(Above: Derryn Hinch goes up against Mick Gatto, as told on Media Watch here).
Who'd have thought of Derryn Hinch as being a radical freedom fighter?
Who'd have thought of Derryn Hinch at all, unless they were trapped in front of a radio in Melbourne which had lost its tuning button, and was stuck on 3AW.
Who could imagine Hinch would have scribbled It was wrong of me to oppose gay marriage for The Oz?
Who'd have thought that Hinch would then run into someone tougher than Mick Gatto in the defence of traditional society?
Come on down Bill Muehlenberg, also scribbling for The Oz - don't print the science, print the controversy - with Heterosexual marriage is society's bedrock.
Muehlenberg is all in favour of discrimination:
To survive, all societies engage in discrimination all the time. However, discrimination can be good as well as bad. Societies have always discriminated in favour of heterosexual unions and the children they produce because of the social good derived from them.
Well indeed and certain societies have always been inclined to discriminate against people of colour, as we discovered when Rand Paul decided on libertarian principles that discrimination could be a good thing. Here he is, as quoted in Rand Paul on Civil Rights: Private Restaurants Wouldn't Have To Serve Martin Luther King:
Rand Paul: I would not go to that Woolworth's, and I would stand up in my community and say it's abhorrent. um... But the hard part, and this is the hard part about believing in freedom is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example, you to, for example-- most good defenders will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things, and we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom (sic) and I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment, so I'm sure you understand people can say bad things. It's the same way with other behaviors. In a free society we will tolerate boorish people who have abhorrent behavior, but if we're civilized people we publicly criticize that and don't belong to those groups or associate with those people.
So blather about discrimination is a two edged sword. But Muehlenberg is strong on blather. You see, having taken the time to establish that discrimination is a positive boon for society, he then manages to discover no actual discrimination:
The restrictions on marriage apply equally to everyone, whether heterosexual or homosexual. Thus there is no discrimination.
Say what?
Of course a conspiracy is involved:
The homosexual lobby is seeking to fundamentally rewrite the rule books on marriage to get all the benefits while avoiding the obligations.
Naturally it's also appropriate to drag in red herrings and rabbits rushing down holes:
There are all sorts of other sexual relationships that people are demanding recognition of. Polyamory, or group love, is a growing movement demanding the rights to marriage as well.
The exact arguments used by those pushing for same-sex marriage are being used by the polyamorists.
If we legalise the former, is it not discriminatory and unjust to outlaw the latter? They too claim that it is all about love, and that they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
The exact arguments used by those pushing for same-sex marriage are being used by the polyamorists.
If we legalise the former, is it not discriminatory and unjust to outlaw the latter? They too claim that it is all about love, and that they should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
But hang on, discrimination can be positive, except when there's no discrimination.
Naturally it would be remiss of Muehlenberg not to slag off gays:
And Hinch is quite wrong to suggest that same-sex relationships are long-lasting. Plenty of studies prove the exact opposite. A recent study of homosexual men in Amsterdam found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.
Um, could someone remind me of the divorce rates of heterosexual couples? After all, if we're going to discriminate on the basis of duration and longevity, perhaps we should abolish the concept of marriage altogether?
Now how about a double banger, you know, a kind of supply and demand curve, which shows that the marketplace isn't interested:
The truth is, plenty of homosexuals do not even want marriage. How many homosexuals actually avail themselves of it when it becomes legally available? Let's go back to The Netherlands. Same-sex marriage has been legal there since 2001, yet only about four per cent of Dutch homosexuals married during the first five years of legalisation.
The truth is, plenty of homosexuals do not even want marriage. How many homosexuals actually avail themselves of it when it becomes legally available? Let's go back to The Netherlands. Same-sex marriage has been legal there since 2001, yet only about four per cent of Dutch homosexuals married during the first five years of legalisation.
But if so few want it, where's the harm in permitting it for those who do, for those who want to declare they're in a stable, loving partnership? And tie up a few loose ends, since after all a marriage contract is also an economic contract ...
Also, same-sex marriage demands are inexorably tied up with demands for homosexual parenting rights. But 40 years of social science research has overwhelmingly demonstrated the crucial importance two biological parents play in the wellbeing of children.
Also, same-sex marriage demands are inexorably tied up with demands for homosexual parenting rights. But 40 years of social science research has overwhelmingly demonstrated the crucial importance two biological parents play in the wellbeing of children.
Which of course is simply not true, as there's recent social science research suggesting precisely the opposite. Yes, we've cited it before, and it's out there on the intertubes, but we're not really interested in debating Muehlenberg, we're only interested in the ritual dance and the banality of his arguments:
The studies make it clear that every child should have the basic human right of being raised by his or her own mother and father. And a recent Galaxy poll found that a full 86 per cent of Australians believe children should be raised by their biological parents.
This of course is stolen from them in same-sex households. Heterosexual marriage is society's most profound and valuable institution. It has been the bedrock of nations from time immemorial. To radically alter the nature of marriage and family is a recipe for trouble.
And so on and so forth, in the standard way for the entire column, as if Sparta and Greek love had never existed, or conventional nineteen fifties picket fence marriage was the only way the world had operated these last ten thousand years.
