Deakin academic Michael Vagg has a piece in The Conversation today in which he explains just where the group “Doctors for the Family” gleaned their “evidence” that the healthiest type of family in which to raise children is heterosexual. It comes as no surprise to find that one study on which they base their opinions was funded by the Australian Christian Lobby. Other points they make in their submission to the Senate inquiry into marriage equality are blatantly cherry picked, and bear little if no relation to heterosexual relationships in this country.
As Vagg observes, while there have been vigorous protests against same-sex marriage for a long time, health arguments such as this one are a new weapon in the arsenal of the religious right.
The manner in which the group’s submission has been reported in the media is unreassuring. For example, ABC Breakfast news led with “Doctors claim …” Not a group of doctors, but doctors. This implies an authority that the submission completely lacks, just because it’s been written by “doctors.” In fact, when you look at Vagg’s piece it quickly becomes clear that no researcher worth her salt would accept anything at all about the doctors’ claims.
Who are these doctors? You can read about them here.
In Australia the child abuse statistics are appalling. Children are physically, sexually and emotionally abused by adults and almost all of these abuses occur within the family unit. And guess what? The overwhelming majority of those family units are heterosexual. The heterosexual family can be a highly dangerous and thus unhealthy environment in which to raise children, as at least some of these doctors must surely know.
Vagg concludes his piece thus: “Doctors for the Family are trying to hijack the credibility of science, while being disingenuous about their religious beliefs.” I’m glad for his sake he said “disingenuous,” and not “deceptive and duplicitous” and he didn’t call anyone a Baptist, probably avoiding defamation threats, unlike me. Those threats against me by Melinda Tankard Reist still haven’t been withdrawn, by the way. I suspect Reist intends to leave them hanging over my head until January next year.
I can’t help but notice that the concealing of religious motivations is on the increase among believers trying to impose their faith agenda on a secular society via the back door. There was a bit of an outcry when I claimed Reist’s religious beliefs were relevant to her lobbying, and many cried “ad hominem!”
However, the ad hominem is not always fallacious. There are arguments for making what’s know as a circumstantial ad hominem. There are those, such as eminent Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor, who argue ad hominem reasoning can be essential to understanding moral issues. Arguments that question the opponent’s possible dogmatic bias, for example, or vested and conflicted interests, are legitimate critical responses.
The circumstantial ad hominem is an allegation of bias, and intended to serve as a warning that the arguments need to be scrutinized. Allegations are just that. They aren’t proof that an argument is incorrect or flawed, and are not used as proof: they merely raise legitimate questions about possible bias.
Making an allegation is not a biased act. Conflict of interest of all kinds can affect objectivity. It is perfectly acceptable to allege a conflict of interest when there are grounds to do so. It isn’t conducive to free speech and healthy debate for such allegations to be prevented, or silenced by dismissing them as fallacious.
The religious beliefs of “Doctors for the Family” are entirely relevant to their lobbying against same-sex marriage. Their scientific claims are bizarre, and they use the authority invested in their profession by the community to substantiate what is at best, very sloppy research and argument, and at worst, cherry-picked, highly manipulative argument to achieve a goal that is faith-based in origin. We have the right to know where they are coming from, and why, before we end up like this:
No Place For Sheep 
Diagnosis Homophobia!
In a week where Barak Obama stole Doug’s steed and galloped the rainbow fantastic all these guys can come up with is some pissant argument that isn’t even against gay marriage.
They somewhat bizarrely argue a preference for child rearing by both biological parents that goes to what they’d have us do in some unspecified circumstance where the choice between giving a gay or a straight couple custody of children is in the balance. A scenario that would currently only be relevant should there be no biological connection between any of the potential parents applying for adoption of an orphaned child.
Maybe what they really mean by their statements is that single mothers who choose to have children without necessarily maintaining a relationship with the father ought to be prevented from doing so. Or perhaps heterosexual couples ought be able to might the kind of challenge designed to wrest custody of children from widowers?
