DREADPUBLISHING: John Heard In 'The Australian' 'Gay Marriage', Conservatives & The Family

[UPDATE] Jason Foster tries to engage with some of DREADNOUGHT's arguments. However, he seems to think I argued previously that people should forget 'gay marriage' and focus on the HIV epidemic. He is wrong. I argued in The Australian on World AIDS Day 2006 that homoactivists are ridiculous to, inter alia, make 'gay marriage' advocacy the focus of their efforts (at all), but especially when HIV infection rates continue to climb.#

This is Foster's second go at those arguments. His earlier effort is discussed here.

His main criticism this time seems to be one about cohesion (or a lack thereof) in DREADNOUGHT's claim that legislating 'gay marriage' would create a perverse incentive for heterosexuals to eschew marriage:

"Why wouldn't straight couples, with or without dependents, still want the same benefits that their homosexual counterparts could enjoy, especially if the financial advantages of marrying help to offset the costs of raising a family?"

He appears to misunderstand the concept of a 'perverse incentive', because the optimistic conclusion that hangs from that 'if' is what I called into question. Those 'financial advantages' are precisely what I argued would be diminished or emptied of practical benefit.

Foster hasn't engaged my claims then, let alone conducted a 'dissection'. He actually missed the point twice, and still seems confused by my World AIDS Day op-ed. This is a shame. His comments on 'non-discriminatory' civil union schemes are spot on.

:: Update ::

DREADNOUGHT's op-ed on conservatives and 'gay marriage' appears in The Australian newspaper today.

NB I did not choose the headline that ran with the op-ed.

:: A Brief Flirtation ::

Read the background here. When asked to clarify the Institute of Public Affairs' position on 'gay marriage', Executive Director John Roskam quickly stated that:

"As an organisation the IPA does not have 'official positions' - individual staff members and individual writers have personal postions...".

So the 'undeclared pro-gay marriage push' is unlikely to be declared any time soon. The IPA doesn't support 'gay marriage', nor does it oppose the idea.* It just has a commitment to open debate. I look forward to hearing the conservative case against 'gay marriage' articulated in a future edition of the IPA Review. From what I've been told, however, they're sick of the whole idea - which is probably even better for pro-family advocates.

:: Alarming Language but Noble Sentiments ::

DREADNOUGHT is also reasonably convinced that the 'individual writer' in this case was unaware of how his adopted nomenclature ("equal recognition for same-sex couples"), borrowed from far-Left homoactivism, might benefit movements and ideologies, certainly individuals, radically opposed to mainstream concerns. Happily, that 'push' I discerned now looks more like once-off political naïveté attached to otherwise noble sentiments.

:: The Upshot ::

Noble sentiments are welcome. They lead the conservative mind, indeed the human mind, to enlightened ideas and true justice. Such sentiments, however, must align with the family, for the sake of the common good, or they prove themselves unworthy.

:: Resources ::

- (Quoted in the op-ed) The Private Lives Report (LaTrobe University, 2006). It showed that most 'gay' men were not in any kind of relationship at all, and of those who were, fully two thirds had no desire to 'formalise' their relationships; and

- Andrew Norton on marriage and happiness/wellbeing.

# (It was an a fortiori argument).

* (This information would have been included in the piece that ran today, but circumstances outside DREADNOUGHT's control meant an earlier draft was published).

^ (It must also disappoint DREADNOUGHT. I admire many classical liberal ideas, but I am not convinced that the State should withdraw from legislation in favour of marriage and the family. The common good surely dictates otherwise).