‘Yes’ Elites Claim ‘We’re Smarter Than You’

Recently ‘Their ABC’ made the startling claim that: “Higher levels of cognitive ability are unambiguously associated with greater levels of support for same-sex marriage.”

This conflation is based on the tax-payer funded 2015 Hilda Survey (from The University of Melbourne). From this survey, Francisco Perales, (from the University of Queensland) reached the conclusion that:

“Specifically, there is a strong and statistically significant association between higher cognitive ability and a greater likelihood to support equal rights between same- and different-sex couples.

This may shed some light on why those who stand against equal rights may not be persuaded by evidence-based arguments in the ongoing same-sex marriage debate.”

They use this research to assert that: “It is possible many supporters of the "no" case could not be convinced by reason and evidence.”

Here’s the question that was actually asked of survey participants:

"Homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples do" on a scale from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree).

Looks like the ABC didn’t get the memo: Homosexual couples already enjoy ALL the same rights as heterosexual couples in Australia. No one involved with the Coalition for Marriage campaign to preserve the current definition of is seeking to deny rights to anyone.

Blanket claims by 'Yes' Elites that all ‘no voters’ have lower cognitive ability are out of line and out of touch.

Here’s some research, conducted that same year, which the the 'Yes' Elites ignored:

  • By a margin of three to one, Australians agree we should try to ensure that children, where possible, are raised by their own mother and father.
  • By a margin of three to one, Australians agree that the right to marry includes the right to create a family.
  • By a margin of three to one, Australians think it is more important that a child should have a mum and dad than that two men should have the right to marry and create a family.
  • By a margin of three to one, Coalition voters would be "MUCH LESS likely" to vote for an MP who supports same-sex marriage.

Children’s rights must always come before the feelings of grown ups. That is a statement with which most Australians agree.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

29 Responses

  1. I may be a mere “pleb” – in the eyes of the intellectually-superior “elite” – but I can tell when I’m being scammed.
    AJ certainly proves the point in the above statement. At least I’m in the majority camp on all of the survey questions listed!!!
    It would seem clear that it’s not “cognitive ability” that puts you in bed with the SSM-ers. It’s “emotive Marxism” to the core…

  2. I am sorry gay people suffer from a genetic disability, so do a few million other Australian’s
    2011 Census Heterosexual couples 4,650,986 Same Sex couples 33,714 That is point .7 %
    Almost 20 per cent of Australians have a disability (3.96 million people).

    Marriage between a male and a female is based on a pre-programmed instinct to satisfy the eternal need to reproduce.
    Without Female to male unions humans would become extinct.
    Only our DNA is immortal. See Attenborough’s Life Story.

    Why do gay people want “marriage”? They already have civil union’s available to them?

    • Actually gay people do a pretty good job of reproducing – it just takes planning instead of accidents. (it’s amazing what gay men and lesbians can do when they work together). Not that there aren’t an abundance of children taken out of abusive heterosexual homes. Using the statistics you provide if everyone of those couples took in a foster child there would still be thousands needing care.
      De Facto is state by state so it isn’t uniform across Australia and general doesn’t provide “kinship” rights so you may not be able to see your partner in the hospital or have a say in their care. It also is a barrier to estate planning and responsible parents like to have their estate in order to protect their surviving spouse and children. De Facto is also worth about a dirty diaper if you travel outside of Australia as other governments don’t recognize relationships that aren’t documented. Thanks for asking.

  3. To say university educated individuals are more likely to support same sex marriage is just ridiculous and i’m not sure where the ABC got there information from, but no one has every asked me

    Has anyone done a study to find out if more gay people are employed by the ABC than heterosexual?

    The manipulation of the data from a previous surveys by LGBT activists is just typical of a community so desperate to change the lives of the majority of people who are heterosexual. There is a good reason that SSM was rejected 27 time previously when debated in parliament, its because it is wrong, marriage is and should always be between a man and women.

    The LGBT community should bugger off and leave marriage alone. I don’t have any problem with a commitment ceremony which allows a gay couple to express there feeling and union. They have the same rights as any other couple, married or defacto.