Because in addition to the fine points Jennifer makes I’d add that unless these medicos mean to say that single heterosexual parents are also deficient as family units then what they’re really prescribing for us is really just a bald faced case of straightforward homophobia!
LikeLike
I think this goes way deeper than homophobia.This is a multi-pronged ideological battle being waged against all things which conflict with the ultra conservative Christian lobbyists.
In short a taste of life under Abbott.
Some of these medicos hold very senior positions in policy development, government consultation etc.
I think the broader community now has a right to ask whether their initial appointment was in any way assisted by their religious connections/affiliations etc.
Or in fact ‘made because of it’.
(I’m sure a quick head count will reflect a high proportion of Catholics in this list of ‘concerned Drs. Twitter will sort that fact out)
If these Drs were Unionists and not ‘followers’ there would currently be media and coalition lynch mobs circling the wagons.
LikeLike
Not ‘stole’ HG, Rocinante was quite pleased to have the outing.
Barack is welcome to borrow him for as long as he likes, since De Vere doesn’t need a steed.
The substance of the argument is well put by Jennifer. Work is interfering with my blogging of late, but I’ll try for a more considered response later.
LikeLike
As opposed to Richard III who is supposed to have offered a kingdom for a horse!
(A better reading is probably that he said that he’d lost his kingdom when he was unhorsed, and at the mercy of his foes, but who cares about historical accuracy – the conservatives certainly don’t.)
LikeLike
“Drs 4 Family” has a more authoritarian ring to it than say “Workers 4 this or that”….
If doctors are for homophobia, then it’s acceptable for little me too… 🙂
LikeLike
Christians have been using this tactic for some time. There are a number of organisations that purport to provide objective evidence but are actually just fronts for conservatives. It is dishonest. I exposed one attempt over the weekend on my blog, although I have no direct evidence that this is religiously based it wouldn’t surprise me in the least. http://novelactivist.com/10439/academic-lesley-anne-eys-bogus-study/
LikeLike
It’s the “intelligent design” of social policy making!
LikeLike
Ray,
This
“ACCM PARENTING SEMINAR
Too Much Too Soon: guiding your child
through a sexualised world
June 21, 2012 at 7.15pm for 7.30 pm
start at Century Theatre, Immanuel
College in South Australia
From tiny tots to late teens, girls are
being preyed on, and damaged, by
sexualisation and media messages
about weight, looks, clothes and
behaviour. The messages they are
getting are wrong. The harm is real, and
not just to girls. Come and hear three of
Australia’s best speakers on this issue
including Melinda Tankard Reist, Dr
Wayne Warburton and Lesley-Anne Ey.
Tickets $22.00 Book online at
http://www.trybooking.com/BKFM or contact
ACCM on 08 8376 2111 or”
From this
http://www.mitchamps.sa.edu.au/latest-news/newsletters-term-2.html?download=38%3Aterm2wk2
This
Click to access parentingseminar.pdf
Imagine Lesley-Anne and Melinda on the same bill.
Go figure.
The gravy train chuffs along.
More importantly, check this out.
Click to access Jointsignatoryletter_to%20retailers_.pdf
LikeLike
I’m really disappointed that the media (mostly) failed to pick up the fact this group was religiously based. The word “Family” in the majority of these groups names (e.g. Australian Family Association, Family First Party, Focus on the Family Australia etc) is always interchangeable with “Christian Right”. The language on their website pretty much confirms this.
Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear’s blog has a good write up on some of the doctors who signed Doctors for the Family’s Senate Submission. Dr Murray James-Wallace, one the signatories, is certainly not someone whom I would not want as my doctor, especially if I was suffering from an apparent heart attack; http://catchthefire.com.au/prophetic-words/testimonies/medical-testimony-from-dr-murray-james-wallace-mbbs-wafracgp-facrrm-dranzcog-dch-frm/ Who needs a medical degree when you have Danny Nalliah!
