A weekend of campaigning

It’s a fair while since it was announced that I was contesting the House of Reps seat of Brisbane for the Greens at the upcoming federal election.  Since then, I’ve spent a fair bit of time preparing the foundations for that campaign, as well as working within the party on our overall campaign in Queensland.  Whilst I’d love nothing more than winning the seat of Brisbane, my first goal in deciding to run again has been to try to do all I can to ensure that Queensland once again has a voice in the Senate outside of the major parties – something that has been lacking since I failed to retain my Senate seat at the 2007 election. The more votes I can get in the seat of Brisbane, the more Senate votes will also go to the Greens, which will all increase the chances of Queensland regaining a direct voice in balance of power issues in the Senate.
Having spent a fair bit of time on administrative aspects of the campaign, it was good to be part of some direct campaigning activities over the weekend.  Bob Brown was in Brisbane and we had a fundraising event on Friday night. Having spent a fair bit (although not all) of my political life in a position of at least partial competition with the Greens, it is still a bit of novelty to be part of events promoting the party – but having said that, there has always been an enormous amount of policy overlap, as well as a range of times when there has been cooperation rather than competition.  One of the speakers at the Friday night event was ???? Norman, the co-leader of the Aotearoa/New Zealand Greens. Apart from giving us all a reminder of how much positive impact can be gained in balance of power situations, I was also interest to discover he was actually born in Brisbane, and didn’t move to New Zealand until his adult years.
After having a follow event on Saturday morning at the Rotunda in New Farm Park – probably the most popular park space in my electorate – I then went on to speak at the Equal Love Rally in the City that afternoon.  It is hard to think of two better values than love and equality, and it was great to be able to again speak in support of the importance of enabling all people, regardless of sexual orientation, to have the same right to marry the person they love.
I remember speaking against the disgraceful Howard era legislation – sadly supported by the Latham Labor opposition of the time – when sent a direct signal to many Australians that the love they felt for the person they wanted to share their life with was of less worth or value than people in opposite sex relationships.  It is very sad that the current Pope, at the very time that more and more evidence appears of widespread sexual assault being perpetrated and covered up by officials of his church, is still http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gay-marriage-an-insidious-threat-to-society-pope-benedict-xvi/story-e6frg6so-1225866986941 attacking loving relationships amongst gays and lesbians as a “threat to society”.  This is the same church that has the gall to http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/825852.stm describe homosexuality as “objectively disordered”, whilst saying such people should be treated with “respect”!
Of course, as we’ve http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/opinion/16rich.html?th&emc=th just seen (yet again) with some religious fundamentalists in the USA, such double standards and destructive deceit are not unique to the Catholic church.  I suppose it is up to people who subscribe to religions which hold such views to deal with such perversions of logic, but it still unacceptable that such views should be inflicted on our society and – at least when it comes to the definition of marriage – our laws.

It’s been a fair while since it was announced that I was contesting the House of Reps seat of Brisbane for the Greens at the upcoming federal election.  Since then, I’ve spent a fair bit of time preparing the foundations for that campaign, as well as working within the party on our overall campaign in Queensland.  Whilst I’d love nothing more than winning the seat of Brisbane, my first goal in deciding to run again has been to try to do all I can to ensure that Queensland once again has a voice in the Senate outside of the major parties – something that has been lacking since I failed to retain my Senate seat at the 2007 election. The more votes I can get in the seat of Brisbane, the more Senate votes will also go to the Greens, which will all increase the chances of Queensland regaining a direct voice in balance of power issues in the Senate.

Having spent a fair bit of time on administrative aspects of the campaign, it was good to be part of some direct campaigning activities over the weekend.  Bob Brown was in Brisbane and we had a fundraising event on Friday night. Having spent a fair bit (although not all) of my political life in a position of at least partial competition with the Greens, it is still a bit of novelty to be part of events promoting the party – but having said that, there has always been an enormous amount of policy overlap, as well as a range of times when there has been cooperation rather than competition.  One of the speakers at the Friday night event was Russell Norman, the co-leader of the Aotearoa/New Zealand Greens. Apart from giving us all a reminder of how much positive impact can be gained in balance of power situations, I was also interest to discover he was actually born in Brisbane, and didn’t move to New Zealand until his adult years.

