"same-sex marriage": What it's really all about

This is the text of an article by me published in The Scottish Catholic Observer on Friday, August 17, 2012.

Let’s get something absolutely clear. For the militant “gay rights” lobby the campaign to have the Scottish Parliament legislate in favour of “same-sex marriage” in face of the opposition of the majority of the Scottish people is not about human rights, or civil rights, or equality. It isn’t even about marriage. It is all about recruitment. And it always has been.

In its wisdom, the 44th Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland by enacting the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 accepted the Wolfenden Commission’s recommendation (Report 1957) that homosexual acts committed by consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes should be made legal. These acts were not, thankfully, made compulsory. And at least so far this remains the case.

But legalisation was never going to be enough to satisfy the militant homosexualist life-style proselytes. Prince among these is, of course, the Australian draft-dodger, Peter Tatchell. In 2009 Tatchell informed the readership of a well-known English left-wing broadsheet: “Good quality sex and relationship education... should start from the first year of primary school onwards, with age-appropriate information about love, emotions, relationships and the physical changes they will experience at puberty.”

Others must decide for themselves what measure of trust could possibly be placed on this guy if he were ever left to determine (and if certain people get their way, this is a real possibility) what is or what is not “age appropriate” at any particular point. Personally, I am not at all reassured when he goes on to say: “In secondary school, this information should become more explicit, giving pupils the knowledge, skills and confidence to make wise sexual and emotional decisions.”

Tatchell was, of course, speaking of homosexual sex education, although he would deny it and claim that such education must merely be “inclusive”.

And beware for this is the homosexualist proselyte who, in a letter to that same well-known English left-wing broadsheet adverted to above, wrote: “While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful” (Guardian, June 26, 1997). And he has the gall to harangue the Catholic Church!

In the United States they, too, have their Tatchellistas. One at least of whom is refreshingly honest. David Villareal is one America’s foremost “gay activists” and has a website “Queerty: Free of an agenda. Except that gay one”. (Be warned, IF you should choose to check out this website much on it will seriously embarrass and gravely offend readers of SCO.)

Commenting on a National Organisation for Marriage TV ad, Villareal criticized the homosexual movement’s knee-jerk reaction against accusations of meddling in public schools. He said: “They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, ‘NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.’ But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it… Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes (he is referring here to California, I think) that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?”

This is what the defence of marriage is all about: saving our children, and our children’s children, from this garbage. Change the law to bring same-sex relationships within the legal definition of marriage, then as night follows day the Tatchell-Villareal programme for homosexual recruitment in schools, undemurely and indecorously tarted up as sex and relationships education, will ensue in early course.