“Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else’s opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.” Of course, I didn’t write this. Oscar Wilde did. Welcome to the Readers’ Comments column, where it’s all about the importance of being earnest. Informed Australians, let’s engage ...
As the High Court considered then tossed out a challenge to the goverment’s postal plebiscite plan, feeling on both sides of the same-sex marriage divide continued to run high. Three columns alone generated almost 3000 comments between them, namely Rick Morton’s meditation on the nature of disgust with regard to acceptance of gay marriage, Janet Albrechtsen’s well-argued conservative case for a yes vote, and Greg Sheridan’s exegesis on how a committed Christian can vote yes. In response to Rick’s column, comment of the week goes to Obeyno1:
“I’d agree not all opposition to SSM is due to programmed or instinctual revulsion. I guess I’ve come to different conclusions in regards to the slippery slope arguments. I’d suggest no evidence SSM will lead to accepting polygamy or child marriage. That’s Islam, Mormonism and Old Judaism. Child marriage was the norm for traditional heterosexual marriages at certain times and places. No connection to homosexuality.
“In regards to stifling free speech, I share the general concern. However, I think the threat is beyond SSM, not directly related to SSM. It’s the intolerant left more broadly shutting down debate. Similarly I oppose other people’s supernatural dogmas being forced on others, like blasphemy laws. We should have the right to offend, but not threaten or incite violence.
“At the end of the day I support human rights, freedom, equality and secular democracy ... Really it’s just broadening marriage to include same-sex couples, not demeaning or banning heterosexual marriage or religious marriages.
“Same sex couples can’t naturally procreate but why not try to make their relationships as equal and respected as possible. Just like we let heterosexual couples marry even if they can’t have children. It’s hard enough being gay. Where is the evidence of real harm? Other than the wasted cost of weddings and cost of divorce. That’s equality too, sharing the negatives of marriage.”
Maria went into bat for Tony Abbott:
“Tony Abbott is not disgusted by gays. His best friend and journalist Christopher Pearson was gay, he has helped launch books for transgender friends and loves his sister. But he is a proud Catholic and believes in a traditional view of marriage. So what. This man has devoted his life to family, community, public life and has the courage of his beliefs. But just because you both have a differing view on SSM is not reason to misrepresent him.”
As did Ian:
“Tony Abbott’s sister, who he loves dearly, is gay. He counts Kate McGreggor as a close friend and publicly stood by her when she transitioned. To suggest Tony’s defence of traditional marriage is because he is disgusted by gays is a horrible argument ...”
James earned 156 likes for asking:
“How do you reconcile this with the fact that there are homosexuals who oppose same-sex marriage?”
My 2 Cents gave his two cents:
“I am an opponent of SSM so where does that leave me as a gay man in a long term relationship, Rick Morton?”
Said Arlys (161 likes):
“The thought of gay behaviour in the bedroom repulses many, that’s life and it’s never going to change and being ‘married’ is not going to change that, many straights will still find it unnatural and unattractive. But I doubt it’s the reason for voting no. Bullying tactics, have lost my vote, not bedroom behaviour.”
Martin (145 likes) discussed disgust:
“The author tries to reduce the objection of opponents to homosexual marriage to an irrational reaction to homosexual sex. Certainly, many people feel revulsion at the thought.
“The human condition makes us react to things we view as wrong or unnatural, especially when they relate to our bodies. Few people would like the idea of their mother working as a prostitute. Nobody wants to see Grandma walking down the street naked. Sex with children and animals is utterly repulsive. These reactions are part of our human psyche. They underpin many of our behavioural traits, our morals, laws and ethics. This is how we are made, and it’s not going to change. Nor does it need to be justified by ‘reason’.
“Nobody is proposing to outlaw homosexuality. Plenty of people against homosexual marriage don’t have a problem with homosexuals. They are however concerned about protecting the family unit as the bedrock of our society, protecting the rights of children to their biological parents, the sexualisation of children via gender theory, and the right of people to freely express their views on such matters, whether through religious conviction, or merely on the grounds of conscience.”
David waxed philosophical before getting very superstitious:
“Five or six years ago the philosopher Raimond Gaita of the University of Melbourne expressed similar views to Rick Morton, ie the underlying disgust at homosexuality is the real reason that many people are opposed to same sex marriage.
“Gaita said that to be relieved of that disgust, to be regarded as fully human, was the real reason why homosexuals want marriage and it is why civil unions will never do; although they may give all the ‘goods and opportunities’ of marriage they do not put homosexual sex on the same plane as male-female sex.
“I have wondered why there is such a strong built-in revulsion at homosexuality and that it might come from the very high regard for fertility in primitive times and the belief that capricious gods were in charge. Homosexual acts could have been seen as insulting the gift of fertility that the gods bestowed and had to be suppressed for fear of retribution by the gods, such as causing crops to fail.”
In response to a decidedly scriptural Sheridan, Bruce had doubts:
“Greg, I think you are about as right on this subject as you were on the last US Presidential election.”
Kevin agreed to disagree with Janet A’s case for a conservative “yes”:
“I don’t agree with a lot of what you’ve said here but I greatly admire you for putting your case in such a reasoned and eloquent manner. Australia needs more journalists like you.”
