The article has the embarrassing title of:
Should the Marriage Act allow two people of the same sex to be married?This is just like asking the question, "Should African-Americans be married?". Why does Peter Jensen think HE can give or take inalienable rights? We are talking about nothing less, marriage as a basic human right.
Here is Peter's first "logical" argument:
Think what marriage is. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, from different families, publicly joined through an exchange of promises committing them to life-long exclusive fidelity. That marriage involves a man and woman is by design.If you liked that leap here is an even better one:
In that last line there is a leap of epic proportions that is not based on facts.
It is the unity of different sexes that alone creates marriage.
Again, Mr. Jensen assumes facts not in evidence. and here is his "kicker":
One of the essential public purposes of marriage is to ensure the necessary commitment to bring children into the world and to nurture them through the special things that a mother and father contribute to their upbringing.
Again, assumes facts not in evidence. For example, any couple can adopt and provide for the child(ren) and it does not OF NECESSITY need to be a man and a woman. and, it does not OF NECESSITY take a man and a woman to establish a complete and loving relationship.
Mr. Jensen then uses the negative of one of the above lines to establish a further argument against same-sex marriage. Same-sex unions, by definition, can never qualify as marriages
What Mr. Jensen has done is establish his own, non-researched unsubstantiated definitions in order to write a bunch of nonsense.
Why all of this? Well, buried deep in the lack of logic comes the real argument.
We now treat real marriage as one of the indispensable foundations of community. Ensuring public honour of same-sex relationships by calling them marriages is an abuse of marriage itself. It imposes, through social engineering, a newly minted concept of marriage on a community that understands it in quite another way.
What single word do conelonialists hate more than anything else? Social whether it be social science, social engineering, social mores, social customs, they just hat the word in all its connotations but particularly in this context.
Then, in an attempt to scare the you know what out of all the little Conelonialists he (Jensen) comes up with this brief diatribe:
There will be other consequences that, even with our ‘live and let live’ philosophy, we will regret. If same-sex unions are declared to be marriages, there will follow a demand for equal treatment in sex education. The normalisation of homosexuality will be assumed. Children will be instructed that there are no moral or other grounds for preferring ‘heterosexual marriage’. This claim for a ‘right’ to be married could open the way for other forms, such as polygamous marriages or perhaps even marriage between immediate family members.
Here is where Mr. Jensen must get a great deal of his exercise. He jumps to more conclusions in one paragraph than a panelist on Whats My Line.
Mr. Jensen then wraps this whole long time consuming nonsense with this:
Our society reserves honour for marriage where lifelong vows are exchanged, between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. This is a painful subject but we must continue to uphold real marriage as an act of love for our neighbour and for future generations.
This is not a painful subject and why he thinks we should uphold real marriage (as if there are fake marriages??) as an act of love for our neighbor and for future generations??? How about granting the basic human right of marriage to all persons including LGBT members of our society.
In all of this, we, the members of the community that are heterosexual must stand shoulder to shoulder with all peoples in order to secure these basic human rights. We cannot ask our LGBT brethren to do this by themselves. We all need to speak out and we all need to speak out now.