Even while the counting of votes is still going on, it seems clear by now that the referendum to re-define marriage has been carried – by a comfortable majority (though not quite as large as predicted) and with a higher than usual voter turnout. While everywhere else same-sex “marriage” has been introduced by the sudden caprice of judges or law-makers, Ireland is thus the first country in the world to introduve it by a popular vote.
What are the reasons, and what are the consequences?
In the first place, the outcome of this referendum provides a sad evidence to which extent human nature is vulnerable to propaganda and brainwashing. The No-campaigners have fought bravely, but were not able to make their arguments heard in a situation where their adversaries were able to rely on the support of all political parties, all state institutions (such as the police, which openly campaigned in favour of a Yes vote), and all the mass media (which reserved 80% of the time, always with a supportive under-tone, to the Yes campaign, while mentions of the No campaign, if at all, where made only with accompanying snickers and sneers). A recent court judgment in Northern Ireland indicates where we are heading: refusal to support pretentious gay rights will soon be outlawed and persecuted. In this way, a serene and rational debate was hardly possible. But of course, such a result is not explained by brainwashing and bullying alone, but it indicates that in any case a substantial part of the Irish population either dosn’t know what marriage is, or what homosexual behaviour is. (The second hypothesis would, of course, be much better – but in times such as these people should know for their own protection…)
Something appears to have gone very wrong in that country.
Secondly, not only the outcome of this referendum, but even the fact that this referendum was held, provides evidence for a tragical and dangerous phenomenon: in the absence of sound and reasonable moral principles, democracy can turn totalitarian. Ironically, the pro-gay Guardian today has an op-ed in which it is argued that it is dismal to hold a popular referendum on an issue like this. We could not agree more, albeit for different reasons and with different conclusions: holding a referendum on legalizing same-sex “marriages” seems quite as reasonable to us as holding a referendum on the re-introduction of slavery, the introduction of racial segregation, or the legalization of pedophilia. Asking a question begs an answer – but some questions should not be asked. There are, because there must be, some things that do not stand at the disposition of democratic votes. The nature of marriage and family is one of them.
This is also why no decent and honourable man will ever accept same-sex “marriages”, no matter by which procedure or through which majority they may have acquired the appearance of legitimacy. A battle has been lost. Stand up, and continue fighting.
Ireland, like all other jurisdictions that have committed the same error, will soon make acquaintance with the implications of same-sex “marriages”. Irishmen who have been made believe that by voting Yes they have only extended, but not changed the meaning of, marriage will soon discover that through their vote they have demeaned their own honourable marriages, putting it on the same level as the relationship between two sodomites. They will discover what the Yes campaigners have carefully avoided to tell them, or flatly denied: that this re-definition of marriage implies a re-definition of parenthood. It seems quite inevitable now that on this new basis the government or the courts will soon proceed to legalize gay adoption, surrogacy, and all the other things that just a few days ago the Yes side asserted was not implied in the referendum. Parenthood will be re-cast as a purely social role, and the natural ties between children and their (real) parents will not respected any more. All will be done to accomodate the pretended “right” of sodomites to found “families” (which in their case means: to get hold of other people’s children).
The resistance against this absurdity will have to continue, and it must be reinforced. Obviously, this will not be an easy task. Like all totalitarianisms, the ideology of same-sex “marriage” will seek to outlaw and destroy ist opponents, however peacefully and civilly they express their views. We have seen foretastes of this even at times and in places where same-sex marriage is not even legal, and it will become more aggressive.
What is to be done next?
First and foremost, a strategy of containment is required. Countries that have not yet fallen prey to this new insanity most clarify their position – ideally by giving new constitutional protections to the true and natural meaning of marriage, such as Slovakia and Croatia have recently done. They need to do this in order to send a clear message to institutions like the UN, the EU, or the Council of Europe that attempts to super-impose same-sex “marriage” on them will not be accepted.
Second, it is necessary to re-educate the world about homosexuality. The Yes vote in Ireland was successful because people were inundated by slogans about “equality”. Yes, of course it is true that verybody should have equal rights – but the nub of the matte ris that perverse sexual behaviour is not equal to natural sexual behaviour. This is not just a quarrel about opening the egg at the lttle or at the big end as in Jonathan Swift, but it is about a fundamental anthropological issue. Sodomites may be like the rest of us in all other aspects of life – but they are different precisely in regard to what they claim is “equal” : their sexual behaviour. This is what sets them off, and rightly so.
What is a sodomite? He is a man who puts his sexual organ into another man’s anus, or mouth, and obtains sexual pleasure from that. This is what they call “love”, and what they claim deserves general appreciation and support, tax cuts and social benefits. This is what children growing up with such couples will be taught to consider as “normal”.
But of course we all know this isn’t normal – and people who think it is normal cannot be normal either. The sexual act between a man and a woman is procreative – it is necessary to ensure the future of humanity. The sexual act oft wo sodomites will forever remain sterile – it is not necessary, but instead spreads a host of infectious diseases, reducing the life expectancy of those engaging in it by 20 years on average. This reduced life expectancy is not the result of any „discrimnation“ by mean-spirited heterosexuals, but it is the inherent consequence of counter-natural behaviour. (And by saying this, we are not making any moral judgment…)
Are there any fathers and mothers out there (maybe with the exception of Mary Mc Aleese) who sincerely believe that it is good for their children to live this lifestyle? But if it is unhealthy for those engaging in it, and not conducive to any social good, why should it be celebrated and promoted?
They may call this “homophobe”, but their silly name-calling is nothing we should be afraid of. Deep inside their hearts, the supporters of this new ideology know how wrong they are – and they also know that in the end the truth will prevail.