Rebutting Bernard Gaynor’s “Why homosexual activists should applaud Senator Bernardi”

I don’t know if you’ve seen the piece on Bernard Gaynor’s blog entitled “Why homosexual activists should applaud Senator Bernardi“, but you won’t get much out of this post unless you have.

What follows is not a polemic, but rather, a simple rebuttal of the majority of points made by Gaynor in his piece. It is not my intention to engage in personal attacks, simply to point out matters of factual inaccuracy – as such, remarks by Gaynor that I consider to be merely matters of opinion (such as his use of the phrase “common sense”) will go unchallenged.

Remarks in bold are direct quotes from Gaynor’s blog, the italicised sections beneath them are the rebuttals. Let’s dive in:

Cory Bernardi is not saying that homosexuals want polygamous relationships. Nor is he saying that they engage in bestiality.
I can find no record of Bernardi directly saying these things. However, the context of his remarks (for example, in this News Limited article) makes it fairly clear that he is doing his best to associate homosexuality, polygamy and bestiality with each other – and the moreso given how often Bernardi repeats these remarks.
If you have a word that means one thing and then decide it can mean something else because a minority section of society feels excluded, you are opening the doors for any other group that wants a bit of the action as well.
There is a distinct difference between the Legal definition of a word and the Dictionary definition of a word. One is within the purview of governments to redefine as they see fit, the other is redefined by common usage (and only belatedly corrected by the publishers of actual dictionaries). An excellent example of this can be seen in the United States’ Civil Rights Act of 1964, which redefined the meaning of the words “all men” in the United States’ Declaration of Independence to include women and non-whites without discrimination.
I’m not talking about the 40 odd weirdos who signed a petition for recognition of their orgy-like, free-love sexual relationships.
A number of points to be made here:

  1. Labelling people “weirdos” is an ad-hominem attack with no place in any piece of writing that expects to be taken seriously.
  2. Multiple sources give the actual number of signatures as 25. What Gaynor hopes to acheive by not quite doubling that figure is unclear.
  3. Not all – perhaps not even most – polygamous relationships are “orgy-like”.
Within a decade, there will be more Muslims in Australia than homosexuals.
As sexual preference is not a question that has ever been asked on an Australian Census, the reliability of Gaynor’s statistical basis for this assertion cannot be accurately assessed.
So who are the homosexual activists to state that they can change the meaning of a word but Muslims can’t?
I can find no record of any “homosexual activist” making such a claim.
how do homosexuals activists think they can stop a growing Islamic community from exerting political power to get what they want?
This statement is based on the assumption that stopping “a growing Islamic community from exerting political power” is an inherently good thing, rather than a thing which would require still further discriminatory legislation in Australia to acheive.
But any homosexual activist who can put two and two together should realise this: a growing Islamic population in a democratic society is empowered by homosexual political activism to undermine societal norms.
This statement contains several assumptions:

  1. The mechanism of Islamic empowerment via homosexual activism is not explained, largely due to its nonexistence. In fact, given that Islam in general seems less forgiving of homosexuality than the current Australian societal norms are, it seems distinctly possible that the provision of greater rights to homosexuals might well make Australia a less enticing prospect for Islamic immigration.
  2. The idea that “societal norms” are unchanging is fallacious at best. If Australia societal norms had not changed since 1788, it would still be legal to discriminate against Catholics on the basis of religion – a changed societal norm that Bernard Gaynor is presumably happy about.
  3. In addition, this statement contains the buried assumption that the present “societal norms” are the best possible ones.
And, sometime after polygamy is recognised, the same sections of society that pushed it through will start advocating for a rollback of homosexual rights. Not just their marriage rights. But their right to freedom. And their right to life.
This is possible, however unlikely. However, there is a substantial difference between “advocating” a legislative change, and seeing it actually turned into law. (Just ask any “homosexual activist”.) And such a change is unlikely to happen unless Islam somehow becomes the majority religion in Australia, which is a distant possibility at best.
Because, unlike Christianity, Islam doesn’t play nice with homosexuality.
If Gaynor’s words – and those of Cory Bernardi – are an example of “playing nice”, one shudders to think what playing mean would be like. In addition, it is both untrue and hypocritical for Christianity or its advocates to claim credit for the advances in civil rights over the last few centuries in Western democracies, since almost without exception the churches fought to the finish to try to prevent these reforms from occurring at all.