After having a follow event on Saturday morning at the Rotunda in New Farm Park – probably the most popular park space in my electorate – I then went on to speak at the Equal Love Rally in the City that afternoon.  It is hard to think of two better values than love and equality, and it was great to be able to again speak in support of the importance of enabling all people, regardless of sexual orientation, to have the same right to marry the person they love.

At the Equal Love Rally in Brisbane - 16 May 2010
At the Equal Love Rally in Brisbane - 16 May 2010

I will never forget witnessing back in August 2004 the disgraceful Howard- era anti-family legislation – sadly supported by the Latham Labor opposition of the time – which not only degraded the ideal of marriage, but also  sent a direct signal to many Australians that the love they have for the person they want to share their life with is (at least in the eyes of the Labor & Liberal parties)  of less worth or value, just because the person they love happens to be of the same gender.  It is very sad that the current Pope, at the very time that more and more evidence comes forth of widespread sexual assault being perpetrated and covered up by officials of his church, is still attacking loving relationships amongst gays and lesbians as a “threat to society”.  This is the same church that has the gall to describe homosexuality as “objectively disordered”, whilst saying such people should be treated with “respect”!

Of course, as we’ve just seen (yet again) with some religious fundamentalists in the USA, such double standards and destructive deceit are not unique to the Catholic church.  I suppose it is up to people who subscribe to religions which hold such views to deal with such perversions of logic, but it is still unacceptable that such views should be inflicted on our society and – at least when it comes to the definition of marriage – our laws.

Please like & share:

32 Comments

  1. Andrew Says: I suppose it is up to people who subscribe to religions which hold such views to deal with such perversions of logic, but it is still unacceptable that such views should be inflicted on our society and – at least when it comes to the definition of marriage – our laws.

    There’s that ugly head of humanism again. I want so I should have.
    Lets change the meaning of the word marraige to include whatever we like, just so long as it makes me feel good. Not that it would achieve anything but just because we subscribe to that theory.
    Well lets have a look at the theory you’ve backed winning your seat on.
    You’ve backed a loser

    Perhaps not even gays are interested ?

  2. It’s nothing to do with humanism Tony. It’s to do with equality. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry another man. But don’t try to tell me that your love is of greater worth than another person’s solely because it involves a person of the opposite gender. You’ve got the right to marry – you want AND you have. Why should you have what you want, but deny the same to others?

    Do you actually back the ‘theology’ of your Pope that homosexuality is “objectively disordered”? Or are you just going to politely try to pretend this is not still official church teaching?

    Although, seeing you are happy to link to the widely discredited “research” of Family Research Council (who are don’t even seem to mind being dishonest even in the name of their organisation, as they only defend some families, not all), you don’t seem immune yourself to propagating antagonism based on knowingly false assertions.

    Perhaps it’s escaped your attention that the co-founder of the Family Research Council, George Rekers, was recently found to have spent a 10 day overseas trip with a 20 year old male escort he hired through Rentboy.com – of course he is far from the first person who made a career out of vehemently smearing gays and lesbians to have been caught out in such a way, but the fact they are hypocrites of the highest order does not negate the fact they deliberately advocate a message of hatred.

    Rather than recycle such rubbish or try irrelevant diversions about humanism, I’d suggest you focus your attention on helping your fellow-travellers clean up their own house, Tony.

  3. I agree with Tony. God gave us the bible, His word, as an instruction book about how to live our lives. If we do not follow the instructions we go to hell – plain and simple.

    The biblical prescription for marriage is also plain and simple – patriarchal polygamy. Exodus 21:10 (the law given by God to Moses on Mt. Sinai). Deuteronomy 21:15

    The monogamous nuclear family is against the word of God and it is against the laws of nature – we do not see any other animal behaving this way.