LikeLike
If someone did a poll (Better still a FOI request) at the ABC Journalist area,especially the high profile players, researchers,policy developers,etc, I wonder what the ratio of RC’s would be?
Does that ratio influence the content?
Can someone,(anyone) PLEASE show me how it doesn’t / wouldn’t, when every other cnr of the universe (including medicine) is influenced in such a way.
It says a lot about the principles of religious folk when all and sundry are denying any connection to it, and yet doing every single thing in it’s name.And then adding another layer of denial on the top,just for good measure.
They sure are helping make a case for JW.
LikeLike
So the ABC (in Sydney at least) ran this as the lead story on the 7pm news? What the hell? Actually I don’t recall this story running on ABC Canberra at all, but it was fairly high up (second or third story) on Ten (unsure if Ten’s Sunday news here is national or it’s Sydney – doesn’t seem Sydneycentric). Looks like Jonathan Holmes is going to give the ABC a good going over on Media Watch tonight about this.
I think this story really highlights the problem with the media at the moment. There seems to be little in the way of journalists actually doing any research on stories. Sure they noted the Kuruvilla George angle, but seemed to miss the elephant in the room which was odd (credit where due; Crikey’s Pure Poison got it right). I think it’s a bit of shame that it was the bloggers who got the real story here, not the MSM.
LikeLike
In the link Wallace openly unashamedly admits he lied äs well as ignored the woman’s life threatening medical condition.
“The guard on duty asked me if I thought she had had a heart attack, or diabetes, I said I thought she had ‘food poisoning’ He listed off all the things I really did think she may have had, I answered this way so as not to…” Selective honesty? Where in the Scriptures does it say it is okay to deliberately lie?
He then, having admitted to being a liar without conscience, goes on to say the Jordanian doctor didn’t actually agree with his “heart attack” provisional-only diagnosis. The patient was rehydrated with a saline drip (TWO bags), given Maxolon which is for nausea, and Buscopan which helps relax & relieve the pain of abdominal spasms, cramps, bowel pain etc.
Obviously the Jordanian doctor diagnosed a gastro infection…not catastrophic cardiorespiratory failure. Add in the fact that with severe dehydration it can be very difficult to find a pulse , nor would it be easy to monitor her vital signs amid the heat & the noise of bus engine and loud babbling praying. FFS!
There is no reason to credit his assumption that she was dead as anything other than an assumption made by a self-acknowledged liar and a poor doctor who I wouldn’t let remove a splinter…let alone trust with my health.
LikeLike
Ray,
.
http://www.theory.org.uk/effects.htm
Leslie Ann Ey does some of the things that we’re criticised above
LikeLike
Excellent. Thanks. Very useful.
LikeLike
Interesting reading even for somebody like myself who is normally quite sceptical of top ten lists. 🙂
LikeLike
HG,
would you like my link to the list of top ten reasons why people are sceptical of the top ten list scenario?
😉
LikeLike
Only if you want my list to George Carlin’s monologue on the Ten Commandments… Again! 😉
LikeLike
Lead me not into Ten-Tation………………..
LikeLike
Oh darn I thought my ten-ticles might’ve lured you
LikeLike
Tendentious tenacity tends to (Hypo) tension.
LikeLike
Diagnosis Solipsism!
Everyone knows that happiness within the nuclear family unit is almost a national obsession. But this has its ugly side viewed though the solipsistic prism of some who reason that if happiness is present in their experience through heterosexual family life then that infers that anything else must naturally be a less optimal child rearing choice.
To reason like that is simply to say that by dent of being different anyone else’s claim to marriage must be regarded as inferior.
Long before it was the case that gays couldn’t marry similar forms of discrimination applied to other races, interracial unions and even inter denominational unions. And the clear purpose and intent of these is and has always been to elevate the kind of marriage that conforms to the narrower ideals of the dominant social class to a privileged status.
Their urge to discourage diversity is a direct consequence of their failure to regard the happiness of others to be of equal value with their own, or indeed even necessary at all. In extreme cases it may even be argued that people have failed to appreciate the possibility that any kind of happiness other than their own may exist. The latter being almost the textbook definition of solipsism.
The existence of a bar on gay marriage should also have marked relevance to feminists because it relates to precisely that same combination of factors that formerly subverted women’s natural human rights within society and within the marriage. Formerly it was men and latterly straight and religious people, exercising their ability to garner extraordinary privilege by means of discriminating against the rights of a weaker group in society.
The kind of discrimination that was formerly wrong to be done against women is clearly as wrong when directed towards same sex couples, that much should be obvious even to the solipsists.
LikeLike
The man behind Doctors4Family is Dr Lachlan Dunjey, who runs the fundamentalist “Church in Perth.” As their website shows, besides marriage equality, their main concerns are euthanasia, abortion and supporting Israel.
http://www.churchinperth.com/
Digging a little deeper reveals that Dr Dunjey is a church elder at the Morley Baptist Church in Perth, as shown at the end of this article on the health effects of loud church music.
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/8755.htm
LikeLike
Ha! The wily silkworm. Like me, a refugee from other blogs now non-extant.
I divine that you have lost none of your suspicions as to religion, with the sort of mealy mouthed nonsense being peddled by the religious right that makes it so provocative for sceptics. Dr.Vagg ‘s assessment points in the direction suggested by other posters; that the report is wistful pie in the sky stuff seeking redemption in an unthinking return to conditions that no longer exist.
The 50’s world depicted on
Father knows Best” passed into history many decades ago now: Hopefully we no longer need to live in the straight jacketed medievalism of mid twentieth century mental health approaches, depicted so well in the film “Frances”, involving electro convulsive therapy, narcosis therapy, lobotomisation and the like.
We need neither “punish” or chastise gays or “treat” them, as was the thinking in the mid twentieth century To be gay is as normal for gay people as being straight is for heteros.
So we are left with the question, “has hetero sexual marriage been a complete failure?” as we contemplate domestic violence figures and hear various miserable stories from married friends as to the wonders of marriage.
Does it work for gay people? Apparently not. Gays, it seems, find hetero partners as distasteful as many heteros would find a gay partner.
They are just not wired for hetero marriage, it seems.
It might work for heterosexuals, Like other deviates, I rather like the secret and perverse attraction I feel toward women and the wicked if limited time I’ve spent with them exploring the pleasures of the boudoir.
Perhaps this happens with gay relationships also, except that it works for same sex rather than opposite sex relationships for them?
But either way, does being able to get it off in bed guarantee good parenthood?
My Father was as heterosexual as they come, but it was no guarantee that he would make a good parent or husband. I could add that I beleive that in consequence, my mother was turned of hetero sex, but I judge my mum’s wonderous effort at parenthood by other criteria, starting with the fact that am sitting here, middle aged and capable of putting thoughts into words.
I don’t know if gays make good parents or partners or not, I do think that hetero marriage needs to take a look at itself and consider honestly if it delivers on its truth claims, before giving vent to unthinking prejudices against minorities.
LikeLike
Yes indeedy,
it appears that the Glass House Repair business has never looked more profitable.
And no one seems to fling more rocks at their walls than the God botherers.
LikeLike
Greetings, Paul.
According to this website –
http://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/in-good-conscience/
– Dr Dunjey’s association with the baptist Church goes even deeper: he is a former president of the Baptist Churches of Western Australia.
The above website also examines the close association many of the signatories have to Catholic groups, such as the Catholic Doctors Association of Western Australia; the Catholic Medical Guild of St Luke; and the Opus Dei affiliated Warrane College at the University of New South Wales.
LikeLike
I had two parents who were married at the end of a shot gun three months after they met, my mother was 10 weeks pregnant at the time.
They had 3 more of us after that.
He was a wife beating chlld molester and embezzlling crook.
She was a pill junkie anorexic nut case.
Oh what a joyous thing is this marriage between a man and woman.
