On Australian same-sex marriage

(yes, I know this post should have been on Saturday. It took a while)

On Saturday, I attended Melbourne's Equal Love rally, to show support for same-sex marriage. There were some great speakers, including Senator Hanson-Young and a spokesperson for the Radical Women. However, what bothered me was that several speakers mentioned that 60% of Australian's supported gay marriage, like that was a genuine reason. Personally, I don't care if the 4-5,000 who attended the rally are the only people in all of Australia who think that same-sex marriage should be legal. The political views of the majority should absolutely never impact on the rights of any minority group. We saw this happen in California, wherein the majority voted to remove prevent Californian gays from marrying. Go back 54 years, to 1954, in which the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in schools was unconstitutional. Any intelligent, intellectually honest person with a firm knowledge of black American civil rights knows that if racial integration were up to a popular vote, it would have taken decades for the population to forego their prejudices.

All arguments to discriminate against gays are farcical. Traditional? Preventing women from voting was one of the longest-standing traditions in Western democracy, and stood for centuries until the Suffragette movements. Not natural? Asides from being false, almost everything in our day-to-day lives in unnatural. Cars, harnessing electricity and modern medicine are all unnatural, yet we'd be insane to pass them up. We shouldn't redefine marriage? Marriage has been redefined countless times. Anti-Biblical? Asides from being unconstitutional, why should we follow that particular interpretation of the Bible? Why not a more lefty view? For the children? Firstly, marriage and children have nothing to do with each other. You can marry and not have children, and vice versa. Secondly, gays are fine parents. It will lead to polygamy? That's a red herring; every person who's used that argument has failed to state why polygamous marriage is so bad in the first place. They can't procreate? Neither can the elderly. And so on and so fourth.

However, despite all this, for this term, I don't think the ALP should change the marriage laws immediately. Namely, because as a part of his election campaign, Rudd stated that he wouldn't allow gays to marry. And if there's one thing I loathe, it's a political leader changing his position on an issue mid-term, before they can be voted on that issue. Hence, I would rather Rudd state that if reelected, he would change the marriage laws, rather than change them now, even at the cost of equality.

Personal principles; they can be a real pain at times.

End of an era

GrodsCorp, bastion of groupthink and bizarre sexual fetishes (fleshlights and pegging, anyone?) is dead. The Editor, AKA Scott, has taken leave to India and has shut down every leftist's favourite blog. It's rather depressing to see a stalwart of the lefty blogging community suddenly vanish. It's like a relative who's killed in freak pegging accident-there's an empty space that could only be filled with tap, fleshlight jokes and Brigit and Bron's excellent posts on American politics and Australian racism. Whatever Ant, Brigit, Bron and Jason get up to in the future, it will never replace what was lost.

Thankfully, now in my blogroll I can address Scott by his assigned military identity: Field Marshal Theodore Editor.

Cross-posted here, here, here, here and here.

My equivalent of Homer Simpson's 'new bilboard day'.

CDP press release day!

For those who don't follow the adventures of Fred and his fellow fundies on an obsessive-compulsive basis, the CDP is a little haphazard about giving online press releases. Namely, that the page is updates only a few times every year, so 50+ articles are put up in one go (my theory is that most CDPers are involved in some sex scandal like their American counterparts, so every time another volunteer is found out, Fred needs to find an train a new guy. And because computers allow such easy access to the naughty stuff, the CDP loses more tech workers than Atari on a bad day).

Most press releases are rather boring, however several are truly spectacular in their fundishness (that's a word now, OK?).

- Fred Nile can't understand the difference between group sex and rape.

- Fred thinks that all Muslim schools teach Wahhabism.

- All environmentalists are secret extremists who want humanity to die, starting with the innocent children. Oh, teh gay agenda is there as well.

- Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because the collective texts written by bronze age sheep herders who thought the earth was flat and insects have four legs provide a stronger basis for modern society than current psychological and pediatric institutions.

That's all, folks.

Terrorism committed by...white people? IMPOSSIBLE!!1!

I've discussed this before, but the topic has come up again.

From CNN: "Trial set for anti-abortion activist in Kansas doctor's death"

An "activist" you say? I guess you could call him an "activist" but there's a much more accurate word used to describe killing a civilian to intimidate one's political enemies.

Could you imagine anybody-anybody-calling Hamas 'activists critical of Israel' or calling the KKK 'states' rights activists' or the real IRA 'pro-Ireland activists'? Activism is activity to advocate a certain political goal ideology. Terrorism is violence against innocent civilians to advocate political goal: there is a bloody difference. Of course, if any news organisations were to use 'terrorist' to describe the murderer, the outrage from Republicans and right to life organisations would would be spectacular. The sort of "How dare you equate this man protecting the unborn to al-Qaeda" style of outrage...well, at least Sarah Palin isn't in the White House.