Ray was not convinced:
“Make no mistake about it, this debate on the redefinition of marriage has nothing to do with the rights of gay and lesbian couples and everything to do with the way we think. It is nothing less than an obsessive and cynical Orwellian campaign to police our thoughts. Nothing could be further from the ideal of liberalism.”
Linda got 65 likes for sharing her Damascene conversion:
“As a libertarian myself (and I did vote for the Lib Dems at the last election), I was all geared up to vote yes had the mandatory plebiscite gone ahead in February out of solidarity with my 21-year-old lesbian daughter who lives with her partner. I have changed my mind to a no vote now.
“One reason is that my daughter is uncommitted herself (won’t even enrol to vote on this issue) due to the unbelievable pressure the SSM advocates have heaped upon her and her other LGBT friends at uni. We all hate being pushed.”
Greg Sheridan put his foreign affairs hat back on to bemoan the new depths of idiocy plumbed by President Trump, amidst a sober appraisal of the options open to the US leader. Show me the idiocy, said Jack, eliciting 58 likes:
“Here is the (Trump) tweet: ‘South Korea is finding, as I have told them, that their talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!’What is going on? Maybe I don’t understand ‘saving face’ or something but I cannot see for the life of me why this tweet is so bad?”
Mike sought to explain:
“I believe we do understand Jack. It appears that Greg’s hatred of Trump has got the better of him, and he’s finally cracked and vented his spleen.”
Claude saw Trump as crazy like a fox:
“Mr Sheridan is making the same mistake that most commentators make about Trump. He and they keep expecting to see some ‘presidential’ behavior where politics and diplomacy are front and centre. Trump is a problem solver; politics and diplomacy are very much in the back seat. I propose that getting a good outcome is better than a brilliantly diplomatic and very presidential failure.”
Mick had Shero’s back:
“Greg, I wholeheartedly support your comments. You remain arguably the best mind in foreign affairs that our press has ever seen and you are astute here. The very worst thing you can do to a friend in need is blame them for getting into trouble in the first place. South Korea, more than any other nation on Earth, has had to live next to a ticking time bomb. Allies are essential for the survival of this nation.
“Donald Trump is an enigma, for sure, but international diplomacy and foreign policy are as understood by Trump as hiring a good hairdresser. He is literally playing with the lives of millions with his tweets and uncontrolled public outbursts. Good stuff for tabloid TV but fatal in the theatre of international politics.”
Andrew put on his general’s helmet and hunkered in his bunker:
“I would think the following might get some interesting results.
1. Start basing more troops in South Korea, specifically airborne troops.
2. Start assembling amphib units as well, let’s at least triple the deployment.
3. Base more A/C units and and metric truck load of SAMs.
4. Aircraft: Ground attack and start readying B52 for extensive carpet bombing missions. The B1s and B2s need to be loaded out for long range strike against hardened targets.
“The paratroopers and amphib ships need to be ready to secure the river crossings from China to NK and making quite obvious preparations for such. Make no mistake. China would NOT like the idea of the US occupying NK or a unified NK and might well get off their backsides.”
Melissa, like Moses, favoured an exodus:
“Why has the capital not been shifted south, to Busan for example, out of range of the North’s conventional artillery? Why is there not a mass evacuation underway as we speak, to get as many of those 10 million non-essential innocents out of harm’s way?
“South Korea is implicit in its own victimhood. If the US needs to defend itself against North Korean aggression, South Korea should not then turn around and blame the US. They have chosen to live in the shadow of the volcano, and cannot then claim surprise when it eventually explodes.”
“I tawt I thaw a thylacine”, said Adrian “Richo” Richardson, a retired soldier who has been searching for the Tasmanian tiger for 26 years. Readers had their doubts. Said Malcolm:
“It’s a Kelpie with arthritic hips looking for somewhere to do his business.”
Countered Des:
“I’m pretty sure it is a Moa looking for to take Barnaby back home.”
The glass was half full for Phil:
“Good news for conservationists. Either we have a tiger or three dodos.”
From Tim:
“Spotted-tailed quoll for sure.”
A looked to “B”:
“There are much clearer images of Bigfoot.”
Mark rolled his eyes to the skies:
“If you really really want to see a UFO, you will see one. C’mon guys, paw prints? Droppings? Anything else?”
Bing’s logic was curious:
“If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck ... it’s probably a dog.”
Gieusahaggis went in for the roadkill:
“We see thousands of dead roos on the roads because there are millions of them. But not one dead Thylacine in 85 years. They must have terrific road sense.”
Finally, Fiona got all shook up about the Tiger Man:
“Errrr, guys? That was a wooden cut-out of a thylacine. I am a bit curious about the shape hovering in the sky ... and, of course, Elvis.”
Each Friday the cream of your views on the news rises and we honour the voices that made the debate great. To boost your chances of being featured, please be pertinent, pithy and preferably make a point. Solid arguments, original ideas, sparkling prose, rapier wit and rhetorical flourishes may count in your favour. Civility is essential. Comments may be edited for length.
Add your comment to this story
Miners change tune on climate change
Peak mining industry body The Minerals Council of Australia has joined the fight on climate.
Easy to point the finger
Demanding we abandon coal for climate is akin to asking NZ to give up love affair with sheep.
To join the conversation, please log in. Don't have an account? Register
Join the conversation, you are commenting as Logout