We’ve Only Just Begun

Isn’t it funny how the left:

  • said that any public debate on homosexual marriage would turn nasty and harmful towards homosexuals (and their children) – and then it didn’t. Indeed, the opposite occurred… repeatedly;

“The idea of young people, perhaps yet to come out, seeing the legitimacy of their identity debated on the national stage, that is not an ideal which we should inflict on any citizen when we have a better path,” Mr Shorten said as he introduced his bill.

“Let me be as blunt as possible: a No campaign would be an emotional torment for gay teenagers and if one child commits suicide over the plebiscite, then that is one too many”.

  • said that a plebiscite (or survey) would be a waste of time because, even if it produced a yes result, it would not be binding on Parliament and legalisation of homosexual marriage would therefore not occur – yet this is pretty much the first thing our Federal Parliament is trying to do (you know… as soon as it figures out whether it’s legitimate or not);

‘I’m very conscious that for my community overwhelmingly people have a different view,’ Mr Clare told Sky News.

‘For me personally this is an issue about fairness and equality.

‘I’ve been very upfront with my community and said to them I respect your view, I hope you respect the fact I have a different view.

‘I know that good people with good hearts can have different views on this.’

[TMR: see if you can find the bit that ‘our’ ABC deliberately left out]:

“I’m not surprised, Blaxland is a very socially conservative electorate,” he said.

“I’ve always known the views of my electorate on this issue and I’ve always been upfront with them about mine.

“Good people with good hearts can have different views on this important issue.”

[TMR: if you’re wondering who to believe, then feel free to go to the tape at 13.10]

  • keeps trying to persuade everybody that this issue has now been resolved, when the following is far more likely:

Don’t believe me?

For more than a decade now marriage equality has dominated the energies of gay and lesbian campaigners. So when we achieve it, we can all celebrate and relax, right? Not a chance….

Or how about this?

Queer campaigners are beginning to question the validity of same-sex marriage as a campaign focus… But if we are to think in terms of our ultimate objective as queer campaigners, then we should recognise that ‘equal love’ is a critical step…

The point of a campaign is less to solve everything, and more to build power to continue to achieve victories. Legalising same-sex marriage won’t only reduce discrimination — it will give queer organisers a stronger platform to create further change …

Queer campaigners should not win their rights by meekly trudging into the tent of patriarchal marriage, their tails between their legs. Rather, the same-sex marriage campaign can be about dismantling the walls of the tent, expanding it to be open to more of us, and continuing to liberalise this cultural institution …

Here, have one more:

The marriage equality campaign appeals to mainstream society — and theoretically conservative politicians — in a way that ‘less palatable’ bodies and stories don’t…

It is true that marriage has become an extremely important symbol and its passage would be seen by many as a significant milestone in indicating the willingness of the state to treat gay and lesbian people equally. Yet, unfortunately it is little more than a symbol.

In Australia marriage equality actually has few practical impacts. State-based de-facto legislation gives same-sex couples practically all of the same rights as their married straight counterparts…

We know that the only thing that will result in real progress for LGBTIQ people are concerted campaigns on these issues — ones that open up a more progressive debate about gender and sexuality rather than trying to confine us to being “normal”…

Campaigners have unfortunately been accused at times of pushing other issues under the bus in order to succeed on this one front. Short-term success is sometimes put ahead of long-term gain.

By now, you may have realised that the above links have all come from the same page – The Greens: Beyond Marriage Equality.

Yes people, there’s a beyond. There always has been.

None of the above fake claims made by the left should be treated as co-incidental events of ignorance. They are all calculated measures of deceit and manipulation.

This is why I have always advocated getting the government out of marriage and leaving it to churches and religious institutions to decide who they wish to marry. Any time you give the government a power that it does not need, it can and will be used against you – using your own time and money.

Sadly, many people cannot see how little this issue has had to do with ‘marriage equality’ – and more to do with the sadistic enjoyment the Marxist left has had at ‘dismantling the walls’ of of our culture and society.

Thankfully, evolution will eventually put a stop to this kind of nonsense progressing to its final end. It always has. The real question is when? And at what cost?

Will we apathetically allow these cultural vandals to continue along this path? Will it take our entire civilisation to be ruined (like many before it) before it can be sustainably rebuilt? Or will we realise in time what is happening?

“So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over–a weary, battered old brontosaurus–and became extinct.”

