Previous issues
Contact Us

Spring 2003 cover

National Observer Home > No. 58 - Spring 2003 > Editorial Comment

The Aggressive Homosexual Lobby: Alternative Lifestyle Or Perversion?

It is now generally accepted that homosexual acts should not be criminally punishable if between adults. There are various arguments for and against this relaxation of the law. On the one hand it is argued that private acts between adults should not be subject to legal proscription: on the other hand it is argued that homosexual acts are a serious sexual perversion and should not be permitted by the law, even if actual prosecutions are rarely instituted.

It is after all apposite to note that homosexual activity (essentially sodomy) involves using the anus (an aperture for the emission of faeces) as an opening for the entry of another person's penis, the penis being of course an organ of procreation. This is regarded by many as a perversion, and it is easy to sympathise with that view. The abnormality of homosexuality is also evidenced by the indiscriminate multiple couplings - often extending into the hundreds or even thousands - to which homosexuals are prone. The homosexual lobby sets out to draw attention away from this phenomenon by referring instead to the relatively small number of "permanent" couplings.

However at all events it appears that the legalisation of homosexual acts has given rise to an extreme swing of the pendulum in favour of homosexuals. Homosexual lobby groups have been formed, under such names as the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Committee. These groups have set out to achieve a position in which homosexual pairings have the same rights as conventional families. Up to the present time they have unfortunately had many successes, and it is time that their influence be reduced.

When Should Freedom of Association be Abrogated?

One of the first objectives of the homosexual lobby was to prevent "discrimination" against homosexuals. This has been achieved to a large degree by "anti-discrimination" legislation. Typically this legislation makes illegal any discrimination against a homosexual in, for example, the context of job applications. Thus an employer who, understandably, regards homosexuals as perverted and does not wish to employ one may nonetheless be compelled by law to employ a homosexual.

It must be doubted whether this is a just position. Freedom of association properly means that persons should be able to select those with whom they associate. If, for any reason, one person does not wish to employ another, or does not wish to be employed by another, why should his wishes be overborne by the law?

However the legal compulsion to enter into contractual relationships with homosexuals is commonly part of a wider legislation scheme under which one may be compelled against one's will to enter into contractual relationships with others of a particular religion or racial group. Again, this compulsion is unjustifiable and inappropriate.

However there are other respects in which homosexual lobby groups attempt to go much further than the abrogation of contractual rights and of freedom of association.

Homosexual "Marriages"

An important matter on the agenda of the homosexual lobby is the recognition of homosexual "marriages" and the placing of these marriages on a par with true marriages.

Pressure for homosexual "marriages" has arisen in the United States, England, Canada and Australia.1 Recently Mr. Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, was reported as endorsing "civil partnership" laws to give homosexuals the same legal rights as married couples.

These proposals have been criticised by the Vatican.

In August 2003 a statement was issued, in the name of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope's principal theological adviser, and endorsed by the Pope himself. It stated inter alia:

"Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimisation of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that approval or legislation of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."

The Vatican statement went on to advise against laws authorising homosexual marriages:

"To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."

There will of course be some who would seek to dismiss the Vatican statement on the basis that it represents a conservative approach. But it would be wrong to do this. Disapproval of homosexuality, which is widely regarded (and correctly so) as a perversion, flows through all sections of society, where there is particular concern at attempts by homosexuals to initiate sodomy with children and also with young men whose sexual orientation is not yet established. It is significant that homosexual lobbies have expended much energy in seeking the reduction of the age of consent for homosexual acts from eighteen years to sixteen years.

The aggressiveness of homosexual lobbyists is exemplified by threats by one Rodney Croome, a spokesman for the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group, who stated that distribution of or quotation from the Vatican statement constituted a criminal offence. It was, he alleged, in breach of the State's anti-discrimination laws, since for example it referred to homosexuality as "deviant behaviour". (It is hard to see why sodomy should not be regarded as deviant behaviour.) And one David McCarthy, the president of the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, said that the statement of the Catholic Church "could well be sedition", a claim which was of course absurd.

The encouragement of homosexuality was taken to new levels when in August 2003 Relationships Australia, a government-funded organisation for relationship counseling, "encouraged older women to explore lesbian relationships, which were seen as more nurturing and emotionally supportive".

