On 1st August, 1998, the Sydney Morning Herald reported a $99mil economic boon from the Sydney Homosexual Mardi Gras.

Mardi Gras organiser Bev Lange immediately claimed the report justified all manner of affirmative legislation for homosexuals. ⁽¹⁾

Bev's elastic economics

But is the economic claim accurate? The estimated $99 million is completely overshadowed by the $250 million spent per year on AIDS patients.⁽²⁾ The Mardi Gras and the sleazy ball associated with it, can only promote the spread of HIV - the real 'bonus' being the introduction of untreatable strains from overseas.

The $99 million is further eroded by the cost of policing the event - and not just on the night itself. NSW Police have a team working 365 days a year on various aspects of the Mardi Gras.⁽³⁾ Furthermore, the Australian Federal Police report a massive increase in drug traffic in the weeks leading up to the Mardi Gras, especially through so-called soft ports like Perth and Darwin.⁽⁴⁾ Raids indicate that these drugs are bound for the Mardi Gras. The policing cost on the night is also extraordinary: around 400 officers on duty for crowd control, taking police presence away from other areas which report increases in violent crimes for that evening.⁽⁵⁾

And what cost to the local residents?

Many who initially supported the parade in the 1980s, have grown tired of living in homes and streets which become public toilets and brawling rings for inebriates each year. The cost of the clean up has outstripped South Sydney Council's ability to pay and so the urine, vomit, blood and faeces remains in the streets until the next rain.

Clearly, the $99 million arising from the Mardi Gras is not entirely genuine.

Money versus morals

But even if the $99 million was a genuine economic boost, is that all one needs to justify changing legislation?

If it were, then Governments should enter the drug trade in a big way - plenty of profit margin there! Sales of biological weaponry provide great monetary benefits as well. And why not mine the Barrier Reef - huge economic opportunities there as well.

As soon as the 'economics only' argument is turned towards a few left-wing sacred cows, the fallacy of the thinking suddenly becomes exceedingly apparent.

And why do homosexuals not apply the same reasoning to the church!

If we counter-balance the economic costs of the church, its scandals and its shortcomings, with the economic benefits of its charities and its positive impact on society, one sees very quickly, enormous justification for legislative action affirming the Christian sector, and its preferred institutions like heterosexual marriage. Instead we constantly hear the more vitriolic among the homosexual lobbyists (and others) determinedly argue against legislation affirming the traditional family and other Biblical norms.

The demon of democracy

The homosexuals have another problem - the opinion of the people.

The Australian National University is not known for its adherence to Biblical mores. So it is with great interest that their National Social Science Survey has consistently shown that over 71 percent of Australians believe that homosexuality is always morally wrong, and around the same percentage oppose homosexuals raising children.⁽⁶⁾ While ever social attitudes run so strongly counter to homosexual marriage, it cannot be justifiably legislated for.

The reasons for the prevailing social attitude is clear. Study after study reveals that the traditional intact heterosexual monogamous marriage is the optimal environment for the raising of children. Every piece of research into this phenomenon positively affirms that each heterosexual parent brings into the relationship components vital to the psychological well-being of the child.⁽⁷⁾ These components are eroded through same sex parentage or other non-traditional arrangements like dual same-sex co-habitation, polygamy, single parenthood, divorce and so on.⁽⁸⁾

Homosexuals often try to justify their right to raise children by comparing a loving homosexual relationship with an abusive heterosexual relationship. To compare the absolute very best of one set, to the very worst of the other, just shows how desperate gays are for justification. The truth is, both these relationships fall far short of the optimum and do not deserve legislative preference.

Not that the Sydney Morning Herald would ever allow such arguments to be given column space. It strangely censored my letter to the editor on the subject and instead gave Ms Lange a second bite at the cherry in the letters column of August 8th.⁽⁹⁾

It seems democracy is just as much a demon at the Sydney Morning Herald as it is at the Sydney Star Observer. Scribes of a feather it seems...