 – Malcolm Muggeridge

The choice is ours. It has been all along.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to We’ve Only Just Begun

  1. zyconoclast

    I cant find the links now but there were plans from the USA and UK from the 1970s that clearly liss the long-term demands and strategies.

    It was never about equality, it is about domination and bending* us to their will.

    *Pun may be intended.

  2. On a minor note, I wonder if the term “Partner” will diminish once gays can marry?
    That term gathered significant momentum over the last decade as gays shacked up together but couldn’t marry.
    I hope it goes – it got quite confusing as to the difference between emotional and business partnerships.

    A thoughtful post marcus.

  3. A Lurker

    Australians gave them an inch, they’ll demand a mile, all because ‘love’ and ‘equality’, but most of all, ‘tolerance’. Just don’t expect any love, equality or tolerance in return, because it is not in the nature of the authoritarian Left to concede any protections or any dissent. All they want is to march us in lockstep towards the cliff of social apocalypse – and LDP libertarians will be blindly encouraging us to march into the abyss with them.

  4. A Lurker

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” – Quote attributed to Marcus Tullius Cicero

  5. .

    All they want is to march us in lockstep towards the cliff of social apocalypse – and LDP libertarians will be blindly encouraging us to march into the abyss with them.

    Never miss an opportunity to frag your allies eh?

    The LDP has always proposed conscience provisions. The kind of trolling feared anyway may already be illegal under s28A of the SDA BTW.

  6. Tel

    This is why I have always advocated getting the government out of marriage and leaving it to churches and religious institutions to decide who they wish to marry. Any time you give the government a power that it does not need, it can and will be used against you – using your own time and money.

    I totally support that, but it requires a referendum which probably wouldn’t pass and it’s kind of unrealistic to expect much support on this. The status quo isn’t the best, but it isn’t the worst either so out of the plausible options dropping the issue seems the most reasonable.

  7. Just Interested


    This is why I have always advocated getting the government out of marriage and leaving it to churches and religious institutions to decide who they wish to marry. Any time you give the government a power that it does not need, it can and will be used against you – using your own time and money.

    I totally support that, but it requires a referendum which probably wouldn’t pass and it’s kind of unrealistic to expect much support on this. The status quo isn’t the best, but it isn’t the worst either so out of the plausible options dropping the issue seems the most reasonable.

    Yair, more or less, although then it would be competent for the states and territories to legislate in the area.

    The likelihood of a Federal Parliament passing a ‘covering the field’ piece of legislation using 51(xxi) ‘getting out of marriage’ through repeal of the Marriage Act and a general prohibition on the States legislating to establish marriage like relationships is about as likely as me flying.

    I am interested as to whether Marcus thinks that the Federal Parliament should also get out of the ‘Divorce and matrimonial causes business (51(xxii))’ which obviously establishes the Family Court.

    I might like a number of things to happen, but am not a fan of wasting time of advocating for outcomes that will never happen.

    That said, I voted ‘no’ for the reasons set out in the post. The controlling minds of the progressive left have always concentrated to the elimination of the traditional societal structures: the gay marriage debate for them is merely one of the stations of the cross to achieve their final outcome (however envisaged by any one individual).

  8. Ivan Denisovich

    I cant find the links now but there were plans from the USA and UK from the 1970s that clearly liss the long-term demands and strategies.

    Nothing as far back as the 70s but here’s some stuff from the last 15-25 years or so:

    From: Aslan
    Comment: Andrew, here are some more quotes from gays themselves regarding their real agenda behind same-sex mariiage/civil unions: Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, “…fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely…To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of ‘family’ altogether.” (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)

    Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater “understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman.” He notes: “The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.” (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203) Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so…Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society…We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s view of reality.” (quoted in “Beyond Gay Marriage,” Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

    Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: “Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I’d be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of ’till death do us part’ and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play.” (quoted in “Now Free To Marry, Canada’s Gays Say, ‘Do I?'” by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

    Andrew replies: I had to laugh at Jon Faine on the ABC today. He set out to scoff at my claim today that once you legalised gay marriage you could not logically deny marriage to, say, someone wanting to marry two people or even more. (Of course he did this while avoiding referring to me by my hateful name.) But when he put my argument on the Conversation Hour, the gay activist he was interviewing replied that he indeed saw no problem in three people or more forming a civil union of their own. In fact, he even knew of a gay threesome that shared a relationship. Does Faine believe me now, having heard the truth from someone from his own side of politics? And if so, what does he now think of this consequence of gay marriage? Does he now understand my objection?

    http://www.news.com.au/news/andrew-bolt-forum-150-june-16/news-story/f1da501a1c37d474a424495e0415c13f

  9. A Lurker

    The LDP has always proposed conscience provisions. The kind of trolling feared anyway may already be illegal under s28A of the SDA BTW.

