Australian Christian conservatives seem determined to prove that bad arguments do not improve with age. They just get moldier. seems to have opened up a National Organization for Marriage time capsule that was vacuum sealed around 2010. They have reconstituted the freeze-dried contents and voila: Religious babble with secular pretense.

Behind this site are the usual neurotics: Religious gay people and a few children of gay people who have daddy issues. Some of the familiar crackpots are Doug Mainwearing (it’s actually Mainwaring), Bradi Walton (it’s actually Brandi), Heather Barwick, Robert Oscar Lopez and Katy Faust. Three out of five supposed organizers spelled correctly. Not bad.

The site provides an idea of who is really behind it: is the Catholic Church’s mediocre attempt at creating a social media site. It features things like “Ask the Priest.”

MarriageEquals recycled all of the losing arguments. When this crap didn’t work in Ireland you would think that they would makes some changes. They are stubbornly determined to look like boobs. At “Answers” they provide an aluminum-siding-salesman’s objection/response primer.

My favorite is this rerun:

My marriage won’t affect your marriage?


Changing the definition of marriage will impact future generations, because the Government will no longer see the link between children and their biological parents as important. The Government will also no longer be able to object to recognition of other types of relationships as “marriage”, as any principle that is now being used to justify the legal recognition of same‐sex relationships can also justify the legal recognition of polyamorous and non‐sexual relationships.

How will this affect us? Let’s look at what has already happened in Australia. 40 years ago, no-fault divorce was legalised. Today one in three marriages end in divorce. Divorce does not shock and sadden us in the same way as it did before 1975 because this generation’s understanding of marriage has changed. In the case of same-sex marriage, removing the heterosexual requirement of marriage will diminish the idea that marriage is linked to children, and generations to come will consider the emotional relationship of adults, and not the wellbeing of children, is the primary reason for marriage.

Does anyone — other than the bishops — really believe that drivel? Seriously, the government will somehow change its perception of marriage because around 2% of marriages will be same-sex? And it inexorably follows that this will have dire consequences. Polyamory oh my!

The second paragraph is supremely moronic (and masturbatory). They are attempting to prove something by simply repeating the same argument and then claiming to have closed the sale. No-fault divorce affects the entire pool of married people (although I question whether they are confusing causation with correlation). That does not alter the fact that same-sex marriage only affects those thus wed. The notion that same-sex marriage will cause people to have a reduced emotional attraction to their children is preposterous. It is an exercise in absurdism. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Yet, they keep trotting out the tripe.

Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson and Maggie Gallagher were spouting this gibberish seven or eight years ago. No one with the slightest critical thinking ability believed it then and no one believes it now.

What was missing then is missing now. That would be an argument that begins with “In Massachusetts” followed by the consequences of marriage equality. We will never see that because there are no consequences after 13 years of marriage equality. Chidren’s test scores are up — divorces are down. The children of gay couples are better off.

There is one consequence to marriage equality. The usual eunuchs, those pampered prelates, will be displeased.

Related content:

By David Cary Hart

Retired CEO. Formerly a W.E. Deming-trained quality-management consultant. Now just a cranky Jewish queer. Gay cis. He/Him/His.