Cory Bernardi on why the left are winning the media wars at Catallaxy Files

Cory Bernardi on why the left are winning the media wars

For too long conservatives have relied on the righteousness of our arguments, not being overly bothered by the misrepresentations of the left. Alas, that is why the left is winning the media war.

While we claim virtuousness as an asset, they use it as our greatest weakness, knowing that many of their misrepresentations will mostly go unchallenged.

And yet, despite the plethora of left-biased media, the Australian people seem to have it sussed. Many Australians don’t buy most of what is peddled through the leftist press. Instinctively, they knew the alarmist global-warming rhetoric to be a con. They know that redefining marriage is, at best, a fifth- rate issue and nothing like a priority, and they know that the growing challenges to our culture are grounds for concern.

Of course, little of this is reflected in much of the mainstream media and, regrettably, it is too rarely reflected by our political class. Too many are so captured by the desire for media approval that they neglect to actually engage in the battle of ideas. Instead, they prefer to reflect the prevailing orthodoxy in an attempt to gain some minuscule personal advantage.

It is a weakness that the leftist media repeatedly take advantage of. The mad ravings of the Greens are deemed sacraments of the new religion of political correctness whilst the common sense of the conservative is reported as controversial and outrageous.

One could excuse commercial media for pursuing such an agenda; after all, success will ultimately be defined by audience and profitability. However, when the greatest bias is so often demonstrated by the $1 billion-per-year taxpayer-funded ABC, we should be very concerned.
…
For conservatives, it can be frustrating and dispiriting to be faced with a seemingly endless barrage of hostility. It goes some way to explain why so few conservatives are prepared to stick their head above the parapet for fear of having it shot off. But it also illustrates why it is so important that we all support those who do.

Without the Andrew Bolts, the Piers Akermans, the Miranda Devines and the Gerard Hendersons, we would have very few advocates in the media.

Regrettably, in political life there are a limited number prepared to advocate what the media deem unfashionable. I can understand why; conservative advocacy comes without a personal cost. However, without the few that are prepared to stand for conservative principle and values in a hostile environment we would simply be abandoning the political field to the populist left.

Source: Quadrant Online.

Written by Sinclair Davidson

February 1st, 2013 at 3:58 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

224 Responses to 'Cory Bernardi on why the left are winning the media wars'

Subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'Cory Bernardi on why the left are winning the media wars'.

For too long conservatives have relied on the righteousness of our arguments

Gay marriage leads to bestiality?

Is it just possible that the media sees Cory Bernardi as a laughing stock because….. he is?

Grey

1 Feb 13 at 4:13 pm
Too many are so captured by the desire for media approval that they neglect to actually engage in the battle of ideas.

Tony Abbott, come on down!

Rabz

1 Feb 13 at 4:13 pm
Gay marriage leads to bestiality?

Really? He said that? He didn’t just ask the question of where do we stop once we legalise gay marriage? Interesting fact free world you live in.

MattR

1 Feb 13 at 4:17 pm
This may be partly true, as the two-party preferred polls would back it up:

the Australian people seem to have it sussed. Many Australians don’t buy most of what is peddled through the leftist press. Instinctively, they knew the alarmist global-warming rhetoric to be a con. They know that redefining marriage is, at best, a fifth- rate issue and nothing like a priority, and they know that the growing challenges to our culture are grounds for concern.

He contradicts himself further down, saying:

One could excuse commercial media for pursuing such an agenda; after all, success will ultimately be defined by audience and profitability.

And I think he’s become confused when saying “conservative advocacy comes without a personal cost.” I think he meant the opposite.

blogstrop

1 Feb 13 at 4:17 pm
Spot on Rabz.

Lew

1 Feb 13 at 4:19 pm
For conservatives, it can be frustrating and dispiriting to be faced with a seemingly endless barrage of hostility. It goes some way to explain why so few conservatives are prepared to stick their head above the parapet for fear of having it shot off.

This.

sdog

1 Feb 13 at 4:22 pm
“Gay marriage leads to bestiality?”

Don’t think Mr Bernardi meant that. But he put the words in the same sentence and to a radio listener, given the short attention to things, it came out that way. in my opinion, anyway.

candy

1 Feb 13 at 4:38 pm
Gay marriage leads to bestiality?

Thank you Grey. You have just provided further evidance to back Cori’s point.

We all know what he said and the point he was making. We also know how the love media twisted what he said to make him look bad. Now you have demonstrated how the unthinking have just lapped it up believeing it to be true.

Well Done.

Own goal.

johno

1 Feb 13 at 4:43 pm
I must have missed the bit in the Quadrant article that discusses gay marriage, bestiality and what Bernardi is to have said on the subject. Strange but I read an article on how the media has a left bias and conservative commentators are treated with hostility by media.

Gab

1 Feb 13 at 4:45 pm
In theory that is why the ABC exists, to ensure that their is balance. To be an umpire, to look beyond the political message and poliytical agenda of a political party, and seek the truth.

Every time i see bias on the abc, i see political corruption of the abc.

They have become a law unto themselves, and they are not deserving of either the respect or the support of the people any longer.

The CSIRO and many of Australias Uniiversities have also been corrupted and pursuing political agendas.

Peter

1 Feb 13 at 4:46 pm
But the issue is not felt at just the top, with the Bernardis, the Bolts and others named. Its just more public there.

The same thing occurs across social media and to a lesser extent, in ‘Real Life’, to anybody who ‘sticks their head up’.

The Cat makes a good training ground for learning to fire back though. A constant stream of lefty targets make their own contribution to the cause.

As johno pointed out :

Thank you Grey. You have just provided further evidance to back Cori’s point.

We all know what he said and the point he was making. We also know how the love media twisted what he said to make him look bad. Now you have demonstrated how the unthinking have just lapped it up believeing it to be true.

.

Case in point.

DriftForge

1 Feb 13 at 4:52 pm
He didn’t just ask the question of where do we stop once we legalise gay marriage?

Of course Bernadi didn’t mean that, the left wing attacks on him are nonsense (they care about gay rights as long as gays vote for socialist parties and policies) but if he thinks such a slippery slope exists, I hazard to say he has lived a sheltered life.

.

1 Feb 13 at 4:55 pm
It goes some way to explain why so few conservatives are prepared to stick their head above the parapet for fear of having it shot off. But it also illustrates why it is so important that we all support those who do.

I think we all need to go with JC to some leftist soiree and watch him in action to get tips on how to confront the filth head on.

Shamefully I usually bite my tongue around leftists and just wish them a painful agonizing death after suffering 3 decades of poverty and tinea.

Infidel Tiger

1 Feb 13 at 4:55 pm
Case in point.

Okay, I concede that’s a good point and pertinent to the topic.

Gab

1 Feb 13 at 5:01 pm
The left are winning the media war because the media are largely of the left. I don’t think Cory Bernardi can do much to change that, but it would probably help if he wasn’t an obvious dick from time to time.

Pedro

1 Feb 13 at 5:17 pm
“Shamefully I usually bite my tongue around leftists and just wish them a painful agonizing death after suffering 3 decades of poverty and tinea.”

why would you do that? Stupid ideas don’t make a bad person.

And yeah, he was verballed, not!
“Mr Bernardi tried to link bestiality with same sex marriage in the Senate last night when he said: ”There are even some creepy people out there . . . who say that it is OK to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals . . . will that be a future step”.”

Pedro

1 Feb 13 at 5:22 pm
And so we continue to learn from Grey that the political left continue to fabricate their histories. One wonders what historical event of repugnance wasn’t the result of their fabrication.

Louis Hissink

1 Feb 13 at 5:22 pm
To understand the leftist retards you have to understand the level at which they operate. Those who use the biff only understand the biff. To try to talk rationally to a retard is like quoting shakespeare to a bogan. Know your audience. You have to operate at their level. Prepare your arguments well dont hold back by being decent, give them both barrels.

Sirocco

1 Feb 13 at 5:23 pm
“One wonders what historical event of repugnance wasn’t the result of their fabrication.”

????

“To understand the leftist retards …”

WTF, you know, it’s one thing to not agree with lefties, but to assume then evil etc is just nuts. All the lefties I know are intelligent people who have a set of values that lead them to prefer a different social structure. Now, some of them in my view don’t properly understand the economic consequence of their preferred policies, but exactly the same can be said for many conservatives. One of my best mates is a die-hard anti-labor and can’t really ever understand how protectionism is crap.

If you look at all the first world countries and compare the more to the less socialist of them, you’re still looking at the peak of human civilisation and achievement as we know it. For all its socialist ills, France is a fucking paradise compared to most of human society before the 20th century.

Being stupid just invites your dismissal as a right-wing nutbag.

Pedro

1 Feb 13 at 5:30 pm
The Conservative and Libertarian Right rarely provide full throated arguments in favour of their causes….except here at the Cat. It reminds me of Robert Downey Junior talking to Ben Stiller in Tropic Thunder: ‘you never go the full retard man.’ Most of the ALP understand that, but the Greens don’t and much of the media don’t. Sooner or later market forces and the ABC will destroy Lefty media.

John Comnenus

1 Feb 13 at 5:31 pm
“And so we continue to learn from Grey that the political left continue to fabricate their histories.”

People who care more about scoring points against their ideological foes than the facts will always try to show their target in the worst possible light. But please don’t pretend it’s something unique to one group or another.

Jarrah

1 Feb 13 at 5:34 pm
And yeah, he was verballed, not!
“Mr Bernardi tried to link bestiality with same sex marriage in the Senate last night when he said: ”There are even some creepy people out there . . . who say that it is OK to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals . . . will that be a future step”.”