As usual, apart from making me Think. Again. about The Australian, I began to wonder about the Family Council of Victoria, because the tag for Bill Muehlenberg tells me that he's the organisation's secretary.
Well being modern, they have their own website, here. It reveals that Dr Joe Santamaria was president up until he retired in August 2008. And that activity seems to be limited, since they only managed a couple of press releases in 2008, one opposing the Abortion Law Reform Bill, and another talking about how the Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill would create a stolen generation. And after that, silence in terms of media releases, with the latest heading under the News tag, urging action to save heterosexual marriage, as ancient as August 2009
Frankly, that's not good enough. If society is falling apart and homosexuals are storming the barricades, I expect ceaseless news and press releases as the good fight is fought. And besides I wanted more flavour, more taste, than the news that Dr. Joe has retired. And then I stumbled on this, here:
brian:
The Family Council of Victoria (FCV) is a funny little organisation made up of Mormons, Moonies and whoever else can be conned into joining (they used to include Muslims, too, but seem to have given them the boot - or maybe the Muslims wised up) - http://www.fcv.org.au/. FCV basically promotes the interests of the old-fashioned patriarchal family in which wives are dutifully submissive and children are seen but not heard - http://unbelief.org/groups/fc/.
Bill Muehlenberg of the one-man CultureWatch 'group' is the FCV's secretary and until recently its president was the ultra-Catholic Dr Joe Santamaria, with all the associations that this surname implies.
Anyway, Dr Joe finally decided to throw in the towel and that left the FCV scratching around for a new president. They dug about in the bottom of the barrel and came up trumps: the new president is none other than Peter Stokes, head of Melbourne's fundamentalist Salt Shakers mini-mob. (SS email to supporters, 21 Aug. 2008)
Really, FCV, inbreeding is one thing but can't you do any better than that?
The Family Council of Victoria (FCV) is a funny little organisation made up of Mormons, Moonies and whoever else can be conned into joining (they used to include Muslims, too, but seem to have given them the boot - or maybe the Muslims wised up) - http://www.fcv.org.au/. FCV basically promotes the interests of the old-fashioned patriarchal family in which wives are dutifully submissive and children are seen but not heard - http://unbelief.org/groups/fc/.
Bill Muehlenberg of the one-man CultureWatch 'group' is the FCV's secretary and until recently its president was the ultra-Catholic Dr Joe Santamaria, with all the associations that this surname implies.
Anyway, Dr Joe finally decided to throw in the towel and that left the FCV scratching around for a new president. They dug about in the bottom of the barrel and came up trumps: the new president is none other than Peter Stokes, head of Melbourne's fundamentalist Salt Shakers mini-mob. (SS email to supporters, 21 Aug. 2008)
Really, FCV, inbreeding is one thing but can't you do any better than that?
Naturally I followed the link, and found more details about Religious Right Groups Family Councils here.
And naturally I was intrigued by the reference to the Salt Shakers, so I trooped off here to discover more about Peter and Jennifer Stokes.
What a funny old world it is. By the time we listed all the loons to hand on loon pond, we'd have scribbled more than the bible. And loon begat loon who begat loon who begat council and board and action group and federation and festival and lobby, who begat ...
Enough, better begatting while the gatting is good.
Yep, it all certainly made me Think. Again. No, not about the family, or homosexual marriage, or discrimination, or Rand Paul. It made me Think. Again. about The Australian, home for all the fringe fundamentalists it can find in its opinion pages.
And it did remind me once again what a nice source of information is unbelief.org, with its handy listing of Religious Right Groups. And so much more to amuse the idle atheist mind, willing to while away endless hours, observing with befuddlement and bemusement, the fundamentalist mind at work.
And it did occur to me that at least Derryn Hinch has turned, and if he's for turning, why perhaps at some point in the next decade, Australia might finally wake up to the news that even Argentina has managed to introduce gay marriage, joining Mexico City and Uruguay (Gay law in Argentina signals waning Catholic power).
He (Socialist Party deputy Ricardo Cuccovillo) pointed out that many Latin American nations were ruled by oppressive military regimes that had strong ties with the Church until the end of the 1970s, and the region is now burnishing its democratic credentials and slowly pushing the clergy out of politics.
"Other countries move forward in other areas and we have advanced the gay rights aspect and that's how we complement each other in the region. I think that in this particular case the approval of the law will have a pulling effect," he said.
Yep, you lie down with oppressive military regimes, and people appreciate freedom when they find it. Nice slogan for the current election too. South America ... more socially advanced and aware than Australia ...
And now for a bit of jolly fun, here's Stephen Colbert doing over Rand Paul, and inspiring us here at the pond to set up the National Camperdown Board for Freedom from Discriminatory Confused Scribbles and Mindless Thought Assault by the opinion editors of The Australian ...
Well if ABC2 is stuck running repeats of Stewart and Colbert, what else can we do but follow?
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| USA Board of Ophthalmological Freedom | ||||
| ||||
And so much more to amuse the idle atheist mind, willing to while away endless hours, observing with befuddlement and bemusement, the fundamentalist mind at work.
ReplyDelete