    Jesus hates the sin but loves the sinner. Just because you might be in a monogomous nuclear family does not mean that you are cut off from the love and grace of Jesus. He is waiting for you to repent of your wicked monogomy, the rest is up to you.

  4. Andrew Says:
    Although, seeing you are happy to link to the widely discredited “research” of Family Research Council (who are don’t even seem to mind being dishonest even in the name of their organisation, as they only defend some families, not all), you don’t seem immune yourself to propagating antagonism based on knowingly false assertions.

    In a time with Australian & European markets falling…… With an ALP government ready to risk all on at tax that could very well spell the end of Australia’s Boom. (possibly the last workplace where workers can make a decent living without multiple degrees)
    With a wayward Premier that wants to sell of our States finest assets…..leaving us with massive shortfalls to cover. Can you seriously think that opening a campaign on what makes up a family is your best shot. Degrading the traditional mum, dad and the kids won’t make them go away. It’s natural and the core unit of every civilised society.
    Besides shooting the messenger wont make it go away.

    Another View

  5. My goodness, there certainly are a few warped views here.

    What we should be doing as intelligent adults is looking at adult relationships across a broad perspective.

    First of all, I’m wondering how John Tracey would feel if the polygamous situation he describes was reversed, and his wife had sex with a bunch of other men. How would he like being bossed about and controlled by a matriarch?

    If he thinks he wouldn’t like that, then why would he want to perpetrate such emotionally damaging circumstances on women?

    When looking at homosexuality, there are quite a few issues to consider.

    (excessive vilification deleted)

    4. Homosexual relationships don’t produce children and are therefore unnatural.

    5. The legalisation of Homosexual Marriage & Adoption will only encourage more young people to experiment with what is basically a dirty, dangerous, damaging and disease spreading habit.

    I don’t consider Homosexuality on a humanistic or equality basis, just good practical reasoning.

    I am not a Roman Catholic, but I agree with The Pope that homosexuality is “objectively disordered”. I would however like his church to allow priests to have wives. A man left without a wife for his entire lifetime is more likely to take part in unacceptable sexual practices.

    While I think the DLP could be brought into the modern world a bit more, I support their stance against recividist acts such as homosexuality, open slather on abortion, and euthanasia.

    Andrew, I think you will regret joining and running for The Greens. Perhaps you need to divorce the Social Worker in you from ideas that aren’t good for the society.

  6. Tony – I’m amazed you lack even the basic courage to defend your own views. If all you can do is ‘respond’ with another stream of irrelevancies, inaccuracies and more links to discredited ‘research’, then you’d be better off not commenting in the first place – all you do is to display your ignorance.

    If you could find a single place wherever I’ve been “degrading the traditional mum, dad and the kids”, I’d appreciate you pointing it out. Otherwise, I’d ask you to withdraw your slur. I’m from a mum, dad and kids family, and I’m in one now – the only thing that degrades that is people like you why try to use it a political football by pretending that this form of love &/or marriage has greater intrinsic value than love between two people of the same gender.

    You’re the one doing the smearing and degrading of families here (along with Lorikeet of course) – I haven’t your latest link to a hate site, because it shows (a) your persistence/insistence in promoting such vile bile, and (b) your desparate efforts to distract attention from your failure to respond directly to a single critique of your comments (not least your deafening silence on the Pope’s comments or the Rentboy activities of the founder of your ‘family’ organisation).

    Lorikeet – frankly, your comments are just plain ridiculous (apart from your smears against gays, which are both hateful and ignorant). Give it up on the nonsense about communist, socailist, corporatist, one world, recidivist, global governance lunacy – you mention it in every thread. I think you’ve had about 100 goes at mentioning so far, so that will probably be enough – I’ll try to enable more space for some sane views from now on.