In a debate around changing marriage law to accommodate a sexual practice that is not the norm and not part of the historical concept and raisin d’être of marriage, it’s verboten for him to ask how this new precedent might expand to encompass further deviant behavior?

So… No debate allowed. Thanks for the advice.

Abu Chowdah

1 Feb 13 at 5:38 pm
Case in point Gerard Henderson’s smackdown of Dennis Atkins in this weeks Media Watch dog

Dennis tries flails his way through misquotes and lies only to be put back in his box with the facts.

One could excuse commercial media for pursuing such an agenda; after all, success will ultimately be defined by audience and profitability. However, when the greatest bias is so often demonstrated by the $1 billion-per-year taxpayer-funded ABC, we should be very concerned.

I stopped reading Atkins tripe long ago especially when he outed himself as being a fellow traveller of old Leatherface.

Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Splatacrobat

1 Feb 13 at 5:42 pm
Pedro,

Whether it’s Abbott punching a wall, the British being accused of genocide in Australia, and the list could easily be extended with further examples, but the point is that lefties seem to impute the nastiest of characteristics on their political opponents while the conservatives, as Benardi suggests, don’t. And they seem oblivious to the fact that they do it. On a more personal level, people I know well often blurt out that they “hate” George Bush, for example. Why? Apparently they doin’t know, they just do.

But if it hits a raw nerve by saying so, then so be it. I’m one red necked wing nut quite happy to mix it.

Louis Hissink

1 Feb 13 at 5:50 pm
Gay marriage leads to bestiality?

The acceptance of gay ‘marriage’ would lead to the acceptance of – or indifference to – bestiality, certainly. We’ve shown this here many times.

C.L.

1 Feb 13 at 5:53 pm
“Why the left is winning the media war”

Ok well said that man. A reluctance by conservatives to engage in public debate and commentary is ONE of the reasons but THE reason?

What about the ongoing left turn in all sections of the public education system which reliably produces successive generations of receptive little ears?

What about the successful infiltration of those former bastions of conservative orthodoxy, the ABC and Fairfax? I know plenty of people who continue to get their social and political commentary from these two as they. Because once upon a time you would not be seen dead reading a Murdoch publication. They remain blissfully unaware that times have changed and that they have been fucked in the head.

And then what about the reality that the left has been way more successful than the right at distilling its public messages down to a few core memes. Like “Labor will always stand up for the rights of the working man and working families” “Labor believes in a fair go for all Australians” Labor owns these trite lies which are also highly palatable and easily digested by those who prefer their political opinions partially ‘pre-digested’.

Also there is that Darwinian imperative of the Labor preselection process…..if you are not a brainless patsy, then you need to be an impeccably good liar and/or to be brutal and totally remorseless when disposing of political rivals. This breeds highly mendacious parliamentary psychopaths but hey- whatever it takes.

By way of contrast the conservative political movement (at least the one I see in Australia) does not burn with this killer instinct. I am more than happy with that state of affairs, but it does rather make them a bit like bunnies in the headlights.

There is also the subject of unity (or lack of it) in the conservative world. In a general sense you can argue this is characteristic of a healthy society.
But for a modern political movement, it is about as useful as smallpox.

A constructive disposition for everybody who inclines towards the conservative/libertarian world view is to get right behind of Abbott, quit bitching and make sure he has enough wind beneath his wings to put the current bunch of crooks and spivs in opposition for decades.

That this is unlikely to happen provides yet one more reason why the left are winning the media war.

Tapdog

1 Feb 13 at 5:56 pm
Very intelligent piece by Bernardi. Note that in the most recent outbreak of hysteria relating to Bernardi, Australia’s Fred Nile left – which is now actuated by Roxonian Presbyterianism – attacks him as a political witch for being not anti-smoking. This is like pre-World War II Australia – in which protestant divines routinely held forth in the press about the evil of “Roman” Catholics and their gambling, drinking and tobacconist shops.

C.L.

1 Feb 13 at 6:02 pm
LH, to be fair, I knew you didn’t mean it literally, but when you write stuff like that people will think you’re talking about the holocaust or what ever. You weren’t, were you? And both sides have plenty of people who are basically raving loonies.

CL, no you haven’t. It’s completely bone-headed to say that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to the acceptance of beastiality. The two things are totally different as should be apparent to any rational and right-thinking person.

Pedro

1 Feb 13 at 6:06 pm
I can you from somewhat bitter personal experience that the ALP wages a vituperative and vindictive war against any person who is seen to be publicly supporting opposing ideas or organizations, or even one of their own who has been cast as a rat.

Brett

1 Feb 13 at 6:06 pm
It’s completely bone-headed to say that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to the acceptance of beastiality.

Not at all.

Many times, we have shown here that advocates of gay ‘marriage’ (all 11 of them) cannot logically establish why a man should not be permitted to ‘marry’ a beagle.

C.L.

1 Feb 13 at 6:12 pm
CL, no you haven’t. It’s completely bone-headed to say that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to the acceptance of beastiality. The two things are totally different as should be apparent to any rational and right-thinking person.

Two men declaring their sexual engagements to be normal, while less weird on the spectrum of sexual peccadilloes than beastiality, is none the less an aberration of nature.

So the two are related.

Abu Chowdah

1 Feb 13 at 6:17 pm
Shamefully I usually bite my tongue around leftists and just wish them a painful agonizing death after suffering 3 decades of poverty and tinea.

Tintarella di Luna

1 Feb 13 at 6:22 pm
I think we all need to go with JC to some leftist soiree and watch him in action to get tips on how to confront the filth head on.

It’s freaking easy. Just think of it as a live Catallaxy and fucking hammer them.

Dude, I had a woman walk out of the room in NYC last November at a friends party. Just keep telling them they are wrong.. embarrassingly so.

Shamefully I usually bite my tongue around leftists and just wish them a painful agonizing death after suffering 3 decades of poverty and tinea.

I know what you mean as I used to do that. But you get over it and begin to enjoy it. Never “agree to disagree” and never ever let up. Fuck’em.

It becomes fun. Wives may walk away but so what. Who cares.

JC

1 Feb 13 at 6:24 pm
Many times, we have shown here that advocates of gay ‘marriage’ (all 11 of them) cannot logically establish why a man should not be permitted to ‘marry’ a beagle.

Because marriage is a contract and beagles can’t enter into contracts?

Grey

1 Feb 13 at 6:25 pm
Oh FFS not this argument again…

squawkbox

1 Feb 13 at 6:27 pm
If Abbot was prepared to bring back public flogging for the ABC lefties I would begin to feel less uncomfortable with him. With little prospect of seeing the little flecks of skin coming away, stroke by stroke, from the shuddering backs of the neo-comms, I am left with the need to support Abbot but no real enthusiasm. You cannot correct misthinking without some public examples for the young people to laugh at.

WhaleHunt Fun

1 Feb 13 at 6:37 pm
Tons of social conservatives bugger all economic conservatives in the Liberal party.

Bloody Abbott, 4 years paid preggy leave anyone?

Alfonso

1 Feb 13 at 6:39 pm
Because marriage is a contract and beagles can’t enter into contracts?

Well Peter Singer reckons beastiality is fine he doesn’t see a problem with consent in that scenario? Is that was stuffed you Grigio, or are you merely a taxidermist’s mistake.

Tintarella di Luna

1 Feb 13 at 6:52 pm
For too long conservatives have relied on the righteousness of our arguments, not being overly bothered by the misrepresentations of the left. Alas, that is why the left is winning the media war.

Pedro – that is the context.
Scratch a socialist and you only find a failed capitalist. Unable to create their own wealth they resort to stealing the wealth created by others. (Thomsom Obeids et al) Any fool with half a brain cell can come up with an idea to spend other people’s money. It takes two brain cells to create that wealth in the first place, only half a brain cell to waste it. Do not be diverted by the platitudes of the guilt inducing motherhood statements, society can afford only what it produces

Sirocco

1 Feb 13 at 6:53 pm
Bloody Abbott, 4 years paid preggy leave anyone?

Too bloody late for me Alfonso and wouldn’t bloody want it anyway.

Tintarella di Luna

1 Feb 13 at 6:55 pm
Being conservative economically often paints a bigger target than being socially conservative. Being socially conservative just means wanting your shot at the trough. Being economically conservative means you want to turn off the tap.

Get it from all sides then…

Driftforge

1 Feb 13 at 6:57 pm
It’s freaking easy. Just think of it as a live Catallaxy and fucking hammer them.

JC:

Dude, I had a woman walk out of the room in NYC last November at a friends party. Just keep telling them they are wrong.. embarrassingly so.

Yes. And it works brilliantly but you must know your facts chapter and sources and verse.

I know what you mean as I used to do that. But you get over it and begin to enjoy it. Never “agree to disagree” and never ever let up. Fuck’em.

Yes, with bells on. Hammer the bastards and never stop.

It becomes fun. Wives may walk away but so what. Who cares.

Yes, it DOES become fun, and it becomes fun for your wife as well, if my better half is anything to go by!

Mk50 of Brisbane

1 Feb 13 at 6:57 pm
“the point is that lefties seem to impute the nastiest of characteristics on their political opponents while the conservatives, as Benardi suggests, don’t.”

LOL

Jarrah

1 Feb 13 at 7:00 pm
Well Peter Singer reckons beastiality is fine he doesn’t see a problem with consent in that scenario?

He wasn’t talking about marriage, rather about decriminalization.

If bestiality wasn’t on the statute books, would we want to put it there? I would have assumed a law against mistreatment of animals should suffice.

