Rational debate on the impact of allowing same-sex marriage is being denied to ordinary Australians because those with opposing views fear being labelled as ‘homophobic’ or a ’right-wing extremist’ and potentially face attacks on their business or personally.
“The powerful gay lobby is entitled in a democracy to state their view, but it is also the right of mainstream Australia to hear opposing arguments and to express their opinion without fear,” according to former Navy barrister Sophie York, spokesperson for the newly formed Marriage Alliance.
“The view of the Marriage Alliance is that permitting same-sex couples to marry under a changed Marriage Act would have major consequences not realised or understood by most Australians.
“Our Alliance has the backing of many businesses, community organisations and ordinary people who are alarmed that important public figures and the media are either staying silent on the issue, or backing a misguided ‘politically correct’ position rather than encouraging open discussion,” she said.
Mrs York said the rights of children were being subjugated by arguments about equality between gay and heterosexual adults. Taking a back seat are the more important issues about the consequences and the rights of future generations, sex education, religious freedom, morality, business and professional regulations, and legal implications resulting from permitting same-sex marriage.
She asked why the Australian public was not being told about the overseas experience where kids in kindergarten were being forced to learn about homosexual relationships without the knowledge of their parents, or what the impact has been on children actually growing up in a gay or lesbian household. Where is the discussion on curriculums being changed in primary schools to promote alternative lifestyles, or business owners and individuals being sued for expressing moral or religious opposition to same-sex marriage?
“Social engineering damages a functioning society. People should be accepted regardless of their sexuality, but attacking the institution of marriage between a man and a woman – which in every culture on earth is naturally designed to create a family unit – at its very heart takes away the rights of a child to have a mum and dad.”
It is important to note that to bring up this discussion is not anti gay. It is an entirely neutral question being raised. That is, whether changing the definition of “marriage” will have serious consequences that are not properly shed light on. There are concerns around the larger affect it has on other areas of life that are not sufficiently discussed.