    This issue has been one the Democrats campaigned on virtually throughout their entire existence, right back to the Don Chipp days. I have been campaigning on this issue for many many years – long before I joined the Greens – as any reader of this blog with a memory longer than goldfish’s would know. I have not “launched my current campaign” on it – I’ve been campaigning as a candidate for months, as the start of this entry makes clear, and will campaign on a wide range of issues, including the dismal economic policies of Qld Labor, the poorly directed spending of federal Labor and the economic illiteracy of the Coalition (even going so far as to defend the most profitable mega-mining corporations at the expense of all other Australian companies). But I will also continue to express my support for equality in relationships and fighting against those who seek to belittle and degrade the integrity of other peoples’ love and relationships – I do so because I believe it is a very important principle.

  7. Hello Lorikeet,

    Adulterous women should be stoned to death. The law of Moses is very clear about this.

    Jesus of course forgave the adulterous woman but insisted that she sin no more. The monogamisers too can be saved if they stop sinning.

    You say…”What we should be doing as intelligent adults is looking at adult relationships across a broad perspective.”

    Watch out sister, this kind of moral relativism is the same advice the snake gave to Eve and might end up justifying the objective disorders that you righteously diagnose.

  8. I know I shouldn’t be but I’m gobsmacked by the vitriolic and just plain nasty comments to this post.

    All this business about who should be allowed to marry and what does or doesn’t constitutes a real family is bollocks – other than that its generally a bunch of people who care about each other, a family’s configuration is it’s own business.

    The important thing is not whether it’s the “right” combination of people making up the family but that those people care about and look after each other, and provide a loving nurturing environment for any children and elderly members. (The so called standard family is no guarantee of that.)

    Personally I would like to see gay marriage legally recognised because it would make some very dear friends very happy – and they deserve to be happy. They have been together for a very long time, they love each other deeply, they are good to their daughter and grandchildren, and they look after their parents and their friends. They absolutely should have the right to choose to formalise their union.

  9. Andrew:

    The comments you deleted were statements of fact regarding homosexuality, not vilification. Anyone who deletes the facts does not want others to read them.

    I do not hate homosexuals, but I would not promote their lifestyle through legislation, because I believe that whatever is legalised is encouraged.

    Anyone reading this thread can judge for themselves who supports a clean living society and who does not.

    As for your latest comment, John Tracey, your perspective may have been a bit different if you had been allowed to read items 1-3 of my commentary. In future, If all you want to do is stir the pot, I intend to ignore you.

    Wiping posts that the moderator doesn’t agree with is certainly NOT DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.

    It is also hardly my fault that some people don’t understand what is happening in the world on an interactive basis. I don’t think it should be inviting vile bile from the moderator.

    I’m not sure why you would want to turn a blind eye to things that are happening in the world which are detrimental to all Australians (regardless of race, religion or sexual preference) and our economy.

    I guess I must have tread on a corn which has pricked your conscience and challenged your patriotism.

  10. The comments you deleted were statements of fact regarding homosexuality, not vilification. Anyone who deletes the facts does not want others to read them.

    They were not “fact”, they were disgraceful, ludicrous slanders. There is enough of such trash on the web already without it having to be given open slather here.

    I do not hate homosexuals, but I would not promote their lifestyle through legislation, because I believe that whatever is legalised is encouraged. Anyone reading this thread can judge for themselves who supports a clean living society and who does not.

    I see – you don’t hate homosexuals, you just think they are not part of a “clean living society”. Such a loving, embracing approach you have.

    As for your latest comment, John Tracey, your perspective may have been a bit different if you had been allowed to read items 1-3 of my commentary. In future, If all you want to do is stir the pot, I intend to ignore you.

    If John had seen your other comments, it would only have further reinforced his view. You of course have never stirred the pot – but now that you mention it, ignoring those who do, especially when they do it incessently and without even the capacity to stay on topic, is a good idea. I’ll take up your suggestion in my moderation approach.

    Wiping posts that the moderator doesn’t agree with is certainly NOT DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.

    If I wiped all the comments from you I disagreed with, you’d be lucky if there was a single one which saw the light of day. Democracy does not equal the open-ended right to vilify others, not does it entitle you to have limitless amounts of incoherent babble published on someone else’s website.

