*This is the editorial, in full:
*You can email your letter to firstname.lastname@example.org
Bairnsdale Advertiser – Monday, February 18, 2103
A Society of Equals
Courtesy of Britain’s House of Commons, same-sex marriage is in the air again. Australia’s homosexuals have called for another attempt to bring ‘gay’ couples into the heterosexual fold following last year’s failed vote. Whatever the outcome, the sky will not fall and heterosexual marriage will remain the norm. More than parliaments are needed to destroy a centuries-long tradition in Christianity’s various outposts.
Behind Marriage question lurks something more pressing. Apart from the merits or otherwise of re-defining marriage, we should ask how homosexual lobbyists have been able to wiled so much influence and so easily tarnish the image of the heterosexual family. After all, it is the central institution of social stability and national replenishment and has no serious alternative.
The answer lies in the principle of toleration that emerged after the seemingly endless wars between Catholics and Protestants in the wake of the 16th century reformation. Coexistence was the only option apart from perpetual conflict. Tolerance soon spread to other areas of disagreement, and catalyst being the fallibility of beliefs, the value of diversity and respect for others’ opinions. These ideas are the compass points most Australians steer by in their relations with others.
But tolerance is too vague an idea to support particular ends; it is a principle in need of an ideal. Equality became the nostrum for promoting a new view of marriage. It opened the door to promotion of ‘gay’ normality in classroom material for beginning readers, to sex education for older students, employment regulations and procreation.
However, equating same-sex unions with marriage is the latest but not the final goal of the broader ‘gay agenda’. Moreover, radically redefining marriage is not as well-supported as is claimed, although it remains the prime example of the power of agitation and political tenacity to radically alter public sentiment.
A Subtle Ambition
The homosexual marriage agenda achieved acceptability because of our society’s moral uncertainty, fear of offending minorities and the diminished authority of parliaments held hostage to the fickleness of every passing opinion poll.
Should same-sex marriage become the norm, the fiction of equality will spread across a widening circle of social relationships. To make homo-and hetero-sexual unions indistinguishable (read, equal) makes no sense because fundamentally, marriage has always been about inequality.
Nothing in human relationships can be more unequal than the complementary roles of husband and wife, whether in the intimacy of a spousal union, the management of households or the nurture of children. Marriage is not primarily about the private aspirations of a man and a woman but about a serious set of public obligations.
In fact, marriage was not always a priority for ‘gay’ radicals. The 1970 Gay Manifesto according to Brendan O’Neill in The Australian recently, described marriage as a “rotten, opporessive institution”. A 1972 tract said homosexuals are “in revolt against the nuclear family structure”. Why have things changed?
Because a more subtle ambition lurks behind marriage equality; itself a contradiction in terms. The aim is to change society itself. Same-sex marriage is the spearhead of a broad front of manipulation that is straining the fabric of society. Equality, is the offspring of tolerance, is not as benign as it seems."
The purpose of an editorial is for the editor in charge of a publication to express their opinion on certain topics, usually ones getting attention in other various media. The purpose of an editorial is NOT to discriminate, command bigotry & purport inaccurate ideals of a person, people or movement.
An opinion can be made, and heard, in a manner that is not only approachable but accurate, not degrading but uplifting, not backwards but forwards. It certainly would cause backlash if the opinion was suddenly that disabled people should not be part of traditional society, or that those with a certain shade of skin be treated in a different way. A national journalistic value and portion of the code of ethics is respect for the right of others, as well as "Do not allow personal beliefs or commitments to undermine accuracy, fairness and independence". I see no evidence of this being the case in this situation, personal opinions of one person's negative take on the same-sex marriage fight are NOT to be regarded as truth until being proven fact.
I am offended by, and know of many other readers who are offended by the succinct lack of tact shown in this opinion piece, that not only doubts the existence of homosexuals but questions their place in a stable society. This editorial then goes on to attack tolerance, of all things, as well as equality. Equality of sorts has been as issue for hundreds of years, not only in this country and not only for those with varying sexual preferences. Such a strong claim to be unjust and support the ideas of all humans being treated differently is sickening. As is to question information about homosexuality being provided in sexual education and to non-discriminatory laws being implemented in places of employment.
Re-defining marriage, or more truthfully, reverting back to the original Australian Marriage Act of 1961, which was changed to exclude homosexuals in 2004, is certainly the aim of same-sex marriage allies, as well as applying to public sentiment. Because this is a change that should happen, this is basic human rights.
Equailty is certainly a fight worth fighting. And I will not have the editorial of our only local newspaper purporting that this is the view of the locale, the view of everyone in this district. It is a shame to Australian rural media and a shame to all those who must grow up in Bairnsdale and surrounds believing that with articles like this, they are in the wrong for questioning their sexuality.
WANT TO READ MORE?
Keep going below!
What is the issue with this editorial?
First and foremost, the use of the word gay in inverted commas ("gay"). To be gay, or homosexual, is not a wacky theory. People are gay, have been gay, and will be gay until the end of time. This is common knowedge, something that most people know and the majority of Australians (62% according to a recent Galaxy poll) are okay with. In fact, those same 62% of Australians agreed that same-sex couples should have the right to chose whether or not they get married. 78% also agreed that a national conscience vote should be held to obtain a realistic view of what people in this country want. Certainly nobody stood up and requested that the word gay be highlighted with ambiquity as they were unsure of the meaning.
Secondly, this: "Australia's homosexuals have called for another attempt to bring 'gay' couples into the heterosexual fold", followed by "the sky will not fall and heterosexual marriage will remain the norm", then followed by "More than parliaments are needed to destroy a centuries-long tradition in Christianity's various outposts".
Of course we are trying to bring people of all differences together! There is not reason for red tape to get in the way of those in love wanting to be married. Yes, statistically, heterosexual marriages in number will be greater than those of homosexual marriages, because gay people are about 10% of the population. But wouldn't it be fantastic if marriage, love and diversity was celebrated as the norm rather than stigma, discrimination and overtly religious tones in a secular society? Notwithstanding that marriage, as a ceremony, is not rooted in Christianity, it is a pagan tradition that was adopted by the church approximately 1800 years ago.
To be continued.
Equality is important to me and I will stand up for what is true and correct for the future of this country. We think you should acknowledge that same-sex marriage is an issue continuously coming to the fore as it is an important issue that needs the recognition and support of the public, and that to deny variety and diversity in a community is to deny the very democratic foundation of our country.
Say sorry to those you have offended. And recognise that change is coming. You do not represent me with your editorial views. I feel also that if the editor of your publication was the person in charge of penning such defamatory drivel, then this person should publish their own name with their opinion. Religious overtones in a secular locality, as well as country should not be the norm, as religion does not dictate the views of us all.