. …
Which brings us back to the amusing Senator Smith, who wants to both help children abandoned by their drug-addled parents and also to have homosexuals look gooey-eyed at their partners. Senator, you can have one or the other, but not both. You might think that opiates are stronger than the institution of marriage, and therefore we might as well abandon the children and go ahead with homosexual marriage. But some children would be saved if we did not allow homosexuals that option. And therefore we should maintain marriage as it is –- for the sake of the children.