Homosexual Activism in the High Court and in Parliament

Unfortunately an extreme homosexual activist - Justice Michael Kirby - has been appointed to the High Court. Kirby speaks frequently in favour of homosexual activity. Indeed, in 2000 he addressed a meeting of students and others at St. Ignatius’ College, Riverview, in Sydney, and arguing in favour of homosexuality he asserted: "In my experience, few if any gay and lesbian people choose their sexuality. It is like your gender, your skin colour or being left-handed. From earliest days of puberty, you just know that is how you are. And if that is how you know you are, that is how God meant you to be."

That statement by Justice Kirby was dishonest. Kirby well knew that puberty is a time of sexual confusion for many adolescents. Many adolescents have homosexual incidents, or experience transitory sexual desires with members of their own sex. However subsequently a large proportion of such adolescents settle down to normal heterosexual activity and marry or have long term relationships with members of their own sex. Only a minority become deviants.

It was indeed particularly unfortunate that it was at a school that Kirby made these regrettable statements. Did the parents of the students present know that their children would be exposed to homosexual propaganda and to an assertion that "from the earliest days of puberty" you know "how you are"? School children are particularly vulnerable to misinformation, especially from sources with respectable trappings (and especially justices of the High Court). And presumably there was no balancing statement from a speaker presenting the orthodox view that homosexual behavour is an aberration that should be avoided.

Kirby's falsity exemplifies the undesirability of appointing homosexual activists, or persons who wish to persuade others of the propriety of homosexuality, to the High Court or to other judicial office. It appears that often such propagandists cannot restrain themselves, but in order to promote their cause make misleading statements.

Superannuation and Pension Rights

One of the main purposes of the homosexual lobbies is to obtain for homosexual "couples" the same privileges as married people in regard to superannuation, pensions and other financial advantages.2

For example, it is often provided in pension plans that when a pensioner dies, his spouse succeeds to a pension, at a diminished rate. (This is the case, for example, for many pensions paid by Commonwealth and State governments to their retired employees. On the eventual death of the employee, a surviving spouse succeeds to the pension, at a reduced rate.)

The reason for permitting spouses to succeed to pension rights is the encouragement of the family. It has always been regarded - and properly so - as in the public interest that the family should be strengthened and supported, to encourage marriage and the rearing of children.

The family unit is basic to Western society, and also to all other societies. There must be recognition of the fact that where there is a marriage, commonly one of the parties must stay at home for at least part of the growing-up period of the children, and that the family will therefore suffer financially.

Families are accordingly given privileged treatment, not only in regard to many pensions, but also in regard to taxation. There are income tax concessions in favour of family groups, again for the purpose of encouraging and supporting the bringing up of children.

But homosexuals fall completely outside this area of support. Homosexuals do not contribute children to society. In terms of producing future generations they are entirely unproductive. Their cohabitation or sexual conduct is based, not on the production of children, but indulgence in acts of anal sex or other perversions.

Accordingly there are no policy reasons in favour of providing financial subsidies to homosexuals. Indeed, to do so would be contrary to the interests of society, since there is a limit to the amount of funds available to assist individuals. By subsidising homosexuals less money would be available for proper purposes, such as supporting families.

Why should Homosexuals be Subsidised?

The foregoing demonstrates that there are compelling policy reasons not to subsidise homosexuals. Homosexual groups do not have the requirements for financial support that families - the cornerstone of society - do.

Politicians who, out of weakness, give way to demands of the homosexual lobbies are not fulfilling their duty. These demands are not well based, and politicians and others in positions of authority have an obligation to look to the interests of society as a whole.

1. Similar lobbying has caused the Episcopalian Church of the United States to appoint a bishop who is an active homosexual, one Gene Robinson. (The feminist and homosexual lobbies are particularly powerful in the United States.) The Episcopalian Church has, like the Uniting Church in Australia, proved an easy target for liberal lobbyists who attempt to break down cultural norms.

2. In The Age of 19 September 2003 it was reported of Senator Helen Coonan: "Twenty-seven years ago, Helen Coonan was a fiery young solicitor, shoulder to shoulder with the gay rights movement demanding equal superannuation treatment for same-sex couples."

National Observer No. 58 - Spring 2003