    Devaluing my marriage with my wife and the normal heterosexual relationship i have with my family is not OK.

    • First, marriage equality has nothing at all to do with children. Why are you misleading people? Gay people already have children, and are allowed to adopt children. This law will not change that. You also didn’t mention that children from both gay and straight families show no differences.

      Disability? I see lots of it displayed on this site. If you think you’re so clever then why not provide an actually reason to not have marriage equality instead of trying to misdirect and mislead anyone who has the misfortune of receiving one of your shit sheets?

      • Michael

        If “marriage equality has nothing at all to do with children”, why are is the LGBTIQ party misleading Australians by saying that marriage can be between any “2 people”, when the word ‘people’ includes ‘children’ in its meaning?

        Lots of disability displayed on this site? What about your own disability to provide a single example thereof ❗

        Thanks for being such a good ambassador for the Yes campaign, with your description of Coalition for Marriage material as a “shit sheet”.

    • Michael,
      I often wonder if the lgbtqi are over-represented on the ABC and SBS, both in their staff and in their programming.
      It certainly seems so.

  4. Michael

    To Francisco Perales (University of Queensland),
    I am a graduate of three Australian universities, and I voted No, so put that in your next research paper. Evidently, the LGBTIQ party dictators thinks that abusing the human body contrary to its self-evident natural design, makes them morally and intellectually superior to everyone else.

    • Michael,

      There are 20 adults in my extended family (parents and siblings, my husband and myself) and 19 are voting no and I’m unsure about 1. The adults in my extended family are all educated and are working or retired from working as a cardiologist, engineer, registered nurse/midwife, lawyer, teacher, farmer and personal care worker. The words “heterosexual” and “homosexual” are from psychology/psychiatry and these words are based on a person identity of behaviour (orientation) which doesn’t mention the binary words male and female so this makes irrelevant the words husband, wife, mother, father, son and daughter (kinship) which are described in the Bible.

      The LGBTIAQ party dictators want the word “marriage” to describe a person who legally practices sodomy as the marital act in a deregulated civil registered marriage practice. Therefore, the LGBTIAQ party dictators want the word “marriage” to describe a sexual identity which isn’t from God but created by man. The World Health Organisation (WHO) uses the word “sex worker” rather than the biblical word “prostitute” and “harlot” as all persons/people can be a sex worker. The Bible warned about the Harlot in Revelation 17. I found it disturbing to read in an article about the USA education system which had created low incomes for professors. One female professor described her fear of becoming homeless so she had decided to supplement her income with sex work and she had rationalised her decision by referring to her one night stands. The high cost of living in the western world is putting a lot of pressure on people, and there was a report from Belgium about prostitution including the advertisements had been placed near universities about “Sugar Daddies” and this was rationalised by young adult females have a right to experience the “fifty shades of grey.” The females in the developing countries are at high risk of being abused by people from the western world especially with the market for sex, surrogacy and body parts. Today, newspapers are becoming filled with articles about sex as students education is currently focused on sex and even politics is filled with sex including politicians are now described by their sexual orientation.

      Christians will need to pray that God will renew their minds from this sex crazy world we live in.

      • Michael

        Yes, there’s been a real increase in newspaper articles about sex, describing the salacious details with mock horror, while secretly approving of them. With the LGBTIQ party wanting sodomy to become the legal marital act, it’s no wonder the harlot of Revelation 17 is called the “mother of abominations”. You’re right about the exploitation of women/girls , as Revelation 18 shows the merchants of the earth weeping over the dead harlot, because no-one will buy their cargoes anymore, including people’s bodies and souls.

        It certainly is a sex-crazy world, as many historical documentaries now include sex scenes. When drama series are remade, they now include sex scenes, when the original version didn’t.

        The cost of living pressures can also have an impact through distraction or apathy. The Mercury reported recently that there are 1.8 million unemployed or under-employed Australians. They can’t all be stupid or lazy or bludgers. Some think, why should they give a stuff about the survey when they can’t put food on their table, or don’t even have a table to put food on?