    I’m not sure why you would want to turn a blind eye to things that are happening in the world which are detrimental to all Australians (regardless of race, religion or sexual preference) and our economy. I guess I must have tread on a corn which has pricked your conscience and challenged your patriotism.

    The only thing I’ve been turning a blind eye to is your insistence on repeating the same bunch of completely nonsensical talking points on every single post I put here, regardless of topic (and oblivious to any requests for you back up your nonsense with a single piece of evidence, beyond the occasional link to websites of loony wingbat conspiracy theorists). The only thing you have treaded on on this occasion is my patience, which has run out. I know I’ve pointed you to the comments policy on this site many times in the past, but given you’re either unwilling or unable to comprehend it, I intend to enforce it. And as you wisely say “In future, If all you want to do is stir the pot, I intend to ignore you”.

  11. Psst Lorikeet, I’ll let you in on a little secret………..John Tracey is taking the piss out of you.

  12. Lorikeet .. I don’t know what you object to in gay people, but the ones I know are good parents (yes, it can happen), good sons and daughters, good aunties, uncles, cousins .. I have several gay cousins, on all sides of the family (there are a lot of us, the previous generations were catholics) .. good neighbours, good siblings .. one is my sibling … good workmates, good teachers, good nurses, good newsagents, good pharmacists, good musicians .. good lord, good people.

    And the part of thier lives that I woudl not dream of asking about? The part that marks them out as gay? If enacted with love with someone else, I’m pretty confident that many of their acts are not strange to many heterosexual bedrooms. Not yours, perhaps, not mine perhaps, but what gives you the right to judge them?

    And if these acts are carried out drunk, under the influence of drugs, in the grip of some ugly emotions … ? Then I’d feel sad, just as I do when reluctantly hearing of the actions of many famous “celebrities” in our world. If these acts involve causing pain to others, I’d condemn them, just as I would the acts of people who suborn young girls and supply them to football teams.

    I really don’t understand why some people feel the need to line everyone else up and paint them black or white, them or us, good or bad.

    And please don’t bring up the homosexuality=disease argument .. it only shows how little you know about human sexuality.

  13. Togret:

    I think the person showing a lot of ignorance of the homosexuality = disease argument is you.

    The advent of HIV/AIDS in humans is the result of men having sex with animals, then passing it on to other homosexuals. From there it crossed into the heterosexual community as a result of bisexual men having sex with both men and women.

    In future, please don’t insult me by saying I know little about human sexuality. Promiscuity, which has been pushed in our society for decades, is now a major cause of disease transmission throughout the population.

    As I said before, I would not legalise Homosexual Marriage and Adoption because whatever is accepted in law is encouraged. I don’t think the encouragement of homosexual relationships has any real benefit for the society.

    I try to be socially aware, but I am not a communist. It isn’t me who has the Black and White attitude. Communists/atheists accept and encourage homosexuality, but I do not.

    Ken:

    Yes, I knew that. That’s why I said I would ignore him.

    Andrew:

    I’ve heard that your parents were members of the DLP. What do they think of your joining The Greens? What do they think of their son supporting nearly every recidivist act outlawed in the bible?

    I’ve found that people who have done some things they have been ashamed of in their youth often head off in one of two directions. They either move to the socially ultra-conservative side, or they condone various kinds of recidivism.

    Intelligent people looking at issues on an interactive basis is not OT.

  14. I’m surprised we are still even having this debate – and indeed in this forum.

    For a start – no matter what your thoughts on religion and the bible – Australia is not a theocracy.

    Secondly ”normal” is a very subjective concept. Personally I find some people’s religious dogma and ritual far more bizarre and confronting than anyone’s private sexual orientation, but then as long as they don’t try to convert me, well good luck to them.

    Live and let live and rejoice in what everyone has to contribute. And remember that ”different” is not a synonym for ”abnormal”.

  15. I was going to respond to Paul’s comment yesterday by saying I don’t think the community or the electorate is having this debate and the only place the debate is happening is in the churches. Hence my theological reflections in previous comments.