LikeLike
…and there are so many like that, Marilyn, and even a little bit better ones don’t last, so the kids get to know serial molesters…a nd it’s OK as long as they are not gays or lesbians.
LikeLike
Well the MSM may be fact vacuums, but investigative journalism certainly lives here………..
LikeLike
Good riddance.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-15/doctor-quits-equal-rights-board-after-same-sex-row/4011928
LikeLike
Is it just a coincidence that the happiest children live in The Netherlands?;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6360517.stm
Now, The Netherlands were also the first to pass a bill fully legalising same sex marriage. This happened back in 2000, that’s twelve years ago. I am surprised they didn’t make same sex coupling obligatory. 😉
Still, we have Joe Hockey…
LikeLike
By the way the Drs concerned appear very spineless.
read this.
“Doctors names will not be visible on this website. In representations to parliament or other appropriate organisations name and address only will be used or just a simple tally of numbers.”
http://www.doctors4family.com.au/about/
Sooner or later all their names will be available on the Web for all to see.
In the mean time if you have time,sift through here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/marriage_equality_2012/submissions.htm
It should become clear who is who.
LikeLike
Sorry to all..
Here it is.
With their names included, I presume
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=72f834ec-9d0e-49b7-8f1c-a3ea3805c024
LikeLike
I notice Dr Graham Toohill of Leogatha Gippsland didn’t sign the submission with his full title (as used in Anglicare publications…this SHOULD read:
Reverend Doctor Graham Toohill….hmmm!
(another example of hidden xtian agenda for Gladlys list)
LikeLike
Good one Julia. Its a primitive species when it regresses to cortical, isnt it?
Too much amygdala, not enough wisdom.
LikeLike
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-15/rebekah-brooks-charged-with-perverting-the-course-of-justice/4013094
This development may the best news in decades
LikeLike
I’ll reserve the champagne for the headline :
Rupert Murdoch and James Murdoch Convicted of Perverting the Course of Justice
thanks all the same Hypo!
LikeLike
Totally agree DQ.
Because THAT scenario will provide some very meaty, political ‘collateral damage’ which will benefit all mankind.
(Just tempering my optimistic glee a bit as I navigate between the ever present carrion munchers who circle the net.)
LikeLike
The one thing I’d add is that it’s important that Brooks is seen in her real location as a representative of a wide spread business culture rather than someone or something exceptional. That Brooks is a woman only means that the business culture can infect women also, but its peripheral.
As valuable as Murdoch’s exposure is, it is only the tip of what must be a huge ice berg of malevolence that is exposed.
LikeLike
Ray,
Brooks is (no doubt) the messenger of her master/s.
Ergo she alone should NOT wear the blame.
On this we all (I think) agree.
She should not suffer alone,that’s for sure.Can anyone say that profiting from others misery is OK?
( Unless of course it sells newspapers or changes govts, perhaps??? )
Many of the victims of this heinous phone-tapping scam have endured such abject misery.
And there are obviously some lofty conservatives on every side, of every ocean potentially impacted by this charge,and that is how it should be.
And why I ‘think’ I see an opportunity (for a glimmer of hope )for universal justice, to the victims within.
This is also good news for real journalism.
And so is the internet.
It resets the bar.Smart media orgs will be proactive in this regard,not take defensive actions.(INTEGRITY/ETHICS)
It’s encouraging to see the law being used for worthy pursuits.
It’s also very encouraging to read (via twitter) that Chris Uhlmann can conduct an interview free from a popular perception of judgemental vitriol.(Exactly how he used to be,once)
But it’s early days and the eggs have just been set, and I have yet to re-calibrate my abacus………………..
LikeLike
Sorry to come in late, but this might be of interest: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/factssheets/2012/fw2012/fw2012.pdf primarily for the fact that it is deliberately general about what a family consists of. So there you go – there are still defenders within government ranks at least.
Ironically I didn’t even know it was international day of the family yesterday. What I didn’t fail to miss however was my local council’s official “asparagus fern out day” on the weekend. Best fun I’ve had in ages!