    • Michael,

      Are the LGBTIAQ party activists well educated? They have given the Australian people many slogans including “love is love” WITH NO LOVE AT ALL. I read an article which might sum up the elite LGBTIAQ party claim – “Transgender activist slams men who won’t have sex with men who look like women.” This article highlighted a transgender activist man Zinnia Jones who claimed, “Straight men should want to have sex with men who dress as women because genitals are only flesh.” Zinna believes, “If a normal man doesn’t desire a transgender man he is prejudice and should work through it.” I could ask you (Michael) to please explain to the Elite LGBTIAQ party activists why you’re so prejudice against a sexual relationship with a transgender man who dresses as a woman. They won’t accept your prejudice because they don’t consider you’re intelligent enough for their liking as you oppose “marriage equality.” It is impossible to use any logical and rational argument with the elite LGBTIAQ party dictators because they use a psychotic language which confuses the English language. “Same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron which doesn’t make any sense like the “bachelor-married man,” but the elite LGBTIAQ party dictators thinks this makes perfect logical and rational sense to them because one country in the world accepted this idea about a decade ago and this disease has been slowly spreading throughout the western world. The LGBTIAQ party dictators are like a psychotic female patient who wants to get into bed with the men and it is impossible to reason with them because their brain is in another world but for the elite LGBTIAQ party dictators their brain is ….. Now the LGBTIAQ party dictators are changing the word “intelligent” to mean queer. So will children be taught in school that it is prejudice if a normal male doesn’t desire a transgender male who dresses as a woman because genitals are only flesh? Only the elite LGBTIAQ party dictators could create the idea of “transgender desire.” The latest statistic report on STDs in the USA has been released from Washington which showed a significant increase in STDs particularly gonorrhoea which has become drug-resistant and the increase has particularly come from the group of men who have sex with men. Something is going wrong with male brains with their attraction to their own sex, robotic sex, pornography, chem-sex, fantasy sex, prostitution, child sex etc. Males are turning into predators and females and children are turning into prey.

      • Michael

        I agree with your comments. The claim of the Yes elites commits the fallacy of stipulative definition. To agree with same-sex marriage is intelligent, but to be intelligent, you must agree with same-sex marriage.

        I wonder if Zinnia Jones would be interested in a sexual relationship with a woman who dresses up as a man? Perhaps he suffers from some kind of prejudice, and needs to work through it.

        The LGBTIQ party is a male supremacist cult. The LGBTIQ party has such a low view of women, as shown by original Sodomites not wanting Lot’s daughters, even though they have the same body parts as his male guests. There is also something wrong with female brains, as apparently intelligent and well-educated women are some of its biggest supporters, like former Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings, Lord Mayor of Hobart Sue Hickey, and Tasmanian Labor leader Rebecca White. Given that the menstrual cycle begins in the brain, taking drugs to disrupt this healthy and natural occurrence must affect a person’s ability to think clearly. All a woman can be to the LGBTIQ party is a womb for rent.

        Some will say, how can the LGBITQ be male-supremacist when it includes lesbian women? But lesbians use male idols in their self-worship, so they don’t believe their own claim that genitals are only flesh, when they can be plastic, wood or metal.

        The LGBTIQ leaders are indeed well-educated, as Rodney Croome has a degree from the University of Tasmania. But they use their education to stop others from finding the truth.

    • Abuse of the human body? Come on now, you just made that up. There’s no evidence at all for such a ridiculous and hurtful accusation. I suspect you bought your university degrees on line, that’s if you’re telling the truth at all.

      • Michael

        You say, “I suspect you bought your university degrees on line”. In your own words, “There’s no evidence at all for such a ridiculous and hurtful accusation.”

        When your doctor tells you that smoking is an abuse of your lungs, do you say he’s making it up? Using a body part contrary to its self-evident design and function is called an abuse — that’s what the word means. Do you think that eating faeces is normal and healthy? So why pretend that having fake sex with the place faeces comes from, is normal and healthy? Sodomy is a filthy, disgusting, and unhealthy practise which has nothing to do with marriage.