Grey

1 Feb 13 at 7:06 pm
I absolutely agree with Bernadi’s comments.

I’m sure someone has already said it, but could you imagine if the ICAC hearings were hearing a case against an ex-LNP parliamentarian – the streets would run with the journo’s frothing at the mouth about them. Imagine also, that a LNP Pollie had been arrested (arrested mind you!), there would be calls from the journo’s of public whippings! And quite rightly in my view. If you earn you damned living at the expense of the tax payer, then you get it right! If you are not up to the job, then get out!

But what do we hear from the likes of the ABC and NoCustomers – bloody silence!!!!

Dianne (on behalf of himself)

1 Feb 13 at 7:18 pm
Sorry – the rant has started again.

He’s watching the msm news – flood appeal or whatever it is, bloke with 24 staff & he doesn’t have insurance -

And we have to bail him out! Why aren’t they screaming about that instead of…Tony Abbott wants to be liked???

Dianne (on behalf of himself)

1 Feb 13 at 7:23 pm
He wasn’t talking about marriage

No in the context of beastiality Singer perhaps was talking about sex outside of marriage.

a law against mistreatment of animals should suffice.

You’d think so wouldn’t you? but in Singer’s warped world it would not be mistreatment because they would love it, so ‘sOK. There goes the pride of Australia Peter Singer AC –

Tintarella di Luna

1 Feb 13 at 7:24 pm
He wasn’t talking about marriage, rather about decriminalization.

If ~~bestiality~~ Sodomy wasn’t on the statute books, would we want to put it there?

There’s your slippery slope.

Splatacrobat

1 Feb 13 at 7:34 pm
Gays aren’t animals. The beagle thing is silly.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 7:40 pm
The beagle thing is silly.

of course it is.

Tintarella di Luna

1 Feb 13 at 7:43 pm
You’d think so wouldn’t you? but in Singer’s warped world it would not be mistreatment because they would love it, so ‘sOK

I guess most of them would prefer it to a trip to the Abbottoir. But we will find out in September if the turkeys really do vote for Christmas.

Grey

1 Feb 13 at 7:51 pm
SDFC

I honestly don’t think anyone here has ever made even close to suggesting gay people want to marry their pets. It’s never ever been said here.

And By the way I couldn’t care less about marriage for libertarian reasons and because of the risk to men in an exist.

The argument came up when people against gay marriage have suggested that if we allow such a thing, it’s very difficult to argue that we should not allow other mating variations such as having multiple partners to a marriage. There is a strong intellectual argument there that proponents of gay marriage refute by ether giggling about these suggestions or telling people to shut up.

CL once suggested that if people believe the state has the right to determine who can and can’t get married there is no logical argument to deny a person who wants to marry a tree or a beagle.

JC

1 Feb 13 at 7:51 pm
of course it is.

Well actually it’s not. I couldn’t care less if a person wants to marry a rock, but it’s actually not silly.

JC

1 Feb 13 at 7:52 pm
There is a logical argument against beagle marriage JC, gays are not animals.

By the way, I don’t really care about gay marriage either.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 7:53 pm
There is a logical argument against beagle marriage JC, gays are not animals.

SDFC. Stop being an idiot. No one is suggesting gays want to marry animals, you idiot.

However there are people have tried to marry their pets.

It’s really hard to discuss anything with leftwingers. They just don’t think clearly and objectively

JC

1 Feb 13 at 7:57 pm
Who’s being an idiot you are saying gay marriage puts on the slippery slope to beagle marriage. Presumably because gays are no better than animals.

If I am misrepresenting you do try to explain without the hissy fit.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 7:59 pm
Jarrah as Jiminy Cricket tonight. Save us!

blogstrop

1 Feb 13 at 8:03 pm
If I am misrepresenting you do try to explain without the hissy fit.

I have twice. Let’s try a third time.

See if this works.

Why would you want to stop a person marrying their pet? Try and respond by not even mentioning the word “gay”.

Go!

JC

1 Feb 13 at 8:03 pm
I find the Sisters Of Perpetual Indulgence, a favourite annual “outing” at the decadent Mardi Gras making fun of nuns, to be at once childish and offensive. And I’m not Catholic.

blogstrop

1 Feb 13 at 8:05 pm
Pet’s are not human. Is it so hard?

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 8:06 pm
really JC

You are treading on some dangerous (somehwat silly) ground here. Sdfc has got you and deservedly so old man.

Aliice

1 Feb 13 at 8:06 pm
Who can forget the hissy fit when the army took the piss out of gays.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 8:07 pm
Pet’s are not human. Is it so hard?

So what, is the argument? If marriage is redefined away from of an act between a man and woman, why is the new “human” concept a limitation? That’s the argument SDFC.

Alice, shut up.

JC

1 Feb 13 at 8:12 pm
I can remember when the ABC had a show called “The Naked Vicar Show” and they thought that title inoffensive. The acid test though, for any re-run of it, would be whether they’d still include the sketch about Australian ballet dancers, in which they had competitive Aussies saying “C’mon! Our poofs can beat your poofs any day.”

blogstrop

1 Feb 13 at 8:14 pm
Who’s calling who “old” here?

blogstrop

1 Feb 13 at 8:16 pm
By the same logic JC, we should never have decriminalised homosexuality.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 8:28 pm
The slippery slope exists. Now that the taboos against gay marriage are falling, polyamorists are agitating for legalisation of their particular fetish. The arguments for gay marriage work equally well for them. And next NAMBLA and similar groups will push for adult-tween relationships. Once you deny history and the sociological imperatives of centuries and decree that marriage is not exclusively a relationship between husband (male) and wife (female), then the floodgates are opened. I have nothing against state recognised relationships between gay couples (I’ve been a Best Man at a Gay Commitment ceremony), just let them coin their own word and not try to appropriate the current institution of marriage. You cannot legislate for respect or acceptance, and that is all this gay marriage movement is about.

Cold-Hands

1 Feb 13 at 8:29 pm
So gays are pedos now? It remember to clutch those straws tightly as you are going down the slippery slope.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 8:31 pm
Me “ols” calling JC “old” Blog.
The old man wont mind.

Aliice

1 Feb 13 at 8:32 pm
sorry me “old” above

Aliice

1 Feb 13 at 8:32 pm
JC I am shutting up now. Its bedtime.

Aliice

1 Feb 13 at 8:33 pm
Newspapers and TV stations are big businesses that increase readership and revenue by presenting factual and informative news. Competition forces media outlets to cater to their customer’s preferences.

Positive profits accrue to those media outlets who are better than their competitors. Their lesser rivals will lost rating and advertising support and exhaust their retained earnings and fail to attract further investor support.

The most marginal members of mass media audiences will be women. Slightly more women and men vote to the centre-left. This would normally suggest that the media is biased slightly to the centre left.

I think the best of the measures of media bias used endorsements of state-level initiatives and referendums. U.S. newspapers are located almost exactly at the median voter in their home states.

Jim Rose

1 Feb 13 at 8:36 pm
I will leave JC alone to blog and sell shares in the middle of the night….How I feel sory for you JC. I could no sooner stay up to midnight any more than fly to the moon.
But more than a few of you lot are real nightowls.

Aliice

1 Feb 13 at 8:37 pm
Excellent, an argument about gay marriage…we’ve never had that before here at the Cat…and really does pertain to the thread topic too. Well done.

Gab

1 Feb 13 at 8:37 pm
Jarrah:

‘the point is that lefties seem to impute the nastiest of characteristics on their political opponents while the conservatives, as Benardi suggests, don’t.’ LOL

Jarrah as neither a leftist nor a conservative (or indeed a libertarian), I’d comment that while this statement has the weakness of all generalities, it also has a grain of truth.

Quite a few lefties, especially the hard left, honestly believe and repeatedly state that conservatives are evil or insane, and have to be killed/driven out/disenfranchised/sent to labour camps.

And there is absolutely no doubt that everywhere ont he planet where the hard left has gotten into real power, this is exactly what has happened. (USSR, PRC, DPRK, Warsaw pact countries, Hitler’s germany, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Venezeula and the list goes on). They also do the same to elements of the centre left.

Even the most far right-wing groups (no, skinhead groups are not included as they are actually criminal gangs) are nowhere near this. Even when authoritarian military governments get into power (Chile, Francoist Spain, Argentina, South Korea under Rhee, Greece under the Colonels) the historical record shows orders of magnitude fewer deaths in absolute and relative terms compared to far left governments, and a later transition to democracy is the demonstrated norm.

So, with the weaknesses of a generality accepted, that staement is far more correct than not.

Mk50 of Brisbane

1 Feb 13 at 8:40 pm
There is not a media war. There is a Cultural War and a Political War, the media ground being a decisive battlefield in it. Note that whilst Murdoch media interests are not overwhelmingly outnumbered in Australia as they are in the USA, who could realistically rely on it to remain (or be allowed to remain) engaged.

Andrew Breitbart summed up the Cultural War at the heart of all this very well and stressed increased engagement, not retreat or surrender. In words which bear repeating.

“They would say I shouldn’t have appeared on (Bill)Maher, because it was an audience stacked against me. But that’s the same mentality that led the right to abandon Hollywood, academia and the media – and the effects have been disastrous. The right figures that talk radio, Fox News and some independent internet sites will allow us to distribute our ideas to the masses. There’s one problem: those outlets are exponentially outnumbered and outgunned by the Complex. They’re Alinsky-ed by the activist left, which insists that Fox News is Faux News and talk radio is hate radio. Obama is leading the charge, targeting specific hosts and specific outlets. Remember Rush Limbaugh? Or their insistence that Fox News isn’t a real news outlet like CNN or MSNBC? …………..”

and

“The army of the emboldened and gleefully ill-informed is growing. Groupthink happens and we have to take it head-on. We can’t win the political war until we win the cultural war. The Frankfurt School knew that – that’s why they won the cultural war and then, on its back, the political war. We can do the same but we have to be willing to enter the arena”.