    I will continue to point out that certain influential Libertarians here don’t believe that our fundamental freedoms will be eroded, and cheered at the result of the Yes win in the postal survey.

    Btw, may is not very reassuring, especially given that Labor/Greens are fully intent on removing any protections written into the Bill. The experience with S18C demonstrates that although something might technically be illegal and that whoever has to endure lawfare ‘might’ win in the end, but as always, the process is the punishment, and other Australians will take note and ShutUp and our fundamental freedoms are further reduced.

    A responsible Libertarian party would have demanded that the Marriage Act be wholly abolished and that the Government have nothing to do with marriage at all.
    Failing that, a responsible Libertarian party would have agitated for protections to be in place in our Constitution before agreeing to a Bill on SSM.

  10. Does it surprise Cats why ultra conservative groups like Muslims hate us and our culture? They may want to share in our wealth by immigrating here, but they will never ever accept our “depraved immoral” ways and they will never ever assimilate.
    There is a Youtube video going around of a vox pop in the streets of Istanbul where 20 somethings are asked about “gevurs” (foreigners). They mostly believe gevurs are sub-human, animal like because of our social culture.
    They believe it’s ok to kill us all to cleanse the Earth of our immorality.

  11. .

    A responsible Libertarian party would have demanded that the Marriage Act be wholly abolished and that the Government have nothing to do with marriage at all.

    I think that is the better policy, but conservatives here are disingenuous: bring it up to oppose when a minimal change to SSM is proposed, otherwise create a pin and thimble argument about “the impossibility of getting government out of contract”, otherwise paranoid garbage about FLDS Mormons or Muslims is brought up. I have run into these pea and thimble tricks too many times to take this bait and switch as a serious criticism.

    Failing that, a responsible Libertarian party would have agitated for protections to be in place in our Constitution before agreeing to a Bill on SSM.

    Leyonhjelm wrote his own bill with protections. I agree that freedom of conscience ought to be constitutionally protected. Another disingenuous argument is brought up: conservatives are really progressive liberals that agree wholeheartedly with the US Civil Rights Act and how it trumps private property rights, only mean libertarians actually believe this stuff. This is not only disingenuous; it is duplicitous: freedom of conscience for religious grounds, but not for personally held beliefs on race, but for personally held dislike or mere disapproval of gays for the non-religious – gets a pass.

    No sale.

  12. flyingduk

    I have just read an astonishing book which explains the rise of the left and the fall of the west perfectly: ” The Evolutionary Psychology behind Politics” (Amazon). It postulates 2 subsets of humans, the ‘rabbits’ who are hardwired to take advantage of good times and to party and breed without thought, and the ‘wolves’ who are hardwired to prosper when times are tough and resources short.

    For most of history, times were tough and the skills of the prudent and hard working wolves were rewarded. Unfortunately, we now live in a time of ‘free grass’ due to the debt funded welfare state, so the rabbits prosper and the wolves suffer.

    It will get ever worse until it all comes crashing down, but when it does, the world will change back to one where hard work and prudence is rewarded. Personally, I cant wait.

  13. Viva

    So legalisation was low hanging fruit that attracted general support but civil unions were a step too far. Then civil unions were all the go but marriage was a step too far. Then when marriage itself became low hanging fruit I realised that everything was ripe for the picking.

  14. Myrddin Seren

    …ones that open up a more progressive debate about gender and sexuality rather than trying to confine us to being “normal”…

    I wonder what limitations possibly are considered to still exist upon the actions of two, or more, consenting Queer adults in private ? Or in places like San Francisco – even in public ?

    It’s a mystery as to the end game ? If only we had some clue from past history ?

  15. Roger

    Does it surprise Cats why ultra conservative groups like Muslims hate us and our culture?

    And they have a long term game plan.

    Erdogan to Turks living in W. Europe:

    “Go live in better neighborhoods. Drive the best cars. Live in the best houses. Make not three, but five children. Because you are the future of Europe.”

  16. Myrddin Seren

    This may or may not have been mentioned at the Cat before, but in terms of one of those wonderful synchronicities of the internet, via Smalldeadanimals:

    http://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/principals/spag/participation/Pages/gendersexualdiversity.aspx#link59

    There may be circumstances in which students wish or need to undertake gender transition without the consent of their parent/s (or carer/s), and/or without consulting medical practitioners.