  5. I remember seeing on that Gruen programme on ABC, someone said there are more psychologists employed in the advertising industry (conning people), than there are in therapeutic practice (helping people).
    Sounds about right.

    People who would never dare to be hypnotised are being hypnotised by the media and propaganda.

    I think being smart (cognition), and being aware are two different things.

  6. I wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper saying that “Two men cannot consummate a marriage, cannot create 0ffspring, cannot continue the race.
    If a celebrant in Australia today performed a marriage for two men it would be declared Null and Void or annulled.” I had a writer who objected to my
    letter claiming the editor should have refused to print my article because it was untrue. on the basis that the only way a marriage in Australia can be terminated is by divorce, and the only grounds for divorce is ‘irretrievable breakdown.’
    How do we reply to such an objection?

    • John, I am afraid that the letter writer is correct. I wrote to the Attorney General a year ago on this subject. I received a reply from the Kimberley Williams, Principal Legal Officer, Family Law Branch. The reply said
      “There is no requirement under the Marriage Act 1961 that a marriage be consummated through sexual intercourse, or that the parties be capable of consummating the marriage. …… Non-consummation as a ground for the dissolution or annulment of a marriage was abolished in 1976 with the repeal of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 by the Family Law Act 1975. Section 48 of the Family Law Act specifies that the only ground for dissolution (divorce) is the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, as evidenced by a 12 month separation.”
      That sexual intercourse is no longer the basis of marriage is a surprise to spouses who expect that it is grounds for divorce when their spouse cheats. It is not; the legal advice now is “just get over it”, the Family Court will not even listen to it; it counts for nothing in deciding division of assets and allocation of parenting arrangements, you have to have some other reason such as violence. Notice too that the word “matrimony” which clearly links marriage to motherhood is now removed. The smooth transition to same sex marriage was set 40 years ago, although no-one at the time saw what they were doing, I am sure.

      • David S and John,
        That’s a good point, I didn’t know matrimony was removed in law in 1976, and is no longer associated with marriage.

        It seems obvious to most of us that there is a difference between matrimony and any other civil union. And the difference should be reflected in the law rather than redefining the meaning and making motherhood (and fatherhood) obsolete.

      • Michael

        David S,
        Thanks for the information. I’m sure Attorney-General Lionel Murphy knew exactly what he was doing, and also knew he’d be long gone before the consequences “came out” forty years later.

        I would reply something like, Marriage is a natural behaviour pattern and living arrangement between a man and a woman, not a creation of the government. The Australian Constitution gave parliament the power to register marriages in order to protect women and children from abuse, to safeguard inheritance, and provide a stable society to raise the next generation of taxpayers, without which the government cannot survive. The real purpose of marriage law is to protect our society from the harms caused by adultery.

        The campaign for same-sex marriage is only possible because the Australian government deleted sexual intercourse as a legal requirement for civil marriage in the family law reforms of 1970s. This removed the government’s ability to distinguish between a genuine marriage, and a sham marriage done to defraud social security or immigration authorities. Only a man and a woman can make a marriage by consummation, and only a man a woman can break a marriage by committing adultery. There can be no genuine “marriage act” in the law without the “marriage act” in the flesh (sexual intercourse).

        Australia’s Constitution ensures parliament cannot make a law requiring a religious observance (section 116). The Constitution’s marriage power does not extend to defining the doctrine, meaning and purpose of marriage for Christians or other religions. Genuine Christians will continue to fight for their freedom to practise marriage as a life-long, faithful, “one flesh” union of a man and a woman, based on natural sexual intercourse, able to procreate new life who’ll be legally regarded as their parents’ offspring.

  7. Marrriage has nothing at all to do with having children. Gay couples are now allowed to adopt children and many have families. Why are you trying to mislead people? Don’t you have a valid reason at all to say no to marriage equality?

