The transparent tactics of proponents of same-sex marriage in Australia are being labelled as outrageous by commentators in other countries.
In an article titled ‘Same-Sex Marriage and the Politics of Aggression’, writer James Wilson calls out the strategies being used in Australia, expressing particular concern over the use of children as pawns in the debate:
I was revolted not long ago watching a Q&A session of Australia’s Federal Parliament.
The government is attempting to keep a campaign promise to hold a national plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is an outspoken supporter of same-sex marriage. He is also a man of integrity who promised a people’s vote while seeking his office. Opposition parties successfully allied to deny that vote in favor of a vote in Parliament alone — which they cannot enforce — leaving a parliamentary stalemate.
But that is not what revolted me. It was the little boy.
Deputy Leader Tanya Pilbersek directed the prime minister’s attention to Eddie, seated in the gallery, with the statement Eddie wanted to ask him why he would not permit Eddie’s same-sex parents to marry.
Does anyone seriously imagine 7-year-old Eddie spontaneously popped that question at the dinner table? The LGBT lobby has no scruples about shutting down debate by using a little boy as its pawn in Australia — or anywhere else — as it seeks the power to throttle speech it finds offensive.
Wilson also comments on other examples of what he calls a “strategy of aggression”:
This is the same strategy of aggression these advocates employ when their leader, Labor Party boss Bill Shorten, predicts gay suicides if the issue becomes a national debate. It is the same when they threaten violence if a Sydney hotel (the Mercure) hosts Christian groups planning their campaign for the plebiscite; the hotel canceled the event to protect its staff members.
Wilson notes the irony of the Left relentlessly using aggressive tactics on the one hand while accusing their opponents of hatred on the other:
The narrative is to blame it all on right-wing Christians who — the narrators claim — will bully innocent gays through hate speech and homophobic crimes until irrevocable damage is done. The record is clear that these indicted groups are content to let their ideas rise and fall in the marketplace of political realities. There may have been a different story in the 1950s, but for the past generation it has been the left that has consistently shouted down free speech.
Finally, he confirms that the United States has experienced all of this as a result of changing the marriage laws:
Each time a new measure of scope is sought for LGBT rights — from the right to marry to the right to cross genders in locker and shower facilities — the argument is always made that no one will be forced to comply against conscience or faith. It is inevitably a short time before the lawsuits and administrative penalties begin to flow. In the U.S., professionals from bakers to photographers to pharmacy owners have been fined or simply run out of business for inflicting so-called emotional harm when they decline to work for people whose orders contravene their religious values.
As Australian citizens, we must treat each other with humanity and compassion. This does not mean that we cannot disagree on the topic of same-sex marriage or changing the definition of traditional marriage. These are important to discuss. However, in doing so, we should extend the respect due to every person, no matter what ideology they adhere to.
Despite accusing defenders of marriage as being hateful and bigoted, the proponents of a change to marriage are engaging in outrageous, aggressive tactics; so transparent that even those on the other side of the world are beginning to take notice!