M Ryutin

1 Feb 13 at 8:50 pm
So gays are pedos now?
Thank you sdfc. You too have just provided further evidance to back Cori’s point.

Cold-Hands

1 Feb 13 at 8:56 pm
How?

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 8:57 pm
On that cultural war point (and the Frankfurt School) I was interested to see the article in The Australian today by Daniel Henninger of the WSJ where the Obama future is heavily laced with doses straight from Herbert Marcuse, heavy of that School. You get the stark picture as to what is at stake. There AND here.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/thunderdome-rules-apply-as-obama-takes-off-the-gloves/story-fnay3ubk-1226566257085

M Ryutin

1 Feb 13 at 9:08 pm
…and really does pertain to the thread topic too. Well done.

Thanks Gabrielle. Quite right.

I have pointed out ad nauseum that (a) the left domination of the media is a flow-on from the coagulation of leftisms present in the arts faculties, the graphic arts, performing arts, writing, journalism; and (b) that democracy is not just ill-served by dishonest media, but undermined by it. PC is a disease and is spread by this sick culture. It degrades our ability to resist.

The creeping takeover has gone so far that conservatives are now afraid to state their case. As with the Islamic’s gradual infiltration, aided by the left, this will probably end in some form of either (i) subjugation, or (ii) revolt. Time will tell.

blogstrop

1 Feb 13 at 9:12 pm
Cory Bernadi is my favourite politician.

Imagine a party of Corys. I’d vote for them in a heartbeat.

jupes

1 Feb 13 at 9:19 pm
“So, with the weaknesses of a generality accepted, that staement is far more correct than not.”

The weakness isn’t in its generality, but in its one-sidedness.

You also seem confused about what Louis was saying. It was about attribution of nasty characteristics, rather than the existence of such.

Jarrah

1 Feb 13 at 9:26 pm
Pedro,

I afterwards realised your were responding to another and thought, hell, stuffed that up. Never mind, from mistakes we learn.

As for the Holocaust, I will adopt the Sargent Schultze position – but will aver I have no objection to being labelled a denier, since as an empiricist, I driven by physical fact and data, not group think.

I was obliquely hinting that the left, with their habit of fabrication, have even more to answer for with their patently obvious fabrication of wealth from lowering interest rates printing money. (I’m writing an article on this for Henry this weekend).

Louis Hissink

1 Feb 13 at 10:00 pm
Jupes, heartbeat voting is a bit emotional, no? Vewy, vewy lefty.

Louis Hissink

1 Feb 13 at 10:04 pm
I must add that using the term “fabrication” I am not using the word in the sense that it means building something from existing physical things, but using it in the sense of building an intellectuality whose existence is affirmed by consensus.

Louis Hissink

1 Feb 13 at 10:18 pm
Yes. And it works brilliantly but you must know your facts chapter and sources and verse.

And amen to that! I like to quote the quran at people when we play comparative theology. Nobody can ever show me where in the bible it’s written that you should beat your wife if you think she’ll misbehave. (See 4.34 in the quran).

It has a tendency to shut down feminists and wimpy lefties, and has led me to this current stage where some of my friends keep a watch on me when they introduce me to new people. To make sure I’m not too intense.

Apparently people find facts intimidating and while all the information is easy to find, a lot of people just don’t know where to find it.

Or something.

I don’t think they’re game to tell me to shut up.

nilk

1 Feb 13 at 10:30 pm
The beagle thing is silly.

Explain to me why a legislature that redefines marriage to permit a ‘union’ between two men (for the first time in human history) cannot also decree that a man can marry a beagle.

GO!

C.L.

1 Feb 13 at 10:36 pm
C.L. Such a union might produce the Beagle Boys ???

Louis Hissink

1 Feb 13 at 10:40 pm
You are equating gays with dogs. Of course it is silly. By your logic, homosexuality should still be a criminal offence.

Go where?

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 10:40 pm
He is not equating gays with dogs, sdfc, but for you to imply that that is not a Nice Thing, isn’t that animalist of you?

nilk

1 Feb 13 at 10:42 pm
Well, such a union certainly explains Tubbsy, Snake Eyes and the windjammer.

Mk50 of Brisbane

1 Feb 13 at 10:43 pm
You are equating gays with dogs.

LOL.

OK.

Explain to me why a legislature that redefines marriage to permit a ‘union’ between two men (for the first time in human history) cannot also decree that a man can marry a lighthouse.

GO!

C.L.

1 Feb 13 at 10:44 pm
Explain to me why a legislature that redefines marriage to permit a ‘union’ between two men (for the first time in human history) cannot also decree that a man can marry a lighthouse.

Any port in a storm.

Infidel Tiger

1 Feb 13 at 10:47 pm
Gays are human. For the umpteenth time. Your argument is ridiculous.

By your logic homosexuality should be a criminal offence. Just admit it and we can move on.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 10:48 pm
Gays are human.

OK.

Explain to me why a legislature that redefines marriage to permit a ‘union’ between two men (for the first time in human history) cannot also decree that a man can marry 17 other men.

GO!

C.L.

1 Feb 13 at 10:49 pm
It is a waste of time; sdfc has no arguments other than the setting up of straw men.

Gays aren’t animals. The beagle thing is silly.

So gays are pedos now?

You are equating gays with dogs.

Cold-Hands

1 Feb 13 at 10:50 pm
Too much bundy to comment on trivialities like gay marriage.

John Comnenus

1 Feb 13 at 10:51 pm
another thread about f&($(*g gay marriage.

Gab

1 Feb 13 at 10:52 pm
SDFC emailed me and asked me to tell you CL… and I’m, quoting here..

Hi JC

I can’t post on the Cat for some reason.

Please tell CL that’s even sillier. 17 of course is a prime number and not divisible by 2.

Thanks

SDFC.

JC

1 Feb 13 at 10:53 pm
What are you talking about JC?

Cold Hands. Just summarising your key points.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 10:56 pm
What are you talking about JC?

You don’t think 17 is a prime number now?

JC

1 Feb 13 at 11:01 pm
And tiresome as this argument is, CL is perfectly correct.

If a societal bedrock institution like marriage is altered in social form to ‘any personal relationship between two persons irrespective of gender’ (as the handful of extremist activists pushing this agenda say they want), then there is no standard left.

On what moral, ethical or legal basis can such ‘marriage’ be denied to MFF+ polygamists? To MMM+ or FFF+ polyhomosexuals? Why is it OK for two homosexuals to ‘marry’ but not three? Especially if it’s all about ‘luuuurve‘?

What about Sharia Muslims and nine-year old girls?

What about Pederasts from Kandahar and their catamites, and the goats they ‘luuurve’ to have sex with?

This is the point CL has repeatedly made about the slippery slope and it’s perfectly valid.

if it is fine for Steve and Bruce to ‘marry’, where do you stop? Where can you stop?

No. Enough. Marriage is for a man and a woman as it represents an institution to socially recognise their bond and to enable them societal recognition of the hard yakka involved in raising the children on which society depends for its survival: the institution causes them to be able to conserve capital in order to attend to the massive 15-20 year task of raising children. If Bruce and Steve want some form of recognition of their luuurve for each other, fine. No problem. Civil registration of a pair bond and full access to super, savings, joint bank accounts – and the divorce system. Then they can have their very own ceremony, hell, they can establish bruce and Steve’s Temple of the pederast and worship the Great Freckle for all I care.

But marriage it is not.

What’s actually so damned funny about this subject is that most homosexuals think the whole idea is both wrong and stupid for exactly the reasons CL does – slippery slope. Certainly those of my extended family who are homosexual think so – but they are perfectly comfortable in their own skins, are a normal and well-loved part of the extended family. None are “… those bloody idiot inner city psychotic arseholes who hate their sexuality and are trying to ram it down everyone else’s bloody throat.”

Yeah, this was much discussed at the family Christmas shindig.

Mk50 of Brisbane

1 Feb 13 at 11:03 pm
another thread about f&($(*g gay marriage.

Indeed. Let us recall eight months ago the historic and glorious revolt in the peoples house where despite relentless and vicious pressure from the 1%er’s in the media the ever courageous Julia Gillard and more than half of the ALP crossed the floor and literally stood shoulder to shoulder with Catholic Tony Abbott and the Coalition in order to resoundingly reject the very idea of “gay marriage”. You’d think that would cause *some people* to figure out that it’s a complete and utter non-issue in this nation.

Note though, that we no longer hear about it in Australia pop-culture anymore? Almost like before that historic occasion it was just…I dunnno, being used by a malicious segment of the population as an opportunistic attack on tradition or something and the moment that the ALP walked away from it instantly went from being this century’s Civil Rights Struggle too…a total non-issue.

Weird right?

twostix

1 Feb 13 at 11:09 pm
Are you really trying to convince people here I senbt you and email. That’s sad.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:11 pm
Astute observation, twostix.

Gab

1 Feb 13 at 11:11 pm
Are you really trying to convince people here I senbt you and email. That’s sad.

No you idiot. It would be seen as a joke. Settle down.

JC

1 Feb 13 at 11:12 pm
So MK50 admits he thinks gays are no better than dogs. That wasn’t so hard was it?

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:12 pm
Are you really trying to convince people here I senbt you and email. That’s sad

You know what’s sad, sdfc? You thinking people here didn’t pick up on JC’s joking ways.

