by Mr Wainscotting
I believe the push for same-sex marriage is not about enhancing the lives of gay couples… You only had to see the burning streets of London last week to see the manifestation of a fatherless society.
Um… I think you have it a little backwards there… or inside out… or something. Whatever you’ve got it, I’m fairly sure it’s wrong…
This magical logic burp comes from Miranda Devine in Australia’s Sunday Telegraph. She opens the piece talking about an Australian politician’s same-sex partner being pregnant, and turns the fact that many see it as a cause for celebration into a conspiracy to deny heterosexual couples their legitimacy.
I come across this so much, and it’s stupid; we are not trying to destroy straight people! Seriously.
The issue [of same-sex marriage] is largely symbolic. It is simply a political tool to undermine the last bastion of bourgeois morality – the traditional nuclear family.
Tell that to all the queer people around the world fighting for same-sex marriage. Tell that to all of us who want our love receive the same legal recognition as hetero- couples.
And, wait… “bourgeois”? Seriously? Homophobic and classist in one fell swoop.
Also, why? I always see people wailing that we’re trying to destroy society and families, but what the whiners never elaborate on is the why. They just scream some crap about the Gay Agenda or something.
On the issue of the riots, she goes on to say this:
The collapse of family life in Britain has been laid bare, reported to have the highest proportion of single mothers in Europe and nearly half of all children suffering family breakdown by the age of 16.
Fatherless families in underprivileged boroughs of London are the norm.
… But the fact is the fathers of those children are probably long gone. There are no “parents” to take charge and exert control over their wayward children.
This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage or adoption. That children are being raised in so-called ‘broken’ homes is a symptom of the same socioeconomic factors that lead to the rioting in London, it wasn’t the cause of it. The notion that children need a father to not turn into violent, wayward criminals is both ridiculous and offensive, and what Devine is actually saying here, is that women are not capable of raising children on their own, and are incapable of instilling values in their children.
It is politically incorrect to say so, but the ideal situation for a child is to be brought up in an intact family with a father and a mother.
Once again, we see someone who is full of moral panic conflating disparate issues and getting them all wrong. It’s a pity that The Telegraph thought it worthy of publication.