Shamelessly stolen from Shakesville.

A message to Craig 'Irony's my middle name' Catchlove

To: Aldermen@astc.nt.gov.au

Title: Response to the proposed Public Places By-Laws

Dear Mr. Catchlove and the Alice Spring's Town Council,

I am deeply horrified by the proposed laws to fine people for begging. Beggars amongst the poorest and most vulnerable people in any community, consisting of those who are homeless, mentally ill or suffering from past histories of child abuse. Deliberately fining people who are unable to pay such fines is a despicable act of cruelty and is something I would expect to see in Burma or Zimbabwe, not Australia. I have been informed that there is time to rescind this law, and I urge you to do so.

If I could receive a receipt for this email from the Council, that would be greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Richardson-Smith.

Hat tip to Captain Lefty.

Pure misogyny: the sequel

A while back, I wrote a post regarding 'purity balls'. My main beef was the double standard; that sexual purity was/is only ever applied to girls, whilst boys were ignored. In hindsight, I now realise I missed something equally as problematic; that religious fundamentalists and hardline conservatives can't separate morality from sexuality (when I say 'sexuality' I'm referring to one's sexual self, not which sex they're attracted to. Sexual orientation is a component of sexual self, but the sexual self also encompasses views on sex, sexual drive, etc).

Check out 'sexual morality' and its sister page, 'sex-negativity'. It becomes very clear what the far-conservatives, religious and areligious, believe that any form of sexual expression outside of your married partner is inherently amoral, and this reflects on your person; that you are amoral as well. This is a concept so ridiculous I have a hard time trying to formulate a proper response, but this is a good example. Turtle is a prime example of sexual absolutism; s/he is unable to discern a hypothetical gay teacher's sexual orientation (viewed as sinful) from the teacher's moral beliefs. As far as Turtle is concerned, the teacher's immorality begins and ends with his sinful orientation-no other information, such as compassion or charity work, is required.

Similar, if more crude and insulting, views can be found by searching 'slut' or 'whore' in FSTDT. Once again, we peoples'-in this case womens'-morality totally defined by their sexual self.

This actually explains a great deal of fundie beliefs. Fundies believe that sexuality defines morality; therefore, someone who adheres to traditional sexuality (no premarital sex, no contraception et al) is moral, regardless of their other beliefs and actions. You can be pro-war, reject any compassion or kindness to the poverty stricken, you can lie, defame and hate those different from you, yet you are moral because of your sexuality. Equally, somebody who doesn't conform to such rigid sexual norms is amoral, no matter who they are. A sex worker may regularly fundrais to support anti-poverty measures, but they will still be considered completely devoid of morality by religious fundamentalists.

Shakesville gives an excellent statement regarding that 'sexuality as morality' philosophy, in this case in the context of purity balls:

This transaction immutably and inextricably links a girl's virginity with her character—to the exclusion, Hart worries, of all else. "[T]hese dads and daughters may be falling for the misperception … that some sort of righteousness is inherent in the status of virgin, or any outward appearance of propriety. But what if that same virginal girl has a heart full of bitterness, envy, lust, greed? Would her dad still be proud? Would she? Should they be?" Good questions all. Here's another: Is there not something deeply troubling about a parent who finds it quite impossible to be proud of his daughter, or a daughter who likewise finds it quite impossible to be proud of herself, if she has a heart full of love and kindness and generosity, and is also an unmarried non-virgin? How many girls, knowing their father's love and respect is contingent upon their "purity," will resist telling their fathers if they are molested, or raped?

To say that defining morality as sexuality is dangerous is a spectacular understatement. A low key example is this, where a city manager was fired because his wife is a porn actor. This also shows that people (such as the aforementioned Turtle) are unable to distinguish a person's private life from their public life. Mr. Janke was fired not because of ability to his job, but because the council was uncomfortable with his private life. I don't care if it was Ms. Janke who was the city manager; the idea that one's personal life is also their public life is ludicrous. Thankfully, the community is at worst, neutral, and a best, supportive of the Jankes.

This, I feel, doesn't only show the inherent danger of 'purity' but, on an unrelated note, provides an adequate explanation for the fundies' support for Bush; in return for their vote, he gave America abstinence-only indoctrination, disenfranchisement of gays, and attempted to roll back Roe v. Wade.

Other good stuff here, here and here.

Piers and Andrew. Pornstars in other lives.

Piers 'Idiot's Andrew Bolt' Akerman is a well established idiot.

The Left, which has been pushing for this new global wealth redistribution scheme, must decide whether it really wants to punish nations like India, where 42.5 per cent of children under five are malnourished.

Fracken' genius (although it should be spelled 'teh Left').

But the true gold comes from Andrew 'Murdoch's bitch' Bolt. I wonder how Andy would feel if he knew his material has such strong support from leading white supremacist forum Stormfront?