    Rudd’s opposition to gay marriage is based in his artificial persona of a righteous christian, not any debate within the electorate. Even though the church is split on the issue of homosexuality, Rudd does not want to alienate the homophobic tendencies in the church – precious votes he could steal (or has stolen) from the Lib/Nats.

    However, today I was proven wrong as Jason Ackemanis offers a very secular analysis of the crisis of homosexuality.

    “Aker tells gay players to stay in closet”
    http://au.sports.yahoo.com/afl/news/article/-/7262891/aker-tells-gay-players-stay-closet

    It seems there is too much homo-erotocosm (Acker’s words) in football culture for it to be appropriate to be openly gay.

    This is indeed a new perspective in the debate and perhaps shines a light on the rejection of homosexuality in the culture of the church too.

  16. Before everyone loses their way on this discussion, lets go back to the start.
    I replied to Andrews Statement.
    There’s that ugly head of humanism again. I want so I should have.
    Lets change the meaning of the word marriage to include whatever we like, just so long as it makes me feel good. Not that it would achieve anything but just because we subscribe to that theory.

    Then Andrew replied:
    It’s nothing to do with humanism Tony. It’s to do with equality. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry another man

    Equality has nothing to do with it. The fact that you are comparing traditional marriage with a homosexual coupling(or union) is attacking the very foundation of all civilised society, and is nothing more than a political stunt held in a area with a large gay community.

    While very few homosexuals want to be married, many are concerned on probate issues on death etc.
    If you were serious, that’s where you’d be putting your time, not attacking the norm and using the emotional and inaccurate equality chant.
    It doesn’t work here and it won’t work in the electorate.

  17. Lorikeet – you can’t attack me with the allegation that I am “supporting nearly every recidivist act outlawed in the Bible” and then ignore what John Tracey is saying. John’s comments have specifically related to Biblical commands.

    As for my parents, neither were members of the DLP – although quite why it matters is beyond me. Your pathetic efforts to try to drag them in to use as human shields in your endless assaults on rational thought and fact based discourse just shows how truly tiny you are.

    But I do agree with your comment that “Intelligent people looking at issues on an interactive basis is not off topic”. That’s why I’ve pointed out that you are persistently off-topic.

    Tony:

    While very few homosexuals want to be married, many are concerned on probate issues on death etc. If you were serious, that’s where you’d be putting your time, not attacking the norm and using the emotional and inaccurate equality chant.

    I’m sorry, Tony there is nothing “inaccurate” about equality. It’s a fundamental principle, at least for me. But I accept that it clear isn’t something you believe in, so we can just agree to disagree.

    As for your attempt to attack me for not being serious about the issues many gay and lesbian people are concerned about, if you were even remotely paying attention you would know I – and the Democrats going back to the time of Don Chipp – have been fighting for equality on all those other fronts too for many years. Of course, every single one of those efforts have been vigorously opposed by people like you. The late former Senator Sid Spindler, deserve much wider acknowledgement as being a trailblazer in forcing the federal Parliamnent to engage with the widespread discrimination on the basis of sexuality that was entrenched in so many different parts of Commonwealth law. It took nearly 15 years from when Sid Spindler first proposed a raft of amendments to remove that discrimination for most of such changes to be finally made when, to its credit the Rudd government finally acted on these widespread injustices.

    The main reason why same sex marriage has been higher on the agenda in recent years is because (a) many (although not all) of those other battles for equality, including in “probate issues on death”, have been won, and (b) John Howard chose to put on the agenda in 2004 by explicitly overriding states and territories to outlaw any recognition of same sex marriage in Australia, even of couples who have been legally wed in other countries. This blatant attempt to (successfully) wedge the ALP and appeal for the votes of ignorant bigots like Lorikeet was typical of the Howard-era’s willingness to score political point by explicitly attacking vulnerable minority groups. In such circumstances, it becomes much more important to speak out in support of those who are being attacked and in support of the equality they are being denied.