    • Zeke,
      You surely cannot mean what you wrote: “Marriage has nothing at all to do with having children.” Overwhelmingly, when young women marry, childbearing is exactly what they are committing themselves to. Think about what that means. It means that at the height of their opportunities, health and beauty they are prepared to undergo disfigurement of their bodies, endure pain and discomfort, to risk their own lives to pass on life to others. That is self sacrifice that no man can cause another man to undergo, no woman can cause another woman to undergo. Only the union of a man and a woman can result in that sacrifice for the continuation of human existence. It is because of such self sacrifice by a woman that every one of us is here, including yourself. In other walks of life we eulogize those who risk their lives for the sake of others. Surely the act of generosity by a woman in childbearing, with all its risks to her life and health and pain is worth recognition too. In our culture it is the word “marriage” that recognizes and honours the commitment by a woman to sacrifice of her body to pass on life.

      It is telling of the self-centredness of the same-sex lobby that they can so easily toss aside the self-sacrifice that goes with traditional marriage so that they can take the word marriage. Do you really think that there should be no word for the union that involves sacrifice of a woman’s body to continue human existence?

      As for same-sex couples creating families, male homosexual couples clearly regard the sacrifice of a woman’s body irrelevant to their acquisition of children through surrogates. Do you have no qualms about treating women’s bodies like breeding mares?

      Same-sex marriage is proclaimed again and again to be about the right to be officially united with the one person whom they “love” to the exclusion of all others. As I have indicated above, traditional marriage is much, much more than a self-centered mutual admiration pact between just two people and that is why it should not be extended to same-sex couples.

      • David.S

        Thank you for your insight into the truth of marriage and I am going to tell my 3 children your comment on marriage which was so beautifully detailed.

      • Michael

        David S,
        Thanks very much for your comment, it brought a tear to my eye.

        • Janine and Michael, thanks for showing your support for the central understanding of marriage as sacrifice, that it will be forever as long as we are male and female. Why is there so much intellectualising to get around what is so self-evident? Thank you both too for all the contributions to this site that you have made.

    • Zeke, you say, “Marriage has nothing at all to do with children”. When did that happen, or is that wishful thinking?
      Marriage has been degraded over the last century and homosexual marriage is another nail in the coffin.

      Some people want to redefine marriage and destroy its meaning altogether.

      Many of us want to retain what little is left of the original “matrimonial marriage”.

      Is that a good enough reason?

    • Michael

      You said, “Marriage has nothing at all to do with having children.” Try telling that to the gay man who goes somewhere like Russia, where he enters a civil marriage with a woman for a year, fathers her child in the natural way, then buys it from her, and returns to Australia to have his gay lover recorded as a legal parent of this baby.

    • Zeke,

      Today, The Daily Telegraph had an article about a “gay” dad – Matthew Scully-Hicks allegedly murdered his 18 months old adopted daughter and he is married to a “gay” man. Scully-Hicks had reported to friends that he was “struggling to cope.” I won’t repeat his offensive language he yelled at his daughter which the neighbours had witnessed. Elsie died of a brain haemorrhage. The whole report is extremely sickening so maybe the courts will review child adoption by gay married men as a paper birth certificate, paper marriage and paper family didn’t protect Elsie from a harmful death.

    • Zeke,

      Milo Y…. is a gay man and is married to a man, and he claimed 13 yr old boys could consent to a sexual relationship with an adult based on his own experience of child sexual abuse. Also, he claimed many homosexuals have had pedophilia experiences. The US Catholic Church claimed 86% of the sexual abuse cases by catholic priests involved homosexual behaviour. The Royal Commission into institutional child sexual abuse highlighted cases of men who believed they were “gay” and had lived the gay lifestyle because they had experienced sexual abuse as a child.

  8. Jo

    Zeke … you need to read more … children in same sex families are at a significant disadvantage & significantly more risk than children raised by their married biological mum & dad. There is research from around the globe that demonstrates this is the case. Is marriage related to children … you just need to read the UN & European Human Rights papers & sociological journals to clearly see that they have always been linked.

Leave a comment