Gab

1 Feb 13 at 11:13 pm
Stop blocking up the thread JC. We’re having an in depth discussion as to why gays are no better than gods.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:14 pm
dogs

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:14 pm
JC doesn’t appear to have much of a sense of humour Gab. But full marks for stickig up for him.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:15 pm
Three in a row you beauty. Now 4?

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:15 pm
If Bruce and Steve want some form of recognition of their luuurve for each other, fine. No problem. Civil registration of a pair bond and full access to super, savings, joint bank accounts – and the divorce system. Then they can have their very own ceremony, hell, they can establish bruce and Steve’s Temple of the pederast and worship the Great Freckle for all I care.

I agree with you, but I think you’ll find that CL and most of the other gay-haters here don’t. They are lying when they say it’s just the word marriage they are opposed to. They don’t think homosexuals should have the same rights that straight couples do when it comes to things like taxation, super etc. They think homosexuality should be illegal.

Yobbo

1 Feb 13 at 11:17 pm
JC doesn’t appear to have much of a sense of humour Gab

yes he does, he responds to you doesn’t he? Ease up on the alcohol, sdfc you don’t appear to be a funny drunk.

Gab

1 Feb 13 at 11:18 pm
“You’d think that would cause *some people* to figure out that it’s a complete and utter non-issue in this nation.”

[May 20, 2012] According to a Galaxy poll commissioned by The Sunday Telegraph, 50 per cent of voters surveyed now support laws allowing same-sex couples to marry in Australia.

Just one in three voters oppose gay marriage, with 17 per cent remaining uncommitted.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/big-vote-for-gay-marriage/story-e6freuy9-1226361022096

Jarrah

1 Feb 13 at 11:19 pm
No way.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:19 pm
Yes people who have a dissenting opinion towards same sex marriage are “gay-haters”.

Gab

1 Feb 13 at 11:20 pm
Equating them with dogs makes you a gay hater, yes.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:21 pm
SDFC:

So MK50 admits he thinks gays are no better than dogs.

You lie.

Mk50 of Brisbane

1 Feb 13 at 11:23 pm
No one has equated them to dogs, except for you.

Gab

1 Feb 13 at 11:23 pm
Yobbo

from a libertarian perspective why would it wrong to dislike gays, or say Italians or even Frogs?

JC

1 Feb 13 at 11:24 pm
You agree with CL MK50, who thinks marrying beagles is the same as gay marriage.

Keep trying Gab.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:25 pm
sdfc:

You agree with CL MK50, who thinks marrying beagles is the same as gay marriage.

You lie.

Mk50 of Brisbane

1 Feb 13 at 11:26 pm
If you dislike gays JC, it is best just to be honest about it rather than introduce silly arguments against gay marriage.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:26 pm
No it is for all to see upthread.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:27 pm
There’s no point, Mk50, sdfc is just hell bent on twisting words.

Gab

1 Feb 13 at 11:27 pm
Just one in three voters oppose gay marriage, with 17 per cent remaining uncommitted.

Lol.

Which is of course why 3/4 of the house of representatives voted against it.

Because 2/3 of the country are all gung-ho for it.

twostix

1 Feb 13 at 11:27 pm
You agree with CL MK50, who thinks marrying beagles is the same as gay marriage.

Our very first dog, a beagle.. perhaps the most gorgeous dog that ever lived and completely stupid was run over and killed. His name was Patrick and he hated dry dog food preferring fresh meat.

Can we use say Labrador in this example?

JC

1 Feb 13 at 11:29 pm
Does the gay community actually want gay marriage? I’d be very fucking surprised. They don’t strike me as the picket fence and white wedding types. But who knows, gays are such a small minority (except on TV and popular culture) it’d be a devil of a job to find one and ask.

Any gays at the Cat want to chime in and set me straight?

Infidel Tiger

1 Feb 13 at 11:29 pm
If you dislike gays JC, it is best just to be honest about it rather than introduce silly arguments against gay marriage.

Don’t use that line with me, Sandgroper. It doesn’t work.

JC

1 Feb 13 at 11:30 pm
Gab:

There’s no point, Mk50, sdfc is just hell bent on twisting words.

No, Gab.

It’s worse than that.

He is so bereft of an argument, of honesty, and of integrity that he prefers to manufacture a lie.

Mk50 of Brisbane

1 Feb 13 at 11:30 pm
sdfc (and now it appears Yobbo) have no other argument than “gay marriage dissenters are homophobes”. He hasn’t addressed any of the arguments offered except to riff off this. Either he’s intellectually bereft or he’s trolling. Either way, I’m not going to waste any more time on him.

Cold-Hands

1 Feb 13 at 11:31 pm
The actual real on the ground concrete support for “gay marriage”:

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201209/r1007150_11305980.jpg

Of course a daily telegraph popularity poll is way more realistic than that.

twostix

1 Feb 13 at 11:32 pm
IT, the ‘gay community’ in my extended family thinks the idea is divisive, thoroughly stupid, and anti-gay-culture.

Mk50 of Brisbane

1 Feb 13 at 11:32 pm
CL

Explain to me why a legislature that redefines marriage to permit a ‘union’ between two men (for the first time in human history) cannot also decree that a man can marry a beagle.

MK50
And tiresome as this argument is, CL is perfectly correct.

I just posted that at JQ site, I bet they’re confused.

No lie.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:33 pm
Our very first dog, a beagle.. perhaps the most gorgeous dog that ever lived and completely stupid

Oh? That’s unusual as Beagle’s are mostly quite intelligent. But look, as it causes you painful memories, we’ll use Alsatians instead.

Gab

1 Feb 13 at 11:33 pm
The actual real on the ground concrete support for “gay marriage”:

The only thing about that photo that makes me think it is unrepresentative is Bob Katter being on the “nay” side. Anyone that has witnessed that mincer in action knows he’s a friend of Dorothy’s.

He’s the biggest fruit in Australian public life for sure.

Infidel Tiger

1 Feb 13 at 11:35 pm
I’m done with the gay marriage debate. It’s a black hole. No pun intended.

sdfc

1 Feb 13 at 11:36 pm
Cute how this has descended into a Gay Marriage slanging match. No wonder Gillard and co. pull it out every time they need a distraction. You all just get so wound up and can’t help yourselves. That’s why the debate was started: to create a simple political distraction. If Gay Marriage is given sanction it ceases to be a useful political cover-issue. It won’t happen for that reason.

Paul

1 Feb 13 at 11:37 pm
Any gays at the Cat want to chime in and set me straight?

Interesting comment. Here’s what this libertarian gay dude said about gay marriage. He thinks it’s crap and agrees with the people opposing it here for the same sorta reasons along with the fact that it sounds really boring to him.

Raimondo makes the libertarian case that gay marriage is crap and he points out that it’s really based on the Marxist/Leftist angle- equality obsession.

http://takimag.com/article/gay_marriage_sucks/print#axzz2JeNAxUzg

That was his first essay. The later, though similar one is better I think.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-libertarian-case-against-gay-marriage/

JC

1 Feb 13 at 11:38 pm
“He’s the biggest fruit in Australian public life for sure.”

There’s more than you’ll ever know. They are corruptible while they want it hidden. That’s why they rise to the top. They can be controlled through bribery or blackmail. I’d have thought recent legal events would have shown you this.

Paul

1 Feb 13 at 11:41 pm
sdfc: Again, you lie.

Mk50 of Brisbane

1 Feb 13 at 11:42 pm
The left win the media wars because the right roll over and don’t play hardball.

Samuel J

1 Feb 13 at 11:42 pm
And also because they change the subject, SamuelJ, like JC’s feind SDFC has done here tonight on this very fred.

Gab

1 Feb 13 at 11:44 pm
Any gays at the Cat want to chime in and set me straight?

Given that it’s the internet you’ll be hearing from all the leftists who all have “heaps” of gay friends.

No actual gays will comment. It’s always leftists speaking on behalf of “all my gay friends”. And conveniently “all my gay friends” always agree 100% with said leftists politics.

Nothing will be said about the oddity that with less than 20 people in 1000 being gay how every single leftist on the internet has heaps of gay friends.

twostix

1 Feb 13 at 11:45 pm
sdfc has proved himself to be a troll quite bereft of nuance, basic honesty, integrity, any concept of morality, and even any real intelligence, hasn’t he?

His running, squealing like a little girl over to JQ’s blog to post a deliberate lie he’s manufactured because he had no answer to the slippery slope argument shows all of these point with pitiless clarity.

And now he has crawled away, whimpering like a whipped cur.

sdfc – the ultimate admission of grovelling surrender:

I’m done with the gay marriage debate.

Quite pitiful, really.

Mk50 of Brisbane

1 Feb 13 at 11:48 pm
And to think it was all about Scrooge McDuck’s enemies.

Sigh

Louis Hissink

1 Feb 13 at 11:50 pm
I’ll comment (again). I’ve been with my partner 28 years this month. I’m sick to death of people being all PC and asking me if we’ll be getting married. We aren’t interested in the slightest, never have been. We have some friends who have announced they’ll be off to get married somewhere or other, and we find it a bit creepy. Its not an issue that has ever come up until the activist element started telling us what we needed.

Paul

1 Feb 13 at 11:51 pm
He’s the biggest fruit in Australian public life for sure.

You sure? He seems so rugged and tough:

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2012/03/21/1226306/637637-bob-katter.jpg

twostix

1 Feb 13 at 11:52 pm
Good on ya, Paul.

Mk50 of Brisbane

1 Feb 13 at 11:56 pm
Er, scuse me?

But why are the media winning the wars?