  18. Tony,

    As far as I can make out, it is you who have defined marriages as what you like and indeed offered a theory to reinforce your desire.

    The model of marriage that you are so committed to cannot be found in the bible, so it doesn’t come from there. Other cultures around the world (and in Australia), for example tribal culture, have fascinating and amazing ways of dealing with issues of sexuality, commitment, responsibility and parenting that have survived for thousands of generations, so there is nothing universal in your model of family.

    So where does your model come from?

    The nuclear family that you worship has its origins in the development of capitalism and the industrial revolution. No longer was it viable for people to stay connected with their extended families and their traditional land, workers had to be prepared to move to wherever they could find a job and to be able to move from job to job to job, requiring a small mobile and self sufficient social unit.

    Your notion of family only serves the needs of capitalism.

  19. John Tracey:

    There are plenty of people who don’t go to church who are completely against the legalisation (and encouragement) of any kind of homosexual activity on both medical and social grounds. Some have been to church in the past, and some haven’t ever seen the inside of a church at all.

    I don’t think Tony currently goes to church and neither do I. I don’t think anyone could argue that the world wasn’t a better place when more people went to church. Since we have lived by Mug’s Rules of “almost anything goes”, our society has had a lot more problems.

    Traditional marriages have been around for a very long time. As I remember, the bible says God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, or Anna and Eve. They had 2 children, Cain and Abel.

    I also think it is a sad day when a new woman comes to the mixed dance class I attend, and the only Chick Magnet ends up being me.

  20. Lorikeet .. can I just ask: Whom, then, did Cain and Abel marry in order to beget the current world’s population of many millions?

    Interesting change in the values of journalists in these days of analysis of every tweet, Facebook entry and walk down the street. What would have happened if the truth about some of our earlier politicians been noised abroad at the time? John Gorton springs to mind. Billy Snedden. I’m sure there would be Labor ones as well. Even Chiff’s private life was irregular, I gather.

    Are we better off now? I wonder. I certainly could not care less about the private life of Mr Campbell, or any of the others caught in this sort of way. I note that he, at least, wasn’t one who fulminated in public against his fellow ‘sinners’ . Let those who believe in God perhaps leave the judging and punishing to God.

  21. My goodness, my breath is short and I find myself looking through the closet in anticipation of my cane…(loosens tie).
    No.
    A good dose of castor oil to some of you tho, for your thoughtless and undignified comments toward Andrew, in particular. I find myself following the more mainstream approach favoured by Togret.
    But any more naughty thoughts and nastiness and I will be back and it will be spankings time.

  22. Togret:

    I didn’t say I believed in God, but I have an open mind on it.

    As I remember, Cain killed Abel. Since I am not a theologian, I can only infer that quite a lot of incest occurred in the early days, but only because there were no other partners available. This could also have been the reason that men had many wives. The mortality rate among male infants is still higher today than that among females.

    I tend to evaluate what the bible says on the available medical and social evidence. For example, the Old Testament also bans men from having sex with women who are menstruating. It seems to me that the opportunity for transmission of disease would be greater at that time. Some women might also have haemorrhagic problems.

    I’m not sure if the bible has anything to say about oral sex. Perhaps John Tracey can tell us.

    Medical experts on TV have opined that oral sex can lead to terminal oral cancers in women, and that this is more common in those who have had 6 or more partners.

    All things considered, it would appear that there is an excellent medical and social case for having only one (heterosexual) partner, and identifying the correct orifice for each activity.

    I don’t think we can compare the behaviour of the general population with that of some politicians. It’s a very common thing for money and power to go straight down some people’s trousers.

    Paul Walter:

    I cannot see any reasoned argument in your latest post.

    I think you could at least consider effects on Population and Health, before inciting someone to break your cane up for firewood.

  23. “I’m not sure if the bible has anything to say about oral sex. Perhaps John Tracey can tell us.”

    Matthew 15:10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’ “

  24. Since I have no intention of throwing petrol on the flames, I’ll withdraw from comment at this juncture. I simply repeat .. someone else’s sex life has nothing to do with you or me unless a crime has been committed. Apparently none has. Anyone got anything to say about the man’s competence at work? Fine, go for it.