LikeLike
If we are lucky, Rebekah Brooks might bring down Rupert and Cameron as well.
Do it Rebekah – they hung you out to dry.
LikeLike
As I said in my previous post, it (big business) is a culture and it transcends the gender of the individual, unless you choose to see gender as something to do with bodily configuration alone.
Yet, the basket of traits on display with Brooks, the Murdochs and co is something more relational to the Klingons or Daleks than human beings- big business sees us as cattle and society as a target and obstruction, rather than some thing that exists in common as something of benefit to wider humanity as well as themselves.They don’t call it “Grub St” for nothing.
If Tankard Reist wanted to do a study on what disadvantages younger people growing into consumer capitalist society she’d do worse than investigate the Murdoch press as a case history- these people invented sex, sadism and sleaze,as well as the page 3 implant-fest.
LikeLike
How low can ignorance and bigotry Go?
https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=05367a58-f47e-4a79-b283-d727d210cd0c
LikeLike
That report seemed to hinge on the assumption that homosexuality is not “natural” and that there is no identifiable biological reason why homosexuality can be considered a normal variation. But even if a possible genetic route hasn’t been fully mapped yet, there are other biological mechanisms to do with gestation that have famously demonstrated that different conditions during gestation may create variant hormonal flows that impact on the determining of a child’s sexual inclinations.
According to “New Scientist”, several hundred species of creature have been observed indulging in homosexual practices; maybe there is some underlying similarity in gestation processes in species as varied as apes and penguins.
Or, it is a sort of an evolutionary strategy, since so many species carry a small percentage of gay members and these species are alive and thriving in our time; some thing to do with social harmony and a speci-al zeitgeist?
As for marriage, it has long been considered a term specific to a male female thing, and some folk with a high opinion of marriage (believe it or not) think it should remain exclusive. Since their world view is formed very early, it is difficult to see that they will relinquish old and intense ideas without a battle. But it is not a serious enough issue to bother many, me included.
I don’t care if a few people have inclinations different than mine, provided that they do not interfere with me and mine and I believe gay people have exactly the same right to ask for their own private space, the same as the rest of us.
Let’s get two or three billion people out of dire global poverty, then worry about secondary or peripheral issues.
LikeLike
Tim Dunlop has written this comment on The Drum.
“We all need to thank Joe Hockey.
His performance on the most recent episode of Q&A on ABC TV has demonstrated the moral and logical blackhole pulsing in the centre of “arguments” against gay marriage.
With one simple, graceless and insulting attack on gay parents, Mr Hockey exposed the bankruptcy of all those, including the Prime Minister, who continue to conspire with prejudice and small-mindedness to deny their fellow citizens equal treatment before the law.”
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4015156.html
Perhaps Dunlop should also be thanking Drs 4 Family for providing Hockey with this meme of attacking gay parents.
LikeLike
So the Roman Empire fell because of homosexuality? On late night radio I heard someone state it caused the fall of the Greek too. Waiting to find out it caused the Brits & Chinese…what exactly did they get up to behind the Great Wall?
LikeLike
The Chinese worked very hard, went to bed exhausted—-to sleep.
LikeLike
Not soon enough, apparently – there are over a billion of them in China alone.
LikeLike
rofl
LikeLike
OK, they slept less on Sundays. Do they have Sundays in China….
LikeLike
….oops, that was/is me, Helvi.
In Greece they don’t do it on Sndays…
LikeLike
Must do…in winter when there’s a lot of fog around they have Dim Sun
LikeLike
FYI
Sites to watch closely
http://arpacanada.ca/
http://christiangleanings.com/
You may see the old familiar adversary names there.
There is a strong Canadian link.
Why would that be……………..?
LikeLike
And I 4got this one
http://www.makeastand.org.au/campaign/index.php?campaign_id=38
Please take the time to suss out the intertwining connections and linked names/pollies/Christian players etc.