How about thinking (sorry – that might cause some of your to paff into your boerwos and mealies, why the majority dismiss us?

Louis Hissink

1 Feb 13 at 11:58 pm
Paul, if your partner gets sick, who gets to make medical decisions on his behalf?

Yobbo

1 Feb 13 at 11:59 pm
Paul:

That’s one of the arguments Raimondo makes in the link above. The agitators in the gay community got onto to it and suddenly became a rights issue or in other words a marxist schtick of equality obsession.

It’s really interesting how the pro side try to squelch those opposing it.

I’ve said many times I really don’t give a rats about marriage for a number of reasons I won’t go into. Without even a shred of evidence, dick features (SDFC) says I must hate gay people, which is about as far away from the truth as it could possibly be even though I never said I opposed gay marriage. I just related to him what some people have argued here. What a dick.

JC

2 Feb 13 at 12:01 am
We have some friends who have announced they’ll be off to get married somewhere or other, and we find it a bit creepy.

According to Yobbo logic, that makes you a “gay-hater”.

Gab

2 Feb 13 at 12:02 am
Sorry, Paul, let me complete my comment (major thunderstorms here)

Good on you, my wife and I have been married a similar time and there’s not too many of us these days who can claim to have been with the same person that long.

Mk50 of Brisbane

2 Feb 13 at 12:03 am
I see sdfc has scuttled back underneath his flat rock.

The loser can’t take the heat, I guess.

Mk50 of Brisbane

2 Feb 13 at 12:04 am
He was probably a bit shocked that, after 8-10 years after commenting here in a friendly and civil manner, he accidentally took the wrong position on something and got abused and called a troll by the arbiters of truth.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 12:09 am
Paul, if your partner gets sick, who gets to make medical decisions on his behalf?

Me. Who else? I also work in Health care. I can assure you that long-term partners are the ones that make the decisions. Same as in any de-facto situation.

Paul

2 Feb 13 at 12:16 am
I’m a bit ticked with him Yobbo and it’s got absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

It’s to do with lying: putting words I did not say into my mouth.

What he said he posted at JQ’s is a straight-out falsehood.

SO yes, I am justifiably ticked off by that.

Yobbo:

I agree with you, but I think you’ll find that CL and most of the other gay-haters here don’t. They are lying when they say it’s just the word marriage they are opposed to.

I see your point, and I can’t say I have seen evidence of ‘gay-hating’, or ‘lying’: that said I have not inquired or even looked at such things.

They don’t think homosexuals should have the same rights that straight couples do when it comes to things like taxation, super etc. They think homosexuality should be illegal.

I can’t say I have observed evidence of that – and again I have not been looking. I’d be fairly surprised if that was the case given the usual give-and-take here.

Provided people keep private things private, seriously, who gives a damn?

So long as it all involves consenting adults in private, who cares?

I get as pissed off as my homosexual family members about bloody proselytisers who focus on essentially private matters. Don’t care if they are warbling about athiesm, taking it up the clacker or about three-way cream cheese bondage. They can sod off the lot of them.

Mk50 of Brisbane

2 Feb 13 at 12:21 am
Paul, I guess these people are just lying then:

My partner rode in the ambulance with me and stayed with me while I received treatment. However, when consent for further treatment was needed the hospital had to find my sister. Everything goes fine until the laws kick in and then the same sex partner is excluded.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 12:25 am
I can’t say I have observed evidence of that

The evidence is in their support of the status quo. Presently, gay couples do not have the same rights as straight couples in regards to many issues. And for many people on here, they think that’s perfectly fine.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 12:26 am
Me. Who else? I also work in Health care. I can assure you that long-term partners are the ones that make the decisions. Same as in any de-facto situation.

Paul you’re on a hiding to nothing.

According to the Yobbo’s and SDFC’s nurses literally physically blockade hospital room doors and prevent gay partners entering their dying partners hospital rooms purely because they can’t produce a government endorsed marriage certificate.

Yes, that is literally a story that was used here to “shame” everyone arguing against gay marriage.

The extraordinary mechanics of such a situation are never discussed but in any case everybody knows that you don’t have any rights toward your partner what-so-ever re:medical care, super, taxation, etc unless the government gives them to you. And don’t dare mention the word “de-facto” again. That doesn’t fit the narrative at all it’s marriage or bust.

twostix

2 Feb 13 at 12:36 am
I guess these people are just lying then:

That was made back in 2007, I’m just wondering if it’s still the same in 2013 or if that story was much older than when it was reported in 2007. For example:

The Acts Amendment (Lesbian and Gay Law Reform) Act 2002 removed all remaining legislative discrimination toward sexual orientation by adding the new definition of “de facto partner” into 62 Acts, provisions and statutes. Western Australia allows same-sex couples equal access to adoption procedures and in vitro fertilisation treatment. It also gives same-sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples in areas such as transfer of property, medical treatment, and inheritance upon the death of a partner. A same-sex couple who utilise artificial insemination or ‘in vitro’ fertilisation treatment together (i.e., both parties present as a couple throughout the treatment) are able to have both names on the birth certificate once the child is born.

Gab

2 Feb 13 at 12:40 am
Or maybe they weren’t from Victoria or WA:

In August 2001, the Statute Law Amendment (Relationships) Act 2001 and the Statute Law Further Amendment (Relationships) Act 2001 amended 60 Acts in Victoria to give same-sex couples, called domestic partners, some rights equal to those enjoyed by de facto couples, including hospital access, medical decision making, superannuation, inheritance rights, property tax, landlord/tenancy rights, mental health treatment, and victims of crime procedures.[8]

Gab

2 Feb 13 at 12:42 am
According to the Yobbo’s and SDFC’s nurses literally physically blockade hospital room doors and prevent gay partners entering their dying partners hospital rooms purely because they can’t produce a government endorsed marriage certificate.

It’s not according to me, actually. I linked to a government report of people testifying to the human rights tribunal that it had happened to them. Perhaps they are lying. Perhaps not. One thing is for sure, and that’s that I have provided a shitload more evidence for my position than you have.

The key thing here is the phrase “family member”. Getting married makes you a member of your spouse’s immediate family. Being in a de facto relationship does not.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 12:46 am
Being in a de facto relationship does not.

Legally i sure does.

JC

2 Feb 13 at 12:49 am
My partner rode in the ambulance with me and stayed with me while I received treatment. However, when consent for further treatment was needed the hospital had to find my sister. Everything goes fine until the laws kick in and then the same sex partner is excluded.

Why can that situation not be covered under the states civil union laws?

Oh wait.

It is.

NSW:

Entering into a “registered relationship” provides conclusive proof of the existence of the relationship, thereby gaining all of the rights afforded to de facto couples under state and federal law

WA:

Western Australia allows same-sex couples equal access to adoption procedures and allows lesbian couples equal access to in vitro fertilisation treatment, although gay men continue to be barred from accessing in vitro fertilisation.[47] It also gives same-sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples in areas such as transfer of property, medical treatment, and inheritance upon the death of a partner.

VIC:

In August 2001, the Statute Law Amendment (Relationships) Act 2001 and the Statute Law Further Amendment (Relationships) Act 2001 amended 60 Acts in Victoria to give same-sex couples, called domestic partners, some rights equal to those enjoyed by de facto couples, including hospital access, medical decision making, superannuation, inheritance rights, property tax, landlord/tenancy rights, mental health treatment, and victims of crime procedures.[

Etc, etc.

twostix

2 Feb 13 at 12:49 am
Gab, again what you are missing is that those laws only give gay couples the same rights as de facto straight couples. Married couples have more rights.

For example, it is impossible to contest the fact that a couple is married. Their marriage is recorded by law. In the case of de facto couples, a will can be legally contested on the basis that no actual de facto relationship existed. A marriage can not.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 12:51 am
Dying intestate can result in your surviving spouse, family and friends suffering unnecessary financial hardship and emotional stress. If you are in a de-facto or same sex relationship, it is necessary to supply sworn evidence that the relationship existed.

link

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 12:53 am
If you are in a de-facto or same sex relationship, it is necessary to supply sworn evidence that the relationship existed.

You consider swearing a stat dec a hardship? Seriously?

a will can be legally contested on the basis that no actual de facto relationship existed.

How can you contest a will which is signed and sealed declaring a beneficiary which surrounding evidence would satisfy that a de facto relationship exists.

Now a will can be contested for other reason. In fact a will can be contested for practically any reason, by the way.

JC

2 Feb 13 at 1:00 am
You are equating gays with dogs.

He is doing no such thing. Don’t be a FUCKING TWAT.

The point is you remove one taboo and it sets a precedent to move on to a far worse taboo.

Let poofs be poofs, but to create a state backed institution for bum sex opens the back door to other deviant acts.

Abu Chowdah

2 Feb 13 at 1:07 am
It’s not according to me, actually. I linked to a government report of people testifying to the human rights tribunal that it had happened to them. Perhaps they are lying. Perhaps not

One thing is for sure, and that’s that I have provided a shitload more evidence for my position than you have.

Lol a “shitload” being two comments made by activists to a government inquiry.

I note that this time you “forgot” to quote from your source the vastly more spectacular story of the dying lesbian and her “partner” who was physically blockaded from entering the room of her dying partner by a cold hearted nurse who callously ensured that a woman died “alone” while her distraught friend (from the nurses perspective) sat in the corridor under the nurses eagle eye.

