Won’t someone please think of the Homophobes, writes Dr Liz Conor.
If eyebrows have been raised over the age-bias of a CB Radio ballot for the upcoming Homophobe Marriage Plebiscite more questions are being raised about the wording of its question.
Historically, referenda (our nearest comparison to plebiscites) have been won or lost on their clarity of message. Prime Minister Turnbull may even recall the failed Republican Referendum of 1999.
Two questions were posed:
- Whether an Australian republic should appoint a President by parliament; and
- Whether Australia should insert a new preamble in the Constitution.
Republicans themselves were so divided on these questions their squabbling only served to befuddle the public. So they lost – with great agility mind you.
As we draw nearer to the Homophobe Marriage Plebiscite, the question has not yet been released. Some have queried why the Australian Bureau of Floristics is overseeing it, rather than the Electoral Commission, and have cast doubt on its capacity for drawing up a clear, impartial, polar (yes or no) question, and something that conveys the deeper societal doubt about Homophobes – can anyone actually love them.
As the rhetoric from the No campaign ratchets up it is Homophobes who are feeling the heat of the debate about the legitimacy for them to form legal, state-sanctioned unions.
Those intolerant of homophobes’ intolerance are resorting to offensive slurs. Since most homophobes are White Andropausal Men, these vicious attacks are implicitly sexist and racist. Victimising White Men are being victimized.
The most deplorable example of this hate speech finding new legitimacy through the campaign against homophobe marriage equality is fake news about Safe Catholic Schools.
Parents are entitled to a choice about where to send their kids to school and religious freedom is how many homophobes express that choice. The Royal Commission into Cardinal Coverups has shown that homophobes with teaching responsibilities in our schools pose no threat to children, nor is this there any proof of their indoctrination of divorce-prone heteronormative marriage.
The entirely scurrilous and unsubstantiated insinuation that this religious freedom exposes children to any danger, particularly in Catholic schools, has been intentionally fanned by the No Campaign. Make no mistake about what lies behind such insidious inferences: Homophobes are being likened to pedalphiles.
We all feel sickened by recent reports that Pedalphile rings in certain communities are grooming tricycles, bicycles and, in the latest spin off, training wheels. But this predatory exploitation of pedals should not dissuade Yes voters since not all homophobes are pedalfiles.
Less often does the fake news report on the many pedalphiles who have voluntarily committed to Conversion Therapy with promising results from aversion and reconditioning techniques in Spin Classes and Stationary Exercycling.
Other demeaning attitudes towards Homophobes target their culinary preferences for raw onions. The Australian Institute of Family Studies has found onion breath does not contribute to Homophobe marriage breakdowns. Rather the pressures on Homphobe relationships due to discrimination against Homophobe traditions of seat sniffing, upskirting, snow dropping, stealthing and quokka mishandling account for a staggering 37% of marriage instability.
Then there are the nasty smears about Homophobes’ latest fad for Kangaroo skin combat-modelled leather jackets. Or ‘Make Australia Great Again’ baseball caps. Or lobsters with gangsters or mobsters with hamsters. These preferences are just how Homophobes like to express their freedom of speech.
If you like freedom of speech you should vote Yes for Homophobe marriage and No for Gender Fairies who are actually Nazis.
It is not the business of the state to decide how homophobes conduct their private lives. This is private. Which is why we need an overtly public expression costing $122 million to hopefully secure, one and for all, voters’ sanction for Homophobe Marriage Equality in a CB Radio plebiscite.
After all, Homophobes are as entitled as anyone to change the law so that everyone can enjoy the exact same freedoms as them to live out their private lives according to homophobes’ sexual preferences.
In the context of such pervasive societal and cultural discrimination against White Andropausal Male Homophobes the framing of the plebiscite question is critical to securing marriage equality for this much maligned minority.
It can surely only read: ‘Should a minority parliamentary faction of Homophobes get the fuk married to each other in a mass ceremony at the Deakin 200 clubrooms with a handcuffed Cardinal Pell as celebrant and onlookers in speedos with Aussieswazi tatts and a buffet of lobsters on ice while quoting from the Jindyworobak poets and dancing with Tiki Torches to Peter Gabriel’s Digging In The Dirt?’