  25. Togret:

    I don’t care what goes on in other people’s bedrooms, as long as the curtains are closed, and it doesn’t involve any underage person.

    But I still would not legalise (and thereby encourage) any activity I don’t think is good for the society.

    John Tracey:

    I think Jesus was talking about food (not penises), going into people’s mouths. As for what comes out, he was talking about words.

    BTW I don’t use people as human shields. I have a logical evaluative mind, which certainly does not make assaults on rational thought.

    Methinks some people either don’t like ordinary common sense appraisals, or they are so far behind that they have little chance of ever catching up.

  26. Lorikeet said “I don’t care what goes on in other people’s bedrooms, as long as the curtains are closed, and it doesn’t involve any underage person. But I still would not legalise (and thereby encourage) any activity I don’t think is good for the society.”

    Shorter Lorikeet:
    “I don’t care what goes on in other people’s bedrooms, but if I don’t like it it should be illegal.”

    I am sure John was making the same point as you – that Jesus was talking about it being the words coming out of people’s mouths that made them “unclean”. I’m not overly fond of calling people unclean, although I know historically it had some different meanings to today. But certainly if people’s words are carelessly vilifying, hateful or recklessly ignorant, I have no problem criticising them as such – particularly in the case of repeat offences.

  27. Andrew:

    You support various forms of recidivism, but you still think those who support a clean living society are unclean of mind. I cannot describe an act of sodomy in a clean way, when it is clearly dirty. What I said certainly doesn’t equate to your short sighted interpretation.

    It is my democratic right to have an opinion on what should be legalised and to explain my reasoning, without being constantly vilified by you across a spectrum.

    You may not care what happens to your own country, either at home or on the world stage, but some of us still do.

  28. Of course it’s your democratic right to have an opinion – no one is questioning that, (least of all me, who has let you express it at greater length than every other commenter combined on my blog for many many months). I feel rather sad for you that, despite all the other comments and information that has been posted here that you still can’t think of anything other than sodomy when the issue of same sex marriage comes up.

    In any case, you are the one saying that not only should same sex marriage be prohibited, but all sexual interaction between people of the same gender should also be illegal. I presume you also believe sodomy involving married couples (of differing genders) should also be illegal.

    It’s your democratic right to say what you think, and it is my democratic right to describe your comments as those of an ignorant (and/or intellectually lazy) bigot.

    Seeing you have managed to use the term “recidivism” in every single comment thread on my blog for more than a year, I presume you are aware that it means “the chronic tendency toward repetition of antisocial behavior patterns.”

    There are few things more antisocial than being a loudly proud bigot, other than the tendency to chronically – nay, obsessively – repeat such a behavior pattern.

    Given your obsessive aversion to recidivism (other than your own, which you seem to sadly be blind to), I’m sure you’ll be pleased if I try to prevent any displays of this from appearing in any comment threads on this blog in the future.

  29. And who says penii have no nutritional value?
    Quite apart from the matter ejected into a given throat during oral sex, there is an anticipation of the member itself, perhaps lightly sauteed with some garlic and a few shallots, in a bread roll, say, with tomatoe sauce optional.
    Sausage and chips woud have nothing on this savoury morsel, designed to please the good taste buds of a gormet herself.

  30. Recividism is backsliding e.g. returning to the Roman Days of sodomy and debauchery.

    I don’t think anyone could describe someone with an IQ of 150+ as “intellectually lazy” or an ignorant bigot. It seems you enjoy calling me names and insulting me, simply because I don’t agree with you.

    I’m sure I certainly haven’t used the term “recidivism” in every comment thread over a long period of time. Anyone who reads your blog on a regular basis (or even this one alone) would know I look at issues across a broad perspective, based on the available facts.

    Some of what you describe as off topic would be seen as relevant by more highly evolved people than you.

    I don’t see anything democratic about threatening to silence intelligent people.

Comments are closed.