Here, let me quote it for you in all its fantastical glory:

One of our lesbian friends lay ill and dying in her hospital bed. When it came time for her to die the hospital staff prevented her partner from entering her hospital room and sitting with her at the end of her life because she was not the ‘spouse’. Our friend died, alone. Her partner sat outside in the corridor prevented from being with her. She continues to suffer great distress that her life-time partner died without her comfort and without knowing she was there with her

- Anonymous

twostix

2 Feb 13 at 1:10 am
You consider swearing a stat dec a hardship? Seriously?

It’s pretty hard to sign a stat dec when you’re dead.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 1:13 am
I note that this time you “forgot” to quote from your source

I didn’t “forget” to quote anything. I quoted the story that most directly addressed the topic, i.e. the right to consent to medical treatment on your spouses behalf.

You think they are lying. That’s fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that the laws are different for married couples than they are for de facto couples.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 1:17 am
It’s pretty hard to sign a stat dec when you’re dead.

It’s obviously referring to the surviving party. You didn’t understand that?

JC

2 Feb 13 at 1:19 am
Gab, again what you are missing is that those laws only give gay couples the same rights as de facto straight couples. Married couples have more rights.

Finally. I’m in an oppressed minority group.

If you’re down to arguing that gay couples “only” have the same rights as millions of completely un-oppressed, content, defacto straight couples then the matter is exhausted.

twostix

2 Feb 13 at 1:26 am
5. What if I’m living in a defacto or same sex relationship and I die without a Will?

If your partner can satisfy the legal requirements proving the relationship, they may be entitled to share in your estate on your death. The necessity of proving the relationship can result in additional expense and distress at a time when they are grieving. It is much easier to draft a Will naming your partner as a beneficiary.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 1:37 am
It is much easier to draft a Will naming your partner as a beneficiary.

Funny that. It’s also the advice given to married couple by lawyers. Make a will!

JC

2 Feb 13 at 1:39 am
Finally. I’m in an oppressed minority group.

If you’re down to arguing that gay couples “only” have the same rights as millions of completely un-oppressed, content, defacto straight couples then the matter is exhausted.

But they don’t, twostix. If you aren’t happy with the rights governing de facto couples, you are free to upgrade your relationship to a marriage by visiting a JP any time you want. A gay couple is not.

Just admit that gay couples are at a disadvantage in law, then we can get to the real issue of whether or not you think that’s the way it should be.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 1:40 am
If gays in committed relationships are worried about such things they can have their lawyer draw up a power of attorney; problem solved.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 1:41 am
If you’ve died without a Will you’ve been very careless, straight or gay.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 1:44 am
Wills are not the only example. They are just 1 example.

There’s lots of trying to explain away the very real differences in legal rights between straight and gay couples in this thread right now.

Won’t someone just be honest and come out and say: “Yes, gay couples have less rights, and I am perfectly fine with that.”?

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 1:47 am
I’ve just dealt with the question of power of attorney and Wills. That should cover most of the appropriate bases. If there are persisting differences they might just reflect the differences between the two types of relationship. If some of them don’t we can attend to them. But the fact that there are differences isn’t itself a sign of unjust inequality. We don’t assume, for instance, that best friends who may also been living together domestically are the principal heir of the other’s property, or that they have the power to make decisions on their best friend’s behalf when they are incapacitated.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 2:13 am
We don’t assume, for instance, that best friends who may also been living together domestically are the principal heir of the other’s property, or that they have the power to make decisions on their best friend’s behalf when they are incapacitated.

Of course we don’t. It is for this reason that people choose to get married to begin with – to tell not only their friends, but also the government, that their relationship is more than just friendship and that they are committed to each other and wish to share every aspect of their lives.

The question I am asking is: Why shouldn’t gay couples be allowed to do this? I do not care if you call it marriage, but whatever you call it, it should confer all of the same rights on that couple as marriage does, including the right to be considered the immediate family of your spouse.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 2:21 am
And I should probably acknowledge here that the situation you posit, that of 2 friends living together who are not really a couple but might get married anyway to gain some kind of advantageous standing, might possibly become reality if gay marriage was allowed.

But that situation can – and indeed does – already happen with heterosexual marriage, especially in the area of immigration law. There’s no “love test” required for heteros, so there shouldn’t be gays either.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 2:25 am
*yawn*

Lloyd

2 Feb 13 at 2:31 am
But, Yobbo, my point is they are just friends but living in a domestic relationship and yet they do not enjoy the rights typically provided to those married. This is an ‘inequality’.

Why shouldn’t gay couples be allowed to do this? I do not care if you call it marriage, but whatever you call it, it should confer all of the same rights on that couple as marriage does…

But the two relationships are different and therefore it is unwarranted to confer all the rights of marriage to same-sex partnerships. We’re only required to give what is appropriate to it.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 2:35 am
my point is they are just friends but living in a domestic relationship and yet they do not enjoy the rights typically provided to those married. This is an ‘inequality’.

If the two friends were male and female, they could get married if they wanted to, and enjoy all those rights. This is where the inequality lies.

But the two relationships are different

Every relationship and every marriage is different to every other relationship and every other marriage. Restricting marriage rights to heterosexual relationships only is completely arbitrary and discriminatory.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 2:45 am
And I should probably acknowledge here that the situation you posit, that of 2 friends living together who are not really a couple but might get married anyway to gain some kind of advantageous standing,

That wasn’t the situation I was indicating.

There’s no “love test” required for heteros

Depends on the jurisdiction (the US does apply such a ‘test’); but, generally speaking, if love is not a requirement, firstly, why are they part of the vows made? and secondly, why is any test required? Why only two people? Why a permanent commitment? Why an exclusive one? It’s funny your position leads inexorable to the sort of conventionalism that was parodied at the beginning of this thread.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 2:48 am
You do not need to make vows to get married. You only need to sign a government document and have the signature witnessed by 2 people.

Why only two people? Why a permanent commitment? Why an exclusive one?

These are good questions and I agree that it’s a mystery why answering them the way the government likes confers additional rights on people.

But the fact is that if those rights exist, we do not have the right to exclude people from them on the basis of sexual orientation. In my opinion, if 2 people agree that they wish the government to consider them to be immediate family members, then they should be allowed to make that declaration regardless.

FWIW I have been on record here many times as saying I also have no objection to polygamous marriage.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 2:56 am
If the two friends were male and female, they could get married if they wanted to, and enjoy all those rights. This is where the inequality lies.

No, it doesn’t. That would be like saying that women could enter an all-male club simply by having a sex-change, or that Jews could enjoy the full rights of citizenship in Egypt by converting to Islam.

Every relationship and every marriage is different to every other relationship and every other marriage.

No, they’re not. They are not different in the relevant sense; they are relationships or marriages and can be recognized as such. Just as triangles may be different in many respects, but not in the relevant respect that makes them unmistakably a triangle.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 2:57 am
You do not need to make vows to get married.

Really, promises or vows aren’t made?

But the fact is that if those rights exist, we do not have the right to exclude people from them on the basis of sexual orientation.

Yes we do, but we need rational grounds for doing so, as we do in other areas, and we do.

In my opinion, if 2 people agree

Why only ‘people’? This just begs the question. As a conventionalist, you really have no reason, apart from whatever is considered the norm currently, to establish any sort of criterion whatsoever.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 3:07 am
Why only ‘people’? This just begs the question.

Because only people can voluntarily agree to a contract. This isn’t really a difficult question, I am not sure why everyone here thinks otherwise.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 3:11 am
Because only people can voluntarily agree to a contract.

Again, more question-begging, why must it be a contract but not a relationship between the sexes? You deny the latter but accept the former without question. And you provide no reasons for doing this.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 3:24 am
You don’t need a contract to have a relationship, but marriage is a contract by definition. Not only between the 2 people being married, but between them and the state.

Forgive me if I misunderstood your question.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 3:30 am
Of course gay people – any people – should have the right to have anyone they want at their bedside when dying, and to have inheritance rights and so on.

Completely agree with that, Yobbo.

Abu Chowdah

2 Feb 13 at 3:36 am
What about immigration rights Abu?

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 3:43 am
You don’t need a contract to have a relationship, but marriage is a contract by definition.

Still more question-begging. Whose definition? Until six minutes ago, marriage was definitionally a relationship between the sexes. And, anyway, we have de facto marriages that lack any contract, and we had marriages even before and without the state.

And no, marriage is not also a relationship between “them and the state”; this would be like saying a partnership is not merely a relationship between business partners, but between those partners and the state.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 3:47 am
What about immigration rights Abu?

Do best friends have these?

Of course gay people – any people – should have the right to have anyone they want at their bedside when dying, and to have inheritance rights and so on.

And, of course, by visiting their solicitor they can have these things.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 3:49 am
The substantive point is that you can have these things without redefining marriage.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 3:50 am
And, of course, by visiting their solicitor they can have these things.

Their solicitor can not make them immediate family, which therefore means they don’t have the right to do things restricted to “immediate family members”.

Still more question-begging. Whose definition?

The government, who makes you sign a contract to declare you are married.

Do best friends have these?

No, but de facto couples and married couples do.

Australia recognises the right of same-sex de facto partners to immigrate to Australia. But, it’s much easier for married couples to immigrate.

And not only does Australia restrict the married couples program to heteros, it also explicitly refuses to recognise same-sex marriages, even if they are legal and recognised in the country you got married in.

Let me be clear that this is an explicit violation of the claim that Australia treats same-sex couples equally.

If you are an Australian man who married a Swedish woman in Sweden, Australia recognises that marriage and will allow an immigration application as a married couple.

If however, you are an Australian man who married a Swedish man in Sweden(which in Sweden is equally legal and recognised in the exact same way as a hetero marriage since 2009), Australia will not recognise that marriage and will force you to apply under the de facto partner stream, which is significantly more difficult. (among other things, you must prove you have been living together for at least 1 year as a de facto couple. Married couples only have to prove they are living together now).

