People ask me how I plan to vote in the upcoming plebiscite on gay marriage. I tell them “no” and they demand an explanation. This is strange since it was only last week they were telling me that even asking my opinion was destructive to the mental well-being of the LGBT community. But now that we are finally getting the chance to have our say apparently I must defend the default position.
I’m voting no because there is no reason to vote yes. Gay marriage as a social institution makes absolutely zero sense. The only argument in favour of gay marriage is “if you vote no you hate gay people.” The rhetoric reflects this, talk of “inevitability” and “equality” set the stage for gay marriage as the default position, but gay marriage is not the default position, traditional marriage is. The onus is on the LGBT lobby for change and their only argument is “you’re a bigot.”
I don’t hate anyone but I do care about the future of this country, and the only future for this country comes from heterosexual couples getting married and having kids. That’s not just what marriage is for, that’s what society is for.
I’m not married and never will be, but I don’t elevate my bachelorhood to the same status as a father of four. I’m shirking my duty, it’s not my biggest crime but it is exactly what I am doing. My penance for this is to recognize that I am less relevant than those men who have families and do their duty, to take a back seat when it comes to addressing my needs, to take the smaller slice when the pie is not big enough for everyone.
Economically speaking this is more than a simple opinion, it is a well-reasoned conclusion based on evidence. Conservative politicians often say that the foundation of a good society is the family unit, but this misses the far more profound realization that the whole purpose of society to begin with is the family unit. Remove the family unit from consideration and the point to society is nihilistic hedonism, which is to say no point at all and doomed to die.
Men work harder than they need to comfortably sustain themselves to attract women and support families. We accept the payment of taxes because it provides schools and infrastructure to educate and care for children, to provide police and military to protect those children until they are old enough to protect themselves and others.
Without heterosexual families there is little point to any of it, no matter what we build, or discover, or create it will last only as long as we do. When we die all we leave behind will be decay and rot, unappreciated and pointless. Without children to do better than us there is no point in doing much at all.
Even gays should be able to recognize this simple truth without feeling slighted or shunned. They are not the point because they do not breed. Their existence ends with them, with no legacy except that provided by heterosexuals. Gay men live on only as they are remembered by the children of heterosexuals.
The artist Michelangelo is thought to have been homosexual, he certainly had no children of his own, so his work lives on through the children of others. The roof of the Sistine Chapel is important because of heterosexual unions, and Michelangelo achieves his place in history because married men and women carried on the traditions of Catholicism and fostered future generations that could appreciate his masterpiece.
We are not all destined to be great artists of course, but gay people play their own roles each in their own small ways. The restaurant manager, the shop assistant, even (if you’ll forgive the stereotype) the hairdressers, everyone from the most degenerate queen to the most chaste monk is completely reliant on heterosexual unions to produce healthy heterosexual children that can grow up and produce healthy heterosexual children of their own.
It is not just a father’s purpose to care for his own family; it is everyone’s purpose to care for all families.
This is not a question of rights. There is no natural right to marriage and no rights are being abridged by banning gay marriage. Straight couples are not entitled to marry because it is their right, they are encouraged to marry because marriage is for the good of society and the production of a healthy next generation to replace the current generation.
The LGBT lobby is fond of criticizing the idea of traditional marriage as anything but traditional. That monogamous marriage with the possibility of divorce is relatively new. In this they are correct, the institution of marriage has adapted and evolved over time. Indeed what we call today “Christian marriage” is closer to the pre-Christian Jewish and pagan traditions with a few modern updates, Christ himself never married, nor is there any record of his disciples marrying.
But recognizing that marriage has changed does not make the case for endless and irrational change just for the sake of it. Each time marriage has changed it has been done so on the reasoning that the updated form of marriage would improve outcomes for children and therefore for society as a whole.
Indeed in the last few decades many mistakes have been made in this regard. No-fault divorce may have solved the immediate problem of a backlog of failed marriages, but it has created a society where families are broken up all too easily and the risks for men of entering into marriage are now quite high.
So if any changes need to be made to marriage it is the reassertion of the principle that the purpose of marriage is not the emotional affirmation of the husband and wife, but for the purpose of building stronger families.
Gay marriage not only does not satisfy this condition, but it continues the same ideological missteps that have increased misery and led to worse outcomes for society as a whole. Which is to say that while two men standing in a park changing rings may have no effect on society whatsoever, two thousand men standing in that park leads to fewer men offering rings to women. We don’t need men to marry men, we do need men to marry women.
This argument will of course have little impact on LGBT activists, who long ago gave up on anything beyond the promotion of degeneracy disguised as liberation of the oppressed. But for everyone else it should be recognized that these people do not even believe in society and have no interest in seeing it continue, let alone prosper.
LGBT advocacy today is a career choice. The people pushing for gay marriage, many of whom are heterosexual, are paid to do so. The steady decline of society and the destruction of any meaningful legacy is their employment. That future generations will look back on a yes vote to the gay marriage plebiscite as the point when Australian society began its irrevocable decline and that the generation that did it will be seen as short-sighted and foolish does not mean anything to them.
Nor indeed will it satisfy them. When you are employed as a lobbyist for degeneracy then no level of degeneracy will ever be enough. Indeed despite their protestations a yes vote is not in their interests at all. They will need to begin again with some new campaign for some marginalized group summoned from the dregs of society and the overcrowded mental wards as they redefine crime as mental illness and mental illness as lifestyle choice.
The New York Times publishes op-ed in defence of paedophiles. The Daily Mail published fluff pieces of modern polygamists. The sterilization of children who are taught that they may choose their gender, with no concept of what that means, goes uncontested by paediatricians who should know better.
The same people calling for gay marriage call for a religious tax that would see Christianity wiped out in Australia.
They will have no choice after gay marriage except to start pushing for these sorts of things. To not do so would mean unemployment, to push for them means another decade or so getting paid to make everyone feel guilty for being normal. The steady destruction of civilization means nothing more to them than a modest salary at an office in North Melbourne.
If the plebiscite returns a yes vote and gay marriage is instituted, the first speeches given by these sorts of people, again many of whom are not themselves gay, will be “today was a great step forward, but there is a long way yet to go,” but what they intend as our destination is a question they either won’t or can’t answer no matter how hard they are pressed.
Normal heterosexual people should not feel guilty for being so, far from it. They should feel proud that they have done their part. The stay-at-home mums, the hard working dads, the babysitting grandma, and the cheque writing grandpa should be seen as special because they are special. Everyone else should recognize their specialness, because without them there is no future for any of us.
And the recognition of that specialness is called marriage, which should fundamentally and totally reflect that principle and only that principle. Everything else is just noise.