LikeLike
Aussie version of ARPA
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Association-for-Reformed-Political-Action-ARPA-Australia/114230411987442
LikeLike
From Gleanings Site:
Marriage Bills
Lachlan Dunjey from Choose Life Australia explains why marriage is so important in a new article ‘Why the battle for marriage is so significant’
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs is holding an inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 (introduced by Labor MP Stephen Jones) and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 (introduced by Greens MP Adam Bandt).
The two bills amend the Marriage Act 1961 to legalise homosexual marriage and to recognise homosexual marriages performed in foreign countries. It will substitute the words “a man and a woman” with the words “two people”
The closing date for public responses was 20 April 2012. The report is expected to be tabled on 18 June 2012.
In addition, on 8 February 2012 the Senate referred the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 for inquiry and report.
This private senator’s bill was introduced by Senator Hanson-Young.
The Submissions period closed 2 April 2012 and the reporting date for the inquiry is 6 June 2012. The committee received 75,000 submissions, approx 44,000 support the bill, 31, 000 oppose the bill.
For submissions, including from Yvonne Henderson, Commissioner for Equal Opportunity, the Australian Christian Lobby, Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings, Endeavour Forum, Saltshakers, the Association for Reformed Political Action (submission 118) click here.
For more on the inquiry: click here
Action: The Association for Reformed Political Action and Saltshakers is calling on people to write to their Federal MPs asking them to reject any moves by their party to introduce homosexual marriage by changing the Marriage Act.
Action: Bill Muehlenberg, from Culturewatch asks people to write to Tony Abbott encouraging him to stand strong. His email address is: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
Action: http://www.MakeAStand.org.au is asking people to write a letter to their local MP. As at 2 May 2012 24,741 had used this service
LikeLike
Hardly riveting stuff at Hypo’s linx. Wasn’t expecting “War and Peace” but the stuff has all the vitality of a six weeks flat bottle of soda water.
As for China, it’s true the they worked like beavers, but it is rumoured that a just a few Chinese men stayed awake for just long enough to give their snoring wives an exhausted dig in the ribs with their elbows and ask, “Y’ wake, love?”, before subsiding into dreamless torpor as well.
LikeLike
You DIDN”T find them riveting or life changing!!
Wow! 🙂
You must be an iceman.
(I’ll try harder next time, Paul)
LikeLike
Im finding the public debate on this tiresome, are we iving in the middle ages? This should have been resolved years ago. I really admired Penny Wong’s personal response to Joe Hockey on Q & A. Joe, to his credit, somewhat humbly accepted what she had to say. Two loving parents with the best interests of the child at heart is clearly nothing that should be penalised by a legal dinosaur.law. To me, its ridiculous this has been made a political football – and its largely because the LNP is aping the political conservative debate in USA, It’s a clear non issue for the majority and it beggars belief that this is even up for discussion! It also distracts from much more real and pertinent issues out there in Australia today that are a far better use of a legislators time. Change the law and move on!
LikeLike
About the only reason that it is still an issue at all is that there is a vocal minority which holds deeply conservative views, and they aren’t all on the LNP side. In the ALP there is a deeply conservative (mostly) catholic right, the inheritors of the ones who split off to form the DLP in the 1950’s schism. The PM and others in the current ALP do not want to risk offending them. They are great haters and ideologically driven. Not for nothing was Abbott once considered a better match for the NSW Labor Right than for the Liberals.
This issue will be fought tooth and nail by the bacwa types as well.
LikeLike
Not to mention it keeps the simpletons in our non-media occupied while both sides try to hide their filthy laundry and toxic policies.
Plenty of things to worry about,but you won’t read about it via Murdoch or Aunty etc.
Both sides (of politics and media) end up doing what the parasitical prudes demand.(Or putting a few on the payroll)
LikeLike
The blue collar base (or, haha, perhaps “former base”) of the ALP is very socially conservative.
Offend them, & lose their votes for an election. It is that simple.
LikeLike
Oh no a war between the religions over SSM!
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/04/23/468991/bishop-marriage-slavery/?mobile=nc
LikeLike