    If no agreement can be reached between the student and the parent/s regarding the student’s gender identity, or if the parent/s will not consent to the contents of a student support plan, it will be necessary for the school to consider whether the student is a mature minor.

    If a student is considered a mature minor they can make decisions for themselves without parental consent and should be affirmed in their gender identity at school. Department policy addresses situations in which students, though under the age of 18 years, may be sufficiently mature to make their own decisions

    And given the way this is phrased, how many Principals will risk career death and possible legal action in trying to make the call on who is and who is not a ‘mature minor’.

  17. A Lurker

    Mature minor?

    Next turn down that slippery slide will be a reduction in the age of consent, because “students, though under the age of 16 years, may be sufficiently mature to make their own decisions” about their sexual activities and preferences. I’m also certain that ‘Safe Schools’ is considered a boon by adults with … ahem, currently illegal sexual proclivities.

  18. Rabz

    getting the government out of marriage

    Good. Then shut down the Family Kangaroo Court and the CSA as well.

  19. FelixKruell

    Urgh. Such one sided nonsense.

    Yes, the claims about suicide were exaggerated. And the prediction that no-one would participate were proven wrong.

    But there was animosity towards gay people and their families (on this site and many others). Similarly there was animosity from Yes voters to No voters. It was ugly all round.

    And predictions were wrong on both sides too – how many here predicted that the ‘silent majority’ would support No?

    And MP’s on both sides are deciding to vote their conscience rather than what their constituents think.

    As for the fringes, they were always going to push for ‘beyond marriage equality’. They have been for years already. The key point is they don’t have the support of the wider LGBTI community, let alone the broader Australian community, for these changes. If you want to judge all people on a side by the fringes, you’ll have to accept that your ‘No’ fringe was all for re-criminalising homosexuality. Are you happy to be found guilty by association?

  20. Speedbox

    Since this whole thing began, I have been saying that it was a Trojan Horse. That, in the broader sense, SSM was merely a vehicle to a broader range of future outcomes.

    The point of a campaign is less to solve everything, and more to build power to continue to achieve victories. Legalising same-sex marriage won’t only reduce discrimination — it will give queer organisers a stronger platform to create further change …

    Anyway, too late now – the train has left the station.

    With regard to the “mature minor” and the age of consent, I note that French are currently debating the lowering of their age of consent to either 13 or 14 from the current 15 years. If they go for 14, that will be the same as Germany and Portugal.

  21. Phill

    The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left’s favorite Muslim countries have gay rights.

    To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalise, disrupt and take power.

    The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power.

    That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.

    Quoted from

  22. Defender of the faith

    The only legitimate issue in the debate is the government intrusion in marriage choice.

  23. candy

    FelixKruell
    Safe Schools is in Victorian state schools so radical sexual education, with teaching youngsters how to do anal sex and squashing down their private parts, etc, has reached the broader community.

    But it’s recognised that conservatism is dying and religious observances etc of not much importance to society anymore, and people look for something to replace religion with (astrology and witchcraft, etc). So it’s a bit of a brave new world, so “we’ve only just begun” kind of makes sense. I don’t think anyone is standing in the way now, if that is what concerns you.

  24. Michel Lasouris

    Goodness ,How I miss Dave Allen’s wit and wisdom! All the observations about the Socialists merely emphasise what we already now; Collectively they’re a thick as pigshit……, and less useful.

  25. iampeter

    Malcolm, I’m not really sure what the point of the post is. The only thing I will add is that if you think its a function of government to regulate who can marry who, then you two are of “The Left”.

  26. FelixKruell

    Candy:

    None of those things were actually taught in Victorian schools. Don’t believe everything you read.

  27. marcus

    If anybody wants the fully referenced truth of what has been taught in schools under the Safe Schools banner (and various other banners), then go here:

    https://themarcusreview.com/2016/08/12/the-extreme-lefts-education-agenda/

  28. You cannot get the government out of marriage unless you’re arguing that the government should never mention ‘marriage’ and therefore never define it for the purpose of law or public policy.

  29. Aristogeiton

    The “get the government out of marriage” argument is just one example among many of how little chance organised Libertarianism has zero chance of entering the political mainstream.

    And now I read that Leyonhelm wants to parade Milo Yiannopoulos through the Federal Parliament. Jesus wept.

    I am a natural Liberal, and spending time with representatives of the organised Libertarian movement has convinced me that I want nothing to do with you. Good job guys.

  30. iampeter

    The “get the government out of marriage” argument is just one example among many of how little chance organised Libertarianism has zero chance of entering the political mainstream.

    I wouldn’t worry about mainstream, I’d worry about having the right ideas first. Libertarians constantly trying to skip all the steps that involve thinking and jumping straight into a political movement is why they are kind of a mess and conservatives are just religious/traditionalist leftists.
    You need ideas first.
    So the question is: what do you think is the function of government? Only then can we apply that to specific issues (like marriage).

    And now I read that Leyonhelm wants to parade Milo Yiannopoulos through the Federal Parliament. Jesus wept.

    Yea I agree with you there, Milo is a disaster. A perfect example of someone who has no clear ideology trying to talk politics. As he himself says “he is an agent of chaos”, except he’s not aware its not a good thing.

  31. Ivan Denisovich

    Similarly there was animosity from Yes voters to No voters. It was ugly all round.

    That equivalency doesn’t fly. For anyone paying attention, it was clear that it was mainly one-way traffic. And not just that. The intimidation, threats and violence were hallmarks of the Yes.

    As for the fringes, they were always going to push for ‘beyond marriage equality’. They have been for years already. The key point is they don’t have the support of the wider LGBTI community, let alone the broader Australian community, for these changes.

    Sorry, Felix, no sale. The left has form:

    At 11.04am on Friday October 27 some of us will gather in Parliament Square to mark 50 years since Royal Assent was given to the 1967 Abortion Act. A law which was intended to allow abortion in certain circumstances became an elastic law, a law with catastrophic consequences. At the time only a handful of MPs recognised it as a dangerous and slippery slope.

    Those 29 MPs who voted against its Second Reading did so because they contested the repeated claims that the law would only be used in extreme and tragic circumstances. They were right.

    In the half century that has elapsed since its passage a staggering 8,894,355 unborn babies have lost their lives – one death every three minutes; 20 lives ended every hour.

    With routine and repeat abortions, what was once a crime has become a lucrative industry.

    The sums are staggering. Over the past decade, an eye-watering £757,832,800 of taxpayers’ money has been paid to the private sector abortionists. The Times reported that the boss of Marie Stopes International (MSI) – which we pay millions of pounds to carry out abortions in Britain and overseas – received a phenomenal £420,000 in one recent year alone (four times the Prime Minister’s salary). Twenty-two of their employees were paid more than £100,000.

    As these operatives oversee the tragic, industrialised destruction of human life and fuel the conveyor belt that abortion has become, what are the implications for the unborn child, their mothers and society?

    Last year the Care Quality Commission criticised MSI after finding dead unborn babies in open bins. Think, too, of the 32-year-old Irish mother Aisha Chathira, who, in 2012, died from a heart attack in a taxi caused by extensive internal blood loss after she had an abortion in an MSI facility in London.

    But beyond the death toll, much else has flowed from this law.

    The medical profession has been subverted, with the Hippocratic Oath quietly dropped from medical courses because of its explicit condemnation of abortion. Preferment in gynaecology and obstetrics has become virtually impossible for those who refuse to comply.

    http://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/october-27th-2017/abortion-act-at-50-the-bill-that-wiped-out-millions/

    This also:

    In 2001 The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalise euthanasia and, along with it, assisted suicide. Various ‘safeguards’ were put in place to show who should qualify and doctors acting in accordance with these ‘safeguards’ would not be prosecuted. Because each case is unique, five regional review committees were installed to assess every case and to decide whether it complied with the law. For five years after the law became effective, such physician-induced deaths remained level – and even fell in some years. In 2007 I wrote that ‘there doesn’t need to be a slippery slope when it comes to euthanasia. A good euthanasia law, in combination with the euthanasia review procedure, provides the warrants for a stable and relatively low number of euthanasia.’ Most of my colleagues drew the same conclusion.
    But we were wrong – terribly wrong, in fact. In hindsight, the stabilisation in the numbers was just a temporary pause. Beginning in 2008, the numbers of these deaths show an increase of 15% annually, year after year. The annual report of the committees for 2012 recorded 4,188 cases (compared with 1,882 in 2002). 2013 saw a continuation of this trend and I expect the 6,000 line to be crossed this year or the next. Euthanasia is on the way to become a ‘default’ mode of dying for cancer patients.
    Alongside this escalation other developments have taken place. Under the name ‘End of Life Clinic,’ the Dutch Right to Die Society NVVE founded a network of travelling euthanizing doctors. Whereas the law presupposes (but does not require) an established doctor-patient relationship, in which death might be the end of a period of treatment and interaction, doctors of the End of Life Clinic have only two options: administer life-ending drugs or send the patient away. On average, these physicians see a patient three times before administering drugs to end their life. Hundreds of cases were conducted by the End of Life Clinic. The NVVE shows no signs of being satisfied even with these developments. They will not rest until a lethal pill is made available to anyone over 70 years who wishes to die. Some slopes truly are slippery.
    Other developments include a shift in the type of patients who receive these ‘treatments’. Whereas in the first years after 2002 hardly any patients with psychiatric illnesses or dementia appear in reports, these numbers are now sharply on the rise. Cases have been reported in which a large part of the suffering of those given euthanasia or assisted suicide consisted in being aged, lonely or bereaved. Some of these patients could have lived for years or decades.
    Whereas the law sees assisted suicide and euthanasia as an exception, public opinion is shifting towards considering them rights, with corresponding duties on doctors to act. A law that is now in the making obliges doctors who refuse to administer euthanasia to refer their patients to a ‘willing’ colleague. Pressure on doctors to conform to patients’ (or in some cases relatives’) wishes can be intense. Pressure from relatives, in combination with a patient’s concern for their wellbeing, is in some cases an important factor behind a euthanasia request. Not even the Review Committees, despite hard and conscientious work, have been able to halt these developments.
    I used to be a supporter of the Dutch law. But now, with twelve years of experience, I take a very different view.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2686711/Dont-make-mistake-As-assisted-suicide-bill-goes-Lords-Dutch-regulator-backed-euthanasia-warns-Britain-leads-mass-killing.html

  32. .

    Aristogeiton
    #2564739, posted on November 24, 2017 at 4:37 pm
    The “get the government out of marriage” argument is just one example among many of how little chance organised Libertarianism has zero chance of entering the political mainstream.

    And now I read that Leyonhelm wants to parade Milo Yiannopoulos through the Federal Parliament. Jesus wept.

    I am a natural Liberal, and spending time with representatives of the organised Libertarian movement has convinced me that I want nothing to do with you. Good job guys.

    No worries.

  33. .

    I wouldn’t worry about mainstream, I’d worry about having the right ideas first. Libertarians constantly trying to skip all the steps that involve thinking and jumping straight into a political movement is why they are kind of a mess and conservatives are just religious/traditionalist leftists.
    You need ideas first.

    The LDP has a full policy platform. If you can’t argue your own philosophy here and never give any details as to what policies ought to be Peter, why are you making any criticisms?

  34. Burnt Stump

    The book ‘After the Ball’ set out the long term plan to change public attitudes re homosexuality.

    https://albertmohler.com/2004/06/03/after-the-ball-why-the-homosexual-movement-has-won/

  35. A Lurker

    The LDP has a full policy platform. If you can’t argue your own philosophy here and never give any details as to what policies ought to be Peter, why are you making any criticisms?

    It seems to be that iampeter’s sole reason for coming here is to rubbish Conservatives with every post he writes. Going by his single-minded determination to believe that Conservatives of every type and stripe are closet Collectivists/Leftists makes me think that at some point in his past a Conservative lady (who evidently possessed great wisdom and brilliant common sense) stood him up at a date and he hasn’t yet got over the slight.

    Alternatively he is just a miserable Marxist coming here to troll and yank the chains of Cat posters.
    Personally I think the latter scenario is more likely. 😉

  36. Felix Kruell

    Ivan:

    We had no voters arguing that gays should be imprisoned, castrated, have their children removed from them, be prevented from teaching or doing their jobs. And that’s just here and on the Australian comments section. Looks like you were only looking at the bile from one side, and blind to the other.

    As for violence, we had Rudd’s Nephew physically attacked by the No side. It’s there for all to see.

    As for the rest – that’s just the slippery slope argument. Not sure what it proves though?

  37. iampeter

    It seems to be that iampeter’s sole reason for coming here is to rubbish Conservatives with every post he writes.

    Well it’s Australia’s “leading centre-right blog”. That means supporting individual rights, rights protecting government and capitalism.
    “Centre-right” is not about advocating for government regulating marriage or immigration or heck, half the conservative posters here out and out call for government run education and welfare.
    So it’s not that I’m trying to “rubbish Conservatives”, I’m just “centre-right” and so don’t agree with them on anything.

  38. Aristogeiton

    Wasn’t it Rudd’s Hudson? Also, didn’t he start the fight? Couldn’t finish.

  39. candy

    Looks like you were only looking at the bile from one side, and blind to the other.

    I think it’s time to move on from attacking each other, really, it serves no purpose.

    For me the issue is always about the future of babies procured into gay marriages and the future of these children, and how they deal with their beginnings. Do they long to know their true dad or mum, feel incomplete through their lives?
    Anyways that’s a generation away and time will tell.

  40. Felix Kruell

    Candy:

    Those I know are open with their children about their origins. Some kids have a relationship with their egg/speak donor and some don’t.

    The research is patchy, but doesn’t suggest these kids will have any issues turning into healthy and functioning adults. But only time will tell for sure. To my mind, they are wanted and loved kids, and that’s a pretty good start.

  41. Ivan Denisovich

    Looks like you were only looking at the bile from one side, and blind to the other.

    Not at all. My comment:

    That equivalency doesn’t fly. For anyone paying attention, it was clear that it was mainly one-way traffic. And not just that. The intimidation, threats and violence were hallmarks of the Yes.

    Unsurprisingly, you seem to have ignored mainly. But ten out of ten for persisting with the attempted equivalency. You ran that line unsuccessfully earlier this month. And as was pointed out to you then, it’s hard to beat the largest vehicular bomb ever detonated in Australia for intimidation.

    As for the rest – that’s just the slippery slope argument. Not sure what it proves though?

    It shows that SJW’s promises ought not be believed, given their history.

  42. As for the rest – that’s just the slippery slope argument. Not sure what it proves though?

    Why do people, incl. the author of that article, constantly mistake or conflate reductio ad absurdums with slippery slope arguments? What the Belgian and Dutch experience show is the unfolding of the active principle in euthanasia, of “life unworthy of life”, and why whether the patient/ individual wills their death or not is only a secondary consideration. Of course, what the above experience shows is that because there is no in-principle objection to extending euthanasia to mentally ill patients, to children suffering terminal illnesses, or even to someone who simply no longer wants to live, given the active principle, all the reasons given that purported to limit euthanasia only to the terminally ill were all ad hoc and slip by the wayside as the principle itself moves to its logical conclusion.

  43. Felix Kruell

    Ivan:

    I wasn’t aware of any vehicular bomb during the plebiscite? What are you talking about?

    You’ve otherwise given no example of bile from yes to no. Certainly none here in this board. But plenty going the other way. ‘Mainly’ requires a little more evidence.

  44. I wasn’t aware of any vehicular bomb during the plebiscite? What are you talking about?

    Did he restrict that claim to the plebiscite? And did you forgot the bombing of the ACL in December?

  45. Felix Kruell

    Dover:

    We were talking about vitriol during the plebiscite. A suicide over a year ago doesn’t really count.

  46. Ivan Denisovich

    ‘Mainly’ requires a little more evidence.

    You wrote:

    Looks like you were only looking at the bile from one side, and blind to the other.

    I pointed to my use of mainly as evidence that your statement that I was “blind to the other” is nonsense. If I was “blind to the other” I wouldn’t have inserted that qualifier. That’s the evidence. But I can understand why you want to shift the goalposts, claiming that I now need to provide examples of “bile from yes to no”.

  47. Ivan Denisovich

    We were talking about vitriol during the plebiscite. A suicide over a year ago doesn’t really count.

    By “suicide” you mean “attack”, right? It was a hate crime by a gay terrorist, after all. It’s correct that the attack happened before the plebiscite but it did happen in that period before when there was a great deal of debate about the plebiscite. From October last year:

    OPPOSITION Leader Bill Shorten has announced his party’s decision to block the government’s plebiscite on same-sex marriage, saying Labor’s decision reflected the opinions of experts, mental health professionals, and the Australian LGBTI community.

    Surrounded by families of same-sex couples who had gathered at Parliament House to celebrate the decision, Mr Shorten revealed the Labor caucus had voted to oppose the proposed public vote unanimously.

    “Upon my recommendation and that of our shadow attorney-general and our shadow minister standing behind me, the caucus unanimously resolved to oppose the marriage plebiscite,” he said.

    “The Labor Party will in parliament oppose Malcolm Turnbull’s expensive, divisive plebiscite.”

    http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/labor-votes-to-block-samesex-marriage-plebiscite/news-story/734710be1cd4e19b1cd2460e0c73a865

    So yeah, for intimidation it’s hard to top bombing the ACL headquarters.

  48. A suicide over a year ago doesn’t really count.

    Over a year ago? Talk about whitewashing a bombing.

  49. We were talking about vitriol during the plebiscite.

    My God, you had the full support of the corporations, the political class, the media, and so on and you’re whinging about a few unkind words on twitter which was far less anyway then that from the Yes side.

  50. Felix Kruell

    Firstly, the police say it was a suicide and not an attack.

    Secondly, it was well before the plebiscite. If you want to go back before the plebiscite, let’s look at the thousands of gays killed in hate crimes over the last few decades. Puts a single suicide that damaged property and harmed no one in perspective?

    Finally, how many corporations supported it doesn’t take away from the vitriol. There was vitriol on both sides, as I said several times above. For one side, the vitriol was personal. For the other, largely abstract.

  51. Snoopy

    If you want to go back before the plebiscite, let’s look at the thousands of gays killed in hate crimes over the last few decades.

    Yes, let’s do that. I’ll make it easy for you. Name 50 killed in the last 10 years.

  52. Chris

    let’s look at the thousands of gays killed in hate crimes over the last few decades.

    What a load of wank. This is like the faked claims of many teen suicides because gay, its just shit made up to suit queer politics.
    You say its thousands killed in hate crimes; name them. And no, the many gay people killed by gay ‘lovers’ don’t count which makes it damned thin indeed in Australia. Bodies in barrels? Murdered little boys? Ooooo maybe you want to count the killed by Islamofascists under their law., or killed by Nazism or Communism. For the record, COBBER, our society fought to defeat those in many wars.

  53. Chris

    Firstly, the police say it was a suicide and not an attack.

    GIven the large perscentage of gay people that suffer from mental illness I can see them not wanting to encourage copycats. Rather like Islamofascist rabies, political violence IS infectious if played up in the media.

  54. Snoopy

    Firstly, the police say it was a suicide and not an attack.

    He died? I didn’t know that.

  55. Chris

    He died? I didn’t know that.

    It was many months later, poor bastard.

  56. A Lurker

    Snoopy, it is clear that the Rainbow activists not only want to have their cake (forced to bake it by Christian bakers), they want to eat it as well.

    They want to retain their Victim Card™ – which as a minority group accords them lots of influence, goodwill and goodies from the media/academia/business/government/legal fraternity/education.

    BUT…they also want authoritarian power to enforce acceptance of their ideology onto others. In other words, they want majority influence. They don’t want merely tolerance, they want their lifestyle to be celebrated, rubbed into the faces of their enemies, and given more than equal standing in places like the media/academia/business/government/legal fraternity/education, and if you disagree, welcome to the rainbow-hued boot stamping on your face forever.

    It’s why gay activists and agitators almost always sit on the Left side of the political spectrum – like attracts like, and they’re in good company with all the other authoritarian groups and ideologies that congregate there.

  57. A Lurker

    Sorry that should be.. “Christian bakers forced to bake it”

  58. Snoopy

    Chris:

    So your position is there have never been any hate crimes against gays in this country? Really?

    No Krelix you lying sack, Chris disputed your ludicrous claim of thousands killed over the last few decades.

    Actually I suspect that gays have killed more gays over the last 40 years than straights have. Considering gays make up 3% of the population, that’s quite an achievement.

  59. Felix Kruell

    Snoopy:

    He said it was a wank. Let him answer for what that meant.

    Any evidence at all for your suspicion that more gays have killed gays than straights? Sounds fanciful.

    You think there aren’t a bunch of honour killings going on within our new immigrant communities against gays? If not, it would make Australia quite the outlier…

  60. Firstly, the police say it was a suicide and not an attack.

    Because a suicide-attempt has never come in the form of an attack using a vehicular bomb?

    Secondly, it was well before the plebiscite. If you want to go back before the plebiscite, let’s look at the thousands of gays killed in hate crimes over the last few decades. Puts a single suicide that damaged property and harmed no one in perspective?

    There have not been thousands of gays killed in Australia in hate crimes. Stop making ridiculous and preposterous claims.

    Finally, how many corporations supported it doesn’t take away from the vitriol. There was vitriol on both sides, as I said several times above. For one side, the vitriol was personal. For the other, largely abstract.

    Firstly, because your side was clearly in the dominant position, politically. And, secondly, the claim that the vitriol was largely abstract is based upon what exactly? How can vitriol have an abstract target?

Comments are closed.