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 4:01 am
The government,…

Which is CL’s point. If the government can define/ redefine marriage as it will, there is no rational reason to decline to recognize a human-dog union as marriage; the government could simply provide this option on the books and that would be it. It’s curious that a libertarian is here arguing that the government can define or redefine an existing human institution as it will.

Do best friends have these?

No,…

Which, by your own lights, is unjust discrimination. What follows the above quotation is essentially the argument that if government A recognizes X all other governments must recognize X or be guilty of unjust discrimination, which you cannot properly argue given your argument above, that governments can do as they please, whether it is defining or recognizing this or that relationship.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 4:38 am
Just on the general argument of this post, the Left are winning because conservatives/ classical liberals/ libertarians too easily become defensive in argument, while leftists do the opposite. This needs to change. Rather than only defending one’s own position, our side needs to spend more effort remorselessly attacking the position of leftists and not just defending our own position and thus force leftists on the defensive themselves.

dover_beach

2 Feb 13 at 4:50 am
It’s curious that a libertarian is here arguing that the government can define or redefine an existing human institution as it will.

It’s curious that I’m arguing something that’s an obvious and undisputed fact?

Being a Libertarian doesn’t mean that I ignore reality. Governments can and do redefine whatever they like, whenever they like.

there is no rational reason to decline to recognize a human-dog union as marriage

The reason we are asking for the government to allow gay marriage is because government has made various laws related to marriage, and we have surely agreed for a while now that all people have the right to equal treatment from their government.

So yes, I agree that it would make sense to allow dogs to marry if if dogs were sentient beings who shared all the same rights as humans. But they are not and they do not.

The key thing here is that you don’t see homosexuals as people, and therefore you can’t see the difference between allowing them to marry and allowing dogs to marry.

I see them as people, and therefore should be given the same rights as any other people. They currently do not have those rights.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 4:53 am
What about immigration rights Abu?

Sure, why not? Better two bum bandits who work in psych nursing than 2000 stone age misogynists.

Abu Chowdah

2 Feb 13 at 4:54 am
I do not really care at all about definition of the word marriage, I only care about the rights it confers.

I would perfectly happy to call it something else, as long as it had the same result (that is, making the same sex partner spouse a legal member of their spouse’s immediate family, and having this recorded in law and only challengable by proof of divorce).

The fact is I think that most of the people in this thread do not care about the definition of marriage either. They only want to deny rights to homosexuals out of malice (excepting Abu).

If that’s not true, feel free to say so.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 5:01 am
I only care about the rights it confers.

Of course you do. But if all you care about is the rights and not the responsibilities and the social contract and everything else that goes with it, you can go fuck yourself and go on doing so until the end of time.

I couldn’t give two hoots if the State decides to let civil celebrants unite two adults of the same sex in what the State calls marriage. But stay the fuck away from the churches, and don’t you ever fucking dare drag into court on a charge of “homophobia” any person who philosophically objects to performing such a ceremony, unless you want to scream for all eternity on the end of Satan’s barbed cock.

perturbed

2 Feb 13 at 6:12 am
But if all you care about is the rights and not the responsibilities and the social contract and everything else that goes with it,

There are absolutely no responsibilities attached to the rights the government gives you as part of a married couple. As long as you are married, you get those rights no matter what you do.

But stay the fuck away from the churches, and don’t you ever fucking dare drag into court on a charge of “homophobia” any person who philosophically objects to performing such a ceremony

I have never at any point even hinted that churches should be forced to marry same sex couples. Churches already turn away a shitload of hetero couples for a variety of reasons, but mostly because there are more couples wanting to get married than there are Saturdays in a year. It is their right to do so and I don’t see any reason why that should change.

unless you want to scream for all eternity on the end of Satan’s barbed cock.

lol.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 6:34 am
I would perfectly happy to call it something else,

You mean like bundling up a bunch of the same things and calling it civil unions?

I don’t think anyone’s opposed to that here. However you may want to get on the gay hot line and check that out with the gay advocates as they’ve opposed that. They will only support da equality angle which is why it’s bullshit on their part as Raimondo suggests on.

If that’s not true, feel free to say so.

Yep, not true and fuck off with that.

JC

2 Feb 13 at 7:36 am
oi – you two. Get a room.

boy on a bike

2 Feb 13 at 7:41 am
“Paul, I guess these people are just lying then:”

Never observed any such thing, except in the case of secretive relationships where the closet door has remained firmly closed. Seen similar with straight couples where the relationship has been kept quiet until the time of illness. If you keep it to yourselves and don’t “come out” then its hard for any family to accept an apparent stranger who comes in and starts making decisions for you. Is that an American example you are quoting because yes, that easily happens there. Probably also in Uganda too, except with knives.

Paul

2 Feb 13 at 7:54 am
Abu! Enough with the bums! There’s more to it than bums. There’s dicks too. (no tits though only pecs…if you’re lucky).

Paul

2 Feb 13 at 7:58 am
No, the example came from an Australian government site.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 8:04 am
Oh, one more thing. Thank you Yobbo and Dover Beach. Good debate of issues from opposing sides from real people, and interesting, not slanging. Internet at its best.

Paul

2 Feb 13 at 8:04 am
Internet at its best? No.
As Gab pointed out early in the detour, the thread was hijacked.

Blogstrop

2 Feb 13 at 8:18 am
OMG, another thread full of instances of people not getting that beagles aren’t the same as humans.

“Rather than only defending one’s own position, our side needs to spend more effort remorselessly attacking the position of leftists and not just defending our own position and thus force leftists on the defensive themselves.”

That’s correct Dover, but my original message is you won’t get too far with that project if the best you can do is name-calling.

As for the initial proposition, lets not forget that the left might largely win the media wars in terms of nature of coverage, but in this country it seems hard to get elected if you obviously move left from the centre.

Even in the US, a party with real problems of nutsy candidates and a difficult to sell presidential candidate, got half the vote and kept control of the house.

Pedro

2 Feb 13 at 8:28 am
That’s fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that the laws are different for married couples than they are for de facto couples.

I guess there is no reason for anyone to get married at all in that case.

Let’s just outlaw marriage altogether then.

Remind me again what it’s for?

This is a serious question. After all, you can pretty much have sex with anyone and anything you want, you can shack up with anyone and demand the same rights as someone with a marriage certificate, you can go to the courts and demand access to children and assets regardless of whether you’re married or not in the event of a relationship breakdown.

nilk

2 Feb 13 at 8:29 am
The thread wan’t highjacked. Someone just pointed out the obvious problem for Cory Bernardi complaining about media coverage of his arguments.

Pedro

2 Feb 13 at 8:40 am
Yes, yes, up is down, black is white, play the man not the ball.

Gab

2 Feb 13 at 8:53 am
Yobbo:

Presently, gay couples do not have the same rights as straight couples in regards to many issues.

Which ones?

Mk50 of Brisbane

2 Feb 13 at 8:58 am
The thread wan’t highjacked.

Oh yea it was.

JC

2 Feb 13 at 2:17 pm
Which ones?

Immigration, Health Care, Super, Pensions, Wills and many other things.

Being de facto and being married are still different legal states in Australia. Married couples enjoy many more rights than de facto couples do.

Yobbo

2 Feb 13 at 6:31 pm
Married couples enjoy many more rights than de facto couples do.

So de factos are discriminated too then?

JC

3 Feb 13 at 12:01 am
“Which is of course why 3/4 of the house of representatives voted against it.”

Governments in general tend to lag behind wider cultural change (Ledru-Rollin had the snappier one-liner). This is due to many factors, like the difference between the population’s average age and average politician age, and the fact they are inherently a political-risk-averse group, meaning bold reforms (or drastic mistakes) are rare. Which isn’t saying much given the systemic design faults that allow a fairly constant flow of small to medium mistakes.

“If the government can define/ redefine marriage as it will, there is no rational reason to decline to recognize a human-dog union as marriage”

You repeat but do not see the sources of CL’s error.

Firstly, it is not the government’s will – see twostix’s comment @11:27. A majority of Australians want to allow same-sex marriage under the law. They are well-intentioned but missing the better solution of marriage deregulation, but let’s leave that for the moment.

Secondly, social institutions belong to no-one but those who practise them. The government only has a say about how it itself interacts with the institution – ban it, recognise it, tax it, subsidise it, ignore it, whatever. Any choice must be justifiable.

Thirdly, the ‘redefinition’ is not arbitrary. It retains the meaning that modernity has given it – a formal commitment to the closest kind of relationship. This is something only people can do, but something that all people can do. Therefore the inescapable limiting factor is personhood, not what pink bits those people have between their legs.

Lastly, procreation is not a feature of every marriage, and therefore cannot be part of a definition of every marriage. And once you have those necessary caveats, then the current definition of marriage can easily accommodate homosexuals and pansexuals and the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows who else.

Jarrah

3 Feb 13 at 1:50 am

Catallaxy Files

Cory Bernardi on why the left are winning the media wars

224 Responses to 'Cory Bernardi on why the left are winning the media wars'

Leave a Reply

Liberty Quotes

Ongoing Debates

Catallaxy Surveys

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Archives

Pages

Blogroll

Meta

Catallaxy Files

Cory Bernardi on why the left are winning the media wars

Share this:

224 Responses to 'Cory Bernardi on why the left are winning the media wars'

Leave a Reply

Liberty Quotes

Ongoing Debates

Catallaxy Surveys

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Archives

Pages

Blogroll

Meta