Lindsay Perigo
Lindsay Perigo

The Politically Incorrect Show - 05/04/2000

[Music - Die Fledermaus]

Good afternoon, KAYA ORAAAA & welcome to the Politically Incorrect Show on the free speech network, Radio Pacific, for Wednesday April 5, proudly sponsored by Neanderton Nicotine Ltd, the show that says bugger the politicians & bureaucrats & all the other bossyboot busybodies who try to run our lives with our money; that stands tall for free enterprise, achievement, profit & excellence against the state-worshippers in our midst; that stands above all for the most sacred thing in the universe, the liberty of the human individual.

[Music up, music down]

At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, I am going to reiterate today my ad-libbed comments over the past couple of days about the changes to the Matrimonial Property Act which our beloved totalitarian government is intending to foist on us, whereby all cohabiting couples, married or de facto, heterosexual or homosexual, will be obliged to split the assets of their relationship down the middle in the event of the relationship's breaking up, as is the case for married couples now. This is nothing less than yet another unconscionable intrusion by Nanny State into the private affairs of individuals, & a godsend for that class of people known as "gold-diggers."

Many people currently avoid marriage precisely to avoid the 50/50 asset split that the ending of a marriage would entail. Now this appalling government is going to try to snag absolutely everyone in a relationship in its net. The snooping that this will necessarily involve is unthinkable. Presumably we will be required to report to some authority that we are in a relationship. How, I wonder, will the government define the term? Is sexual intercourse going to be the decisive factor? If so, what frequency, over what period of time? What if one party, sniffing an opportunity for a windfall of things that aren't his, lays claim to a relationship & the other party, seeking to protect his assets, denies it? Are we to expect unannounced home invasions in the dead of night by Bonk Police? Are we to be dobbed in by nosey neighbours? Why on earth can't we be left alone to draw up our own contractual arrangements?

Politically Correct gay activists are hailing this move as a great advance. It is nothing of the sort. One of the great catch-cries of the homosexual law reform movement when homosexual acts were illegal was Pierre Trudeau's "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." That's true. This proposal would put the state right back in there.

Of course, there are those who oppose the change for the wrong reasons - that it will "legitimise" relationships that are inherently sinful & pave the way for more gay couples to raise children ... raise them to be gay themselves. I have news for the proponents of this view. That which is not a choice cannot properly be morally condemned. Homosexuality is not a choice. The only choice a homosexual has is whether to accept the way he is or not. Heterosexual children raised by gay parents will remain heterosexual, as several heterosexuals so raised testified on Ritchie's programme the other day. The simple fact is that we don't yet know what "causes" homosexuality, though the smart money seems to be favouring genetics more & more. I always say that if it's not already there at birth, it might just as well be. Certainly, by the time one is aware of it as an inclination & as an issue, it is too late to change it, should one wish to.

So once again, as a freedom-lover, I am offside with both conservatives & so-called liberals - conservatives trotting out their medieval bigotry & "liberals" sanctioning yet another lengthening of the Leviathan state's tentacles. I'm used to that ... and in this case, most emphatically, it's where I CHOOSE to be.

Politically Incorrect Show ... upholding freedom - consistently. 309 3099.

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe?