Sep 04

What made me Gay?

family 12 Comments »

Even in far flung Ubud, Bali I have heard the noise from Australia about the Prime Minister smacking down a chrisitan who had the tenacity to ask the PM about his back flip on marriage equality.

I can’t help but make a few comments on some of the stuff I’ve read from some christian quarters about Rudd’s comments.

And let me be really clear here. I don’t like Kevin Rudd, to me he is simply another man in a suit that is bent on keeping the job of Prime Minister and has little regard for anyone else because he knows best.

In a nutshell, a christian pastor asked the christian Prime Minister how he could now support marriage equality when Jesus himself made it clear that marriage was between a man and a woman.  Rudd in his response said:

I do not believe people, when they are born, choose their sexuality. They are gay if they are born gay. You don’t decide at some later stage in life to be one thing or the other. It is – it is how people are built and, therefore, the idea that this is somehow an abnormal condition is just wrong. I don’t get that. I think that is just a completely ill-founded view.

He went on to say other things, have a look at the video or read the transcript.

I want to focus on this particular statement about being born gay.  This is from my own personal journey.

Some other bloggers have taken to their blogs to object to the PM’s notion that people are born gay.

Bill Muelhenberg on his blog called “Culture Watch” said this:

He (Rudd) assured us that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change, thereby calling Jesus a liar for telling us he came to set people free from their sinful lifestyles.

…snip…

It (The Bible) is nothing of the sort. It is about the truth that we are condemned sinners heading to hell, and that Jesus died for our sin so that through faith and repentance we can be set free and made right with God.

Arnold Jago – Mildura doctor and devout Catholic says this on his blog called “The Real Mary Mackillop”:

Last night on ABC-TV, Prime Minster Kevin Rudd was applauded for claiming that same-sex “marriage” is compatible with Christian thought.
Based on two assumptions:
* that homosexuality is not abnormal because some people can’t help it. “They are gay if they are born gay,” he said.
Which is not factually correct. It’s far from being that simple.
* having hopefully got away with that dubious generalisation, Mr Rudd steered further off track.
“What is the fundamental principle of the New Testament…Loving your fellow man,” he said.
Well yes. But if, in fact, homosexuality is a disorder, the way to show a man love is to warn him of his problem and guide him towards a better way.

Out there on the net are plenty of other examples of christians being upset that Rudd claims that I was born gay.

Was I born gay?  I don’t know.  Does it matter?  Not to me.  Am I disordered?  I don’t think so.

I don’t know why I’m gay but I can tell you that from a very early stage in my life I knew that I was gay.  I may not have had the words to describe how I felt and I certainly didn’t know what it meant.  But from about the age of 8 there was a part of my brain that knew that boys were far more interesting to me than girls.

In my teens I had no interest in the opposite sex and my early sexual encounters and my first serious relationship was with a man.  Women didn’t figure at all.  By the time I was in my 20’s this was causing me angst thanks to religion.  I wasn’t ‘growing out of it’ as some people seemed to suggest.  The phase I was going through seemed to be rather long.

I don’t  know where my sexuality came from, but I do know how hard I tried to get rid of it.  Ask my siblings about me growing up.  An angry youngster.

There’s claims that my sexuality may have been caused by an absent father or lack of relationship with him, it may have been caused by sexual abuse from a man, or it might have been the devil.  However, there’s 11 children, my sisters and brothers either side of me don’t appear to be gay.  Our experience in growing up is very similar.  I can only think that I suffer from 8th child syndrome, well known for causing gayness.

Being gay is not something that I learned to be.  In fact the reverse is true.  I did my best to learn to be straight.  I even got married and had kids to prove that I was a true blue Aussie bloke able to scratch my nuts, spit, swear and make disgusting statements about sex.

Then for some strange reason that veneer broke down.  I was angry even though I thought god had answered my prayers and given me a wife and a family.  I was devout. I loved jesus and thanked him for my wonderful life.  My prayers had been answered, god had taken away the ‘sin of homosexuality’ from me.

At this stage christians will tell me that I wasn’t trying hard enough, I didn’t pray hard enough, I didn’t believe hard enough.  I gave in to temptation.  The devil made me do it.  I choose to be gay.

You’re joking, right?  Christians think I made a decision to be gay and to be subjected to a world of hatred and bigotry? Some christians think I picked a sexuality that would lead me to live in a world surrounded by homophobic believers.  I was a true catholic, I knew that sinners would go to hell.  That’s an eternity in torment.  I really believed that.  Why would I pick to spend all of time in the pits of hell?

I didn’t pick being gay, it was only when I made the decision to be who I really was, to accept that my sexuality was innate that I finally found peace.  It is only in a loving relationship with Michael that I have truly found myself.

1147590_10151828259870149_846076795_oThis is my world.  I’m not disordered or a sinner.  I don’t hate god (there is no god to hate) and I don’t need god.

I don’t need religion to define me.

I’m happy for people to believe whatever they want, go for it.

I’m not happy for other people’s belief systems to impact on me.  I reject that outright.  It’s not ok for a pastor from Queensland to suggest that there is something wrong with me, it’s  not ok for fundamentalist christians to continue the hate and the bigotry based on concepts that I have no belief in.  It’s not ok for some fundamentalists to pretend that they really love me and want me to know the truth according to them.

I am not asking anyone else to be gay, I’m not trying to change anyone’s sexuality (but if Matt Damon was interested…), I just want to get on with my life, I want to spend it with Michael, we love each other, we want to be together.

I am now happy.  Not because I’ve rejected religion or that I’ve taken the ‘easy path’ or given in to the sin of homosexuality.  I’m happy because I have accepted who I am and I’m no longer trying to be who others think I should be.

In the straight world after 5 years of being together people would ask me when the big day was.  When are we getting married.

That’s a really good question.  When am I getting married?

Tagged with: • • •
Jul 03

Vilification taken to new heights by Blogger

General 4 Comments »

I’m simply outraged, enough to drag myself out of bed and write this blog while my levels of outrageousness are still really high.

I find it beyond my comprehension that two grown men adopted a child and then abused that child in a way that makes me feel sick.  I have no words that I would use here that begin to show my utter disgust and contempt for these two.  They play the perfect gay parents and hid their actions with a bunch of lies and fooled everyone for a very long time.

I’ve seen this behaviour before.  When I was in the Scouts back in Hamilton and we discovered a paedophile in our midst.  Someone that I had worked with for many years.  I had no idea.  His best friend had no idea and his wife had no idea.  He used his position of trust to abuse the young boys in his charge.  At the time, as we went through various debriefings, it became clear that this is the way that paedophiles operate, they get in on the trust of the parents and manipulate them to gain access to their children.

Just look at the Catholic Church and those priests that offend, they behave in exactly the same way.

I find it disgusting.  My experience meant that I was doubly cautious with my own children and barely left them alone with anyone else.

When coming to terms with my sexuality one of the big battles I had to overcome was my internal homophobia.  I was so frightened that beneath the public me I was a dirty paedophile.  That’s the scary shit that I was dealing with.  An attitude that had been embedded in my psyche by a homophobic society that thought if you are homosexual you must be a sexual deviant, a rapist, and a child-abusing paedophile.  It took me a few years to work out that I wasn’t any of those things, I am plainly and simply a man, father of two and gay.  I’m normal and the public me is really the internal me.

Can you imagine then how much it hurts to have to read the words of religious bigots who go out of their way to demonise me and all others like me simply because of my sexuality.  I’m talking of christian fundamentalist Bill Muehlenberg.

It is exactly his sort of attitude that led me in one of my counselling sessions to say to my counsellor “If I ever thought I would sexually abuse my children I would kill myself first”.  Because in the early days of my coming to terms with myself I was unable to make a distinction between the two.  In my mind they were linked.  I understand now just where that link comes from.

How wrong was I?  Never in my reality has sexual abuse of children been a consideration.  Not once.  But I know the impact of society’s homophobia and I’m so shocked and disappointed to find that its still out there, there are people so insidious that they continue to spread the lies and distrust around.

And why do they continue with this abuse?  Because I want to get married.  In his mind I’m evil because I’m gay and I want to destroy marriage, abuse children and bring society down so his view of Satan can rule the world.

I’ve placed the links to the relevant blog posts below from Bill Muehlenberg.  His blogs are full of hate, not love as he likes to pretend.  He never corrects himself or admits that he is wrong.

When the story first broke regarding the two gay men who abused their own adopted son, Muehlenberg posted this:

That is because it involves two things which sadly can often go together (homosexuality and paedophilia) – but things which the lamestream media usually refuses to be honest about. Our mainstream media outlets are dominated by homosexuals and those who are pro-homosexual, so they are loathe to report on anything other than absolutely positive coverage of all things homosexual.

Several things must be noted here. As mentioned, while some of the MSM did run with the story, it has been very squeamish to openly state what was actually going on here: homosexual paedophilia. Sadly we know that even though homosexuals are such a very small part of the general population, they have a substantial degree of involvement in child sexual abuse.

The story did break in several MSM – main stream media outlets (or the lamestream as he likes to call it) and none of them were particularly reserved.  There’s a long article in The Age, published twice, and covered on the ABC news.

Muehlenberg then went on to post a follow-up blog where he said this

While most people rightly condemn child abuse, there are in fact certain forms of child abuse which are now acceptable – at least by our secular left elites, and the activist lobby groups.

This is a truly vile statement.  Show me one secular left elite or an activist lobby group who says child abuse is OK.  They just don’t exist.  One of the paedophiles in this case has been jailed for 40 years.  40 years!  That doesn’t sound like a smack on the wrist punishment to me, it doesn’t sound like child abuse is acceptable.

One is obviously horrific and perverted abuse… The first case I have discussed before. It involves an Australian homosexual couple who bought a baby from Russian surrogates, and then not only sexually abused the toddler, but shared him around various paedophile networks in different countries.

The prolonged sexual abuse by these homosexual paedophiles was so utterly diabolical and monstrous that a judge did not want a jury to hear the case. One US state attorney said this about the case: ”For more than one year and across three continents, these men submitted this young child to some of the most heinous acts of exploitation that this office has ever seen.” Actually for the first six years of his poor life he was subject to repeated abuse.

The reason I discuss it again is quite simple: all over the Western world we are being told we must accept not only homosexuality, but homosexual adoption rights. The activists along with a fully duped media are pushing their agenda, without a bit of care about the consequences.

He makes the irrational and outrageous remark that somehow homosexuals are all child abusers.  He dismisses all the sexual abuse that happens in the home between a father and daughter, all the sexual abuse that clergy have inflicted upon boys and girls.  He simply says that we, the gay people, have duped everyone into accepting our agenda.  How grossly arrogant of him to say so without a care in the world.  He shows no concern as to the impact his type of bigotry has on young gay guys trying to find answers.  Let me tell you from my worldly experience of being a religious nutter – Jesus is not the answer.  Oh, and my gay agenda tomorrow includes getting up going to the gym, going to work, cooking dinner and before bedtime I may undertake a bit of world domination.

Indeed, consider this: our ABC actually strongly promoted this very same homosexual couple just a few years ago. The GayBC is among the most pro-homosexual media outlets in existence in this country. They gave this couple plenty of airplay and newsfeed.

Yes, that’s right.  These two gay dads pulled the wool over the eyes of the media by lying.  It’s not the first time the media has been fed the wrong information.  They simply made a mistake.  One that they have now corrected.

In typical lamestream media style, this story is designed to pull all the emotional heart strings, and make anyone opposed to it look like a callous and heartless ogre. Personal interest stories are always used by the activist MSM. Contrary facts and evidence can easily be overcome by simply showing a happy “family”. Emotive stories will always trump rational argument and evidence-based debate.

The ABC in particular and the MSM in general do this constantly. It is a way to short circuit debate, and put the homosexual activists in the best possible light. Of course they will never show the opposite. They will never feature lengthy stories with big colour pics about children who have been harmed in homosexual households. They will never do personal interest stories which may cast homosexuality in a bad light.

Tonight, the ABC’s 7.30 program showed us 8 minutes of these two abusers and what they did to their adopted son.  Nothing held back, we got the full story.  They even express dismay about their original story.  Contrary to the assertions of Muehlenberg they didn’t suggest that all gay guys are paedophiles, they did spend some time going over how they’d been fooled.  It was a very balanced report.

Muehlenberg is aware of the report on 7.30 – two comments as I write have been posted on his blog by him that shows he is aware.  But he’s not amended or taken his blog down.

In 2013 why must I still read and hear about these sort of outrageous comments?  All the research and science shows that he and his ilk are wrong.  They are wrong because they base their hatred purely on a few verses in the non-scientific bible.  His world view flows only from that and he ignores anything that isn’t somehow connected to a religious point of view.

His view is parroted by the many people who visit his pages and comment, those people have children or access to children where they continue to spread this misinformation.  This is where the real harm is caused.  To those young people trying to establish their identity and they are confronted with the wrong information about who they are.  That leads to depression, self-harm and sometimes death.

Muehlenberg often states that people like me are out to shut him down.  I’m not at all.  But he really does need to temper his language and catch up with where the world really is in relation to sexuality, paedophilia, religion and bigotry.   He needs to stop the vilification of the likes of me.

I am the gay dad of two children.  I am not a paedophile.  I resent the implication.

Now is the time that the Australian Government should be looking at vilification laws.  It’s great to have the recent amendments to the Sex Discriminations Act to include GLBTI rights, but it needs more.

Bill Muehlenberg’s Blog 1 and Blog 2

The news not at all hidden by the ABC

The news not at all hidden by the ABC

 

Tagged with: • • •
Jun 24

My Human Rights are Not Changeable.

General 5 Comments »

qandaI’m a keen watcher of Q&A on the ABC.  I love the political discussion.  Michael and I fire up our laptops and tweet away.  I become fully engaged in the conversation and the questions.  We make comments to each other, interact with our Twitter and Facebook friends, at times I yell at the screen.  It’s a fun night all round.

Something has set me off on tonight’s show. There really was a lot there that I feel quite strongly about, Graeme Richardson telling us what the Labor Party should be doing, Judith Sloan calling Childcare workers ‘dimwitted’ and discussion on violence against women.  Those topics alone got me going, but I’m really quite disgusted.  I can’t believe what I heard and the sense of personal outrage in me was enormous.

Tonight’s show included this question:

DISCRIMINATION IN AGED CARE – Alastair Lawrie has asked: Senator Brandis: On Tuesday night, you stated the Opposition would block any anti-discrimination bill that does not allow religious organisations to discriminate against older LGBTI people in aged care facilities. You claimed that religious freedom trumps the right not to be discriminated against.

I’ll wait to see the transcript, but it seems to me that Brandis is perfectly happy to allow religious rights to trump sexuality rights.

He said that anti-discrimination laws should not be universal.  He said religious freedom trumps that of sexual freedom.

This is an outrageous position for a member of our Parliament to hold.  Brandis may well be the next Attorney-General.

You can change your religious afflictions, not so much your sexuality.  The only people who think you can change your sexuality, or even want you to change your sexuality are religious people.  Yet my rights, if Brandis got his way, need to be dictated by the rights of a religion because my unchangeable sexuality offends them.

Let’s see.  I can’t change my gayness.  Can’t even turn it down a notch or two.  Religion on the other hand changes all the time, indeed has shown itself to be changeable.

I am able to carry out my life and not impact on religion at all.  I made a choice to walk away from supernatural belief.  I am not evil, I am not out to bring society down, I am not gay because of some choice I made or because my father was absent, or whatever mumbo jumbo religion throws at me.

What next.  The right to vote is restricted to men?

Pretty sure I know which rights should be trumping here.

________________________________________

Update: 25 June 2013 – 8.30 a.m.

The Q&A Question (From YouTube)

http://youtu.be/vX_PNArtnKg

 

Tagged with: • • •
Apr 29

Marriage Equality in Melbourne Ports

General 2 Comments »

My latest blog becomes a video!  A vlog

 

marriage equality 1Election Campaign 2010 – Media release about Danby and Marriage Equality

Interview with Michael Danby from C31 – The Shtick, 14th April 2013

Presenter: Gregory Storer

Voice over: Michael Barnett

Vlog produced by Michael Barnett and Gregory Storer

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Images:  Sourced from Wikimedia Commons.  Michael Danby, Star of David, Rainbow Flag

Map from the Australian Electoral Commission

Music from Incompetech 

Made using Open Source Software:  Blender, OpenShot, Gimp and Ubuntu

Tagged with: • •
Apr 25

Surrounded by Equality

General 5 Comments »

I’ve been married.  To a woman.  We had two children.  We had a great life together.  Our wedding day was one of the most outstanding days of my life.  Jennie and I had many good years together.

Recently I’ve been going through my old stuff.  We both corresponded with each other in the late eighties by writing letters.  I actually put pen to paper and Jennie did the same.  We lived in different cities.  Her in Melbourne, me in Hamilton.

We made phone calls, regularly.  Most phones in the late 80’s were connected to a wall via a cable.  So you didn’t really carry them about.  Jennie would call me at work, so I couldn’t escape to another room or step outside, I had to take the call at my desk, wide open to the public.

Then we’d call at night.  Jennie worked nights so sometimes I could call her at work.  We’d tie the phone up for awhile, that would make my mother mad.  My dad complained about the bill a lot.  (Strange, I complain about the bill now too).

And yeah, even when we were married I was gay.  There were a lot of strange things going on in my head at the time and it took many years to put all that right.  But as my friends and family would tell you Jennie and I were clearly in love.  And we were clearly in love.  The early days of our relationship were fantastic.  I had a deep love her.

That’s really important.  It is that love that lead me to marry her.  I foolishly thought it would last forever, but things don’t always work out the way you expect.

I’ve moved on now.  My life has changed, but Jennie is still in it, and I do whatever I can to make sure she is OK.  I’m determined to make sure that she’s taken care of because somewhere I still have feelings for her.  Sure, they’re mixed up at times, but let’s face it, our marriage was important and we shared something very meaningful.  We also share the parentage of two children.

On April 21st 1990 we got married.  The Australian Government sanctioned our marriage, I have the certificate to prove it.

certificate of marriage

As I said, I’ve moved on.  Michael is in my life now.  I love him.  I want to spend the rest of my life with him.  We keep in touch during the day, we regularly say “I love you” to each other.  We share just about every aspect of our lives together.  I foolishly think it will last forever!  What can I say.  He makes me melt.  It’s true that we don’t have children together, we do live with two (and sometimes 3) adult children.  Our relationship is important.  What we share is something very meaningful.

Just three years ago on April 21st 2010 we got registered.  The Australian Government didn’t sanction our relationship.  The state of Victoria did, I have the registration slip to prove it.

25283_418558365148_505910_n

There is no difference in the way I feel now.  I’m in love. I know what that feels like.

New Zealand, France and other places allow people just like me to get married.  I seem to be living in a backwater.  People come to me wide-eye and make positive comments about New Zealand and want to know if I’m going there to get married.

Well no.  I’m Australian.  If I want to get married again I want to do it here.  I don’t want to go to New Zealand, nice as it is I’m sure.  The Australian Government wouldn’t even acknowledge my marriage.

Say what you like about marriage.  You can believe it to be whatever you want.  To me it’s about love.  To me it’s about a public commitment to another person.  Who cares what the sex of that person is?

I know what love is, I know what marriage is, I have been married to the woman I loved.  I now want to be married to the man I love.

From where I stand my Government is preventing me from doing it.  There is no good reason to deny me and my partner the right to call each other husband.

We are not second class citizens.  We are Australian men, in love and living together as a couple.

The only people in the marriage are the couple.  The rest of it is no one’s  business.

Tagged with: • • • • • •
Sep 28

Meeting Kelly O’Dwyer

General 7 Comments »

Under the gaze of Robert Menzies we were ushered into Kelly O’Dwyer’s office.  Old Menzies is a bronze bust sitting on a pedestal with an Australian Flag draped next to him.  His cold staring eyes look over Michael and I as we take a seat at the table with Kelly.  I wonder what Menzies would have thought about marriage equality.

Kelly O’Dwyer is the member for Higgins, my local member.  She’s the first sitting politician that I’ve had a formal meeting with since living in the Melbourne.  I recall living in Hamilton and meeting Malcolm Fraser on many occasions.  Fraser was much more aloof.

Our meeting follows on from the recent one we had with Anna Burke, Michael’s local member.  Yes, we have do live together, but we maintain separate residences!  We were keen to hear what Kelly had to say about marriage equality.

The defeat of the marriage equality bill happened recently.  I’d set this meeting up well before that event, so the idea of trying to convince Kelly to vote against her party was no longer my objective.  Instead I wanted to focus on the future and what that would mean.

I told Kelly about the death of my mother.  How in my family of eleven each of the wives or husbands of my siblings was mentioned.  Except for Michael.  It was decided that that was too much for the sweet little country town to bear.  So his name wasn’t tagged on the end of mine.  That hurt.  My relationship with Michael is every bit as real as the relationship that Daryl has with Lee, that Larry has with Diane, that David has with Robyn, that Michael has with Margie, that Shane has with Mary-Lou, that Helen(deceased) had with Rodney, that Bronwyn has with Derek, that Angela has with Chris, that Janine had with John and that Craig has with Cheryl.  It stood out like dogs balls.  My best mate Geoff, sitting next to Michael in the church quietly reassured Michael that he too was part of the family and equally as important.  It just didn’t feel like it at the time.

Marriage would at least give some dignity to the situation, there would be no escaping the fact that the Storer family has a gay member.

Kelly talked about how any sort of social change needs community consensus. I’m not sure why we need a consensus when it comes to equality and rights, it seems to me that it’s pretty clear-cut.  She describes the push for marriage equality as complex.  Although I fail to see how it’s complex.

Kelly is also very keen on civil unions, she thinks that is a stepping stone and we spent some time talking about that concept.  I don’t agree with her, I think civil unions is an appalling idea and I’d never be happy with that concept.  I’m not about to accept that civil unions grants anything like equal rights.

We talked about family life, the importance of Michael’s family and how I fit into that, how Michael works with my family.  We spoke about the families we know and gave Kelly photographs of a couple of mums and their children and a couple of dads and their children.  Those families are every bit as functional as all other families and to deny them the right to marry is a travesty.

Kelly seemed pretty clear that she didn’t think a vote will get up again.  She is convinced that with some internal lobbying that civil unions would be accepted.  She indicated that she would be talking to her Liberal colleagues and trying to get their support.

When asked if marriage equality came before the parliament would she vote for it, she wouldn’t give an answer.  In fact, let me cut and paste her response from a recent Q&A question as it’s very close to our discussion:

TONY JONES: So can I just interrupt you there. Does that mean if you had the free choice, you would have voted no?

KELLY O’DWYER: Well, look, on the issue of the conscience vote, I think Tanya makes a very interesting point because the Labor Party made much of the fact that they had a conscience vote on this issue. They only decided, though, to have a conscience vote on this issue when it was very apparent that the party platform would change. The Labor Party platform binds parliamentarians which would have meant that all of the Labor parliamentarians would have actually have to have…

TONY JONES: Okay, but what would your conscience have dictated to you personally?

KELLY O’DWYER: No. No. No. But this is an important point, though, Tony, because…

TONY JONES: If you had a conscience vote, what would you have voted?

KELLY O’DWYER: But, Tony, if you can just let me finish this one point because it is important. It would have meant, of course, that all of the Labor members of parliament would have actually voted for a change to the Marriage Act if they had been bound but the Prime Minister decided to be a little bit tricky and she decided to actually make a change and so she said that on this policy issue they would vote differently. Now, we made a commitment, as I said. Going into the next election, we will no doubt talk about this issue again. Civil unions may come up. I don’t know if that’s something that the Labor Party is going to be bringing forward. I suspect that across the…

TONY JONES: Okay, but just to bring you, because we haven’t got a lot of time – just to bring you to the point that I asked, if you had a conscience vote yourself, would you ever voted yes or no?

KELLY O’DWYER: Well, I mean, it’s a hypothetical question. I have been on the record…

TONY JONES: Your conscience is a hypothetical?

KELLY O’DWYER: No. No. No. It’s a hypothetical question as to how I would have voted. I mean we took a position as a party on this issue.

TONY JONES: Would you be prepared to reveal publicly what your position is?

KELLY O’DWYER: Well, I have publicly stated my support for civil unions and that’s my public position.

And that is indeed her public position.

Kelly makes all the right noises, she acknowledges our position but refuses to budge from hers.  She appears to be supportive of marriage equality but won’t give her unqualified support.  She is prepared to support the hypothetical notion of civil unions but not the hypothetical notion of marriage equality.

This is the political game.  Keep the constituents happy, make it sound like you empathise and concur with them but give them nothing solid.

It wasn’t a bad meeting, Kelly is a professional politician.  Good humoured, determined and respectful.

It’s a pity that her respect doesn’t extend to telling us exactly where she stands on marriage equality instead of taking the safe ground of civil unions.

 

Tagged with: • • • • •
Sep 22

Thoughts on Marriage Equality and the vote

General 15 Comments »

What a week I’ve had.  What a month it’s been.  It’s Saturday morning and I’m sitting out on the deck thinking about all that’s happened.  I wonder just how people survive at times.  There is such a swirl of feelings and emotions going on all the time for me as I struggle to make sense of all that’s happening.

A hectic week at work as I pick up the pieces after a couple of weeks off.  I’m at the pointy end of a couple of major projects, which is a great feeling.  All the planning and research that at times is tedious and difficult finally pays off and I’m at a stage of making in one project, a really well-informed decision.  That’s good. The addition of another contract has set off a whole raft of events that needs my focus, so at the end of a mammoth work week my head is spinning. It’s not so much daunting, it’s more along the lines of mixing in the new project with the old and giving them all the right attention.

In my personal life I’m listening to and supporting the mother of my children as she continues to live with her terminal cancer.  It’s a challenge. I’ll do what’s needed to take care of her.  Nobody deserves such a rough end.  When it’s someone you love and care about, that makes it all the more difficult.

After four years, Michael and I continue to co-habit in a wonderful life together, we at times struggle with each other, but somewhere within us is a deep love and respect for each other.  It helps us sort out our relationship.  It also helps that he has gorgeous brown eyes and a winning smile.

Looking back a bit further, I’ve reeled in horror at the outrageous demonisation of my sexuality and therefore me by Wallace at the ACL, and then heard that reinforced by Jensen on Q&A – it’s been really demoralising to hear such vile words repeated often in the media, making it sound like all people who are gay are a health risk, not just to themselves, but to society at large.  The underlying and unsaid meaning coming from the likes of Wallace and Jensen is that gay people are not worthy of life.  Certainly not worthy of any recognition in our society.

It was heart warming to see the PM pull out of her keynote speech to the ACL, Gillard is against marriage equality, so for her to withdraw her support from the ACL was gratifying and appeared to be supportive.  I took it as a glimmer of hope.

The other big story of course, is the vote in both houses of the Australian Parliament.  It saw two marriage equality bills soundly defeated.  Further cementing the feeling of second class citizen status in my own country.  Somehow my relationship isn’t worthy of recognition.

What a week.

I know my worth as a person, I get on with my job and I’m pretty sure I’m a valued and respected member of the team at work.  I know that my adult children love me and we enjoy each others company.  I have a good network of friends that seek me out.  My partner (but not husband) loves me and I revel in our relationship.  Overall, I’m a fairly well-adjusted person, contributing to the lives of those around me, contributing to my society and to the broader Australian community.

The marriage equality debates in the Parliament have had a profound effect on me.  It’s not that I expected a different result. I don’t think there were too many people who thought that there would be any change.  But I did have hope.  It was with eager anticipation that I watched the House of Representative vote on the legislation.  There was always an outside chance I thought, that our elected members would actually do the right thing on this.

I caught up with the speeches in the Senate at the end of each day, watching the senators and reading their words. There were some wonderful supportive thoughts.  But there were also some ugly speeches that showed an underlying contempt for homosexuals and where in some people’s minds gay people belong.  Cory Bernardi’s speech is an example of where his thinking is, and typical of the religious response to marriage equality.  In his speech he links homosexuality with bestiality.  In the bible there is a passage that links homosexuality with bestiality and calls it an abomination and a perversion.  Religion over the years has been unable to see past that.  To the minds of many believers that puts the two issues on the same level.  Bernardi’s attempts to suggest he has been taken out of context is to overlook the basis for his slippery slope argument.  The link has been long-established and religion is to blame.  It’s why they always look like a rabbit caught in the headlights when somebody takes them to task about it.  Just below their surprise you can see the internal cogs slipping as they try to understand why nobody else has read that passage in the bible.

Then there are the detestable words of Senator Boswell that should upset all men and women, regardless of sexuality.

Same-sex marriage says that a mother or a father does not matter to a child—and it does. Two mothers or two fathers cannot raise a child properly. Who takes a boy to football? Who tells him what is right from wrong? What does he do—go along with the two mums? How does he go camping and fishing? Yes, there might be some attempt by one of the mothers to fill in as a father figure but it will not work. It is defying nature. And what about a young girl changing from a teenager into a young woman? Is it fair to say to her, ‘You don’t have a mother; your mother can’t take you shopping’ or to not be able to help her understand how her body is changing? What are we trying to do here? Why are we trying to defy what has been the right thing for hundreds of thousands of years? What suddenly gives us the inspiration to think that we can have gay marriage and it will not affect anyone?

 As I look back at my child-raising days, I’ve been there for my daughter through her changing from ‘a young girl’ and helped her understand how her body works.  I did it without being a woman!
The words of Senator Brandis make me wonder how he lives inside his head:
discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexuality is always wrong, but it does not follow from that proposition that every institution in society, for that reason, must be redefined.
 On one hand he acknowledges that discrimination is wrong, but on the other it’s ok.
Senator Joyce from Queensland has some very odd views, way outside my level of understanding of conservatism.  He says this in his speech:
 If you want to be married, because of the requirements of nature, it involves a male and a female connection for the hope and possibility of having children. You cannot do it with a male and a male. You cannot do it with a female and a female. It is just not possible. The institution of marriage stands ultimately behind the reality of nature. It does not matter what piece of legislation we pass; you cannot change nature. You cannot change that reality. But what we can do is go down a path of a new form of social engineering—about which we really have no idea of the consequences
 Well, marriage is a human construct, nature has no requirements as such.  Gay couples also enjoy a connection for the hope of having children.  And yes, two men or two women can have children, it’s true that they can’t physically conceive them as a couple, but they can and they do have children.  Always have, and will continue to find ways to do it.  Marriage has nothing to do with nature and everything to do with humans setting their own rules.  It’s our rule.  His underlying notion is that to allow gay people to have a family would mean that every family would have to have same-sex parents at its head.  What a crock.  Nothing changes as the Australian society already has same-sex couples raising children in marriage like families.  It’s a reality, and last time I checked, reality was not on the blink.

I didn’t see the Senate vote, but I did watch the vote in the House of Reps.  It’s not every day you see Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard vote together.  I was stunned to see most of the Labor Party stand up and move to the other side of the chamber to vote with the Liberal Party to stop this bill.  Despite the Labor Party having a party platform that is in support of marriage equality, most of them crossed the floor and voted with the Liberal Party.

The image of Julia Gillard and most of her cabinet sitting there with the Opposition, smiling and talking, laughing will stick with me. Here I am watching my Parliament take a decision about my rights as a human and they are laughing.  It seem to lack any sort of dignity.  It was simply another function to perform without any real understanding of the impact that it would have on the people who it affects.

All the words of support and the standing up for us against the likes of Jensen, the ACL and Senator Bernadi are wiped away in a few minutes.   All the talk about stopping discrimination and accepting gay people vanish.

The majority rules.  They’re happy that they’ve done what they can, passed 80 odd bits of legislation to correct some discrimination, you know, stuff around property rights, medical rights, financial rights. Purely functional things. But they can’t vote in favour of the most fundamental right, that of love.  That of marriage.

It’s been a couple of sad days.

I feel gutted, cheated and demoralised.  I mean that.

I am determined and I won’t give up.

Tagged with: • • • • • •
Sep 21

Senator Fierravanti-Wells Debunked

General 10 Comments »

Senator Conchetta Fierravanti-Wells gave this speech in the Senate on the issue of same-sex marriage on Wednesday, 19 September 2012.

In this blog, guest blogger, Guy Curtis looks at her speech and takes the speech apart.

I rise today to speak on the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012. Marriage is defined as ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’. This was the definition 22 years ago when I married my husband, John, and has been the definition of marriage throughout the history of humanity over the ages.

Well no, a couple of Roman Emperors are reported to have married men, and another ordered the death of people in same-sex marriages, which implies they existed at least a while ago in the past. But, more to the point, there are more than a dozen countries now that define marriage differently and they did it in the last few years, that’s part of the history of humanity now. Moreover, what CF-W is saying here is a fallacy – either appeal to antiquity, that things are right because they are old, or the naturalistic fallacy, that things should be how they are. Either reading means this is not a logical argument.

I reject the assertion that those who argue for the retention of the definition of marriage are somehow homophobic, bigoted or are opposing equal rights. It is about maintaining a tradition—a tradition that has been the bedrock of our communities, our society and the world as we know it.

On 14 August, we celebrated National Marriage Day. I am indebted to the organisers for the red and gold rosettes for us to wear on the day, but I also received a bookmark with the following Chinese proverb: ‘When there is love in a marriage,

This is the premise for the rest of the argument in the proverb. If this is to be taken (a) as true and (b) as an argument against same-sex marriage, then the implication is that people in same-sex relationships do not love each other. Those I know in them would disagree.

there is harmony in the home; when there is harmony in the home, there is contentment in the community; when there is contentment in the community, there is prosperity in the nation; when there is prosperity in the nation, there is peace in the world.’

Retention of the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is also about protecting the rights of the silent majority

Who are particularly silent given that they are the MINORITY in every poll on same sex marriage in the past few years. But nice tactic, you can claim support for any position by saying the minority are silent because when the polls are against you, just claim that the silent majority aren’t speaking up. You could make an irrefutable case for any rubbish by claiming most people agree but won’t say so.

and that of the institutions that have made this great nation the wonderful land in which to live. It is widely accepted

Another logical fallacy – appeal to popular opinion. Made worse, of course, by the fact that popular opinion is actually running in favour of, not against, same-sex marriage.

in the Australian community that there are certain customs and practices in any society that are unique to certain relationships. To acknowledge this does not amount to discrimination. The silent majority in this country does not support this change

I’ve made my point, this is just silly.

Indeed, there are many people who are in a gay relationships who themselves do not support gay marriage.

Name five.

Their views have also been drowned out by the vocal gay marriage minority

Sleight of hand here, she’s gone from claiming some gays are against gay marriage to claiming that gays in favour of gay marriage are a minority, not just of the population, but of homosexual people per se.

Marriage is not only a civil union but has also always been traditionally a religious ceremony

Yes, but the government’s role in it is to provide the legal recognition not the religious morality. Section 116 of the constitution seems to have slipped by the Senator entirely. And, just because religious people believe their god or gods prohibit them from marrying someone of the same sex, does this mean they prohibit people who do not follow their faith from doing the same?

whether in the Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu or any other faith. It is a religious act that glorifies the significant union between a man and a woman. An important part of the marriage journey is the public vows that a man and a woman make to each other before their God which commits them to each other for the rest of their natural lives.

Sorry, but again, you are not legislating religious observance or religious rules. The constitution forbids this in section 116. But, while we’re on it, how about you do the one thing in human history that no one else has been able to and prove that God exists. If you want me to accept your argument, prove God exists, otherwise, don’t base an argument on the existence of God because it is begging the question. Oh! That’s another fallacy.

In other parts of the world, we clearly see how amending the definition of marriage has opened the backdoor to attacks on religious freedoms by challenging the churches and other religious institutions such that they would be unable to act with neither their conscience nor their religious teachings and trouncing thousand-year-old beliefs.

You mean you’d like bigots to be able to continue to freely practice their bigotry. Ok then, make sure that amendment is in the legislation, don’t reject the legislation altogether. I should note also that you have said that the problem is a “backdoor” consequence of a change to the legislation. This is the slippery slope fallacy that your good mate Senator Bernadi used to “argue” (and I use the term loosely) that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy and human-animal relationships potentially getting recognition.

For example, just recently in Denmark, where same-sex marriage was legalised only earlier this year, the Church of Denmark was forced to make its churches and priests available to perform same-sex weddings. Marriage celebrants, pastors and even service providers such as photographers have suffered legal actions and fines for not approving same-sex marriage.

So if same-sex marriage is legal, or discrimination illegal, you think it is a bad thing that people can’t still discriminate. Tell me Senator, where do you stand on the Racial and Sexual Discrimination laws in Australia?’

This is not about equality; it is about the tearing down of our social fabric.

I doubt that most people who are pushing these amendments are overly religious

Are you saying that this makes them bad people?  That seems to be the implication. Do I have to tell you about Bill Gates and Warren Buffett – atheists who have pledged over 100 billion to philanthropy? Do I need to tell you that atheists are under represented, as a proportion of the population, in US jails?

or even intend on staying in a monogamous relationship

You’re saying that some of the people who support others’ choice to get married if they want to may not want to be married or may not want to be monogamous themselves. So what? I can argue for the rights of asylum seekers without, myself, wanting to seek asylum anywhere. The specific wants of the person making the argument have little bearing on the validity of the argument. In fact, however, I would turn your point around and say this: Aren’t people who argue altruistically for the wants or other people with no self-interest in the outcome taking a higher moral position than you?

which begs the question: why do they want to get ‘married’

I’m married and not only am I not “overly religious” I’m not religious at all. Marriage was something that I wanted to do to publically declare my love for my partner, now wife, and for convenience and protection under the law for our assets, joint living arrangements, and children.

The chattering classes do not want to concede that, by amending the Marriage Act, they are in fact denying the rights

Me drinking a beer on my couch doesn’t make your choice to drink one too any less valid.

of the silent majority

Not this li(n)e again?

who want to uphold the sanctity and true meaning of marriage and who want to keep some tradition going in a world that seems to be forever throwing out the old and bringing in the new.

Just being afraid of change isn’t an argument.

In terms of equal rights there is no law under the Commonwealth that discriminates against homosexuals

What about the Marriage Act?

It was the Howard government that substantially removed

But given that Rudd/Gillard had to go on with the job means it wasn’t done fully. This is petty politicking to claim a victory for your side on an issue where you left the job incomplete.

the discriminatory treatment in federal laws as it applied to all interdependent relationships. The previous government took the attitude of looking at interdependent relationships and discrimination across different areas. The previous government was committed to the elimination of discrimination against same-sex couples, and it became part of a program of the elimination of discrimination in areas such as superannuation, migration and Defence Force entitlements. This was followed up by further legislation in 2008

Ok, you’ve acknowledged it the contribution of the other side, with the petty semantics of not crediting it to the people who did it.

which the coalition supported.

These wide-ranging changes now put those in a heterosexual relationship and those in a homosexual relationship on an equal platform

Except for in marriage, the issue that was before you in the Senate.

This is real equality before the law

Except for in marriage, the issue that was before you in the Senate.

There is no discrimination

Except for in marriage, the issue that was before you in the Senate.

when it comes to voting rights or salary. It is worth noting that both the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have rejected that same-sex marriage is a human right.

Because these organisations have to deal with a range or nations, some of which will not give their assent to this. However, Australia, as a sovereign nation, can choose to be less discriminatory and/or more progressive if we wish.

This is also a question of trust with the Australian people. Like the carbon tax, this government has no mandate to change the Marriage Act to include same-sex couples.

I agree with this.  Julia Gillard went to the last election saying she would not support same-sex marriage and she has been consistent. In fairness, governments often try to keep their promises, and sometimes circumstances change when in office that prevents this. The minority government status meant that the government had to change from wanting an emissions trading scheme to having a period of fixed carbon pricing preceding its introduction in order to get this through parliament. This situation was not helped in any way by Tony Abbott’s refusal to take part in the relevant negotiations. The Liberals could have held Labor to its ETS promise and no carbon tax position had they played ball, but I digress.

Before the last federal election, both the ALP and the coalition promised that they would not make changes to the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act. In fact, the coalition has long been opposed to changes to Commonwealth law that could diminish the institution of marriage. This position was represented to the Australian electorate at the 2010, 2007 and 2004 federal elections. Therefore, it was a firm government election promise to keep marriage in its traditional form. In fact, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, on at least eight occasions before the last federal election, declared ALP support for the current definition of marriage. Julia Gillard also said that the ALP would not change its position during the life of the current parliament. I have received thousands of letters and emails from constituents who do not want me to support these changes or any other changes to the Marriage Act. These far outweigh those who have written to me supporting the changes.

Probably because your position is on the record and they don’t see much hope of changing your mind.

Same-sex marriage is a 10th order issue. It galls many in the Illawarra, where I was born and where my electorate office is located, to see their local member for Throsby, Stephen Jones, championing this cause above more pressing issues for his constituents

Well no. It may have escaped your attention, or be beyond your personal capabilities, but other people can deal with multiple issues at the same time.

Throsby is one of my patron seats and, just one year since the announcement of the carbon tax, more than 1,000 workers from BlueScope Steel will lose their jobs in one of our major employment sectors—manufacturing.

First, what has that got to do with same-sex marriage? Second, social and emotional support in marriage is helpful when people face job loss, don’t you think some gay steel workers would like to be able to get married too? Third, is this another example of the Liberal party claiming that job losses not attributed by the company to the carbon tax are because of the carbon tax? My recollection was that the exchange rate was the biggest factor in this business’s decision.

BlueScope is located in Throsby, as are many of the workers who are losing their jobs. More than 1,400 people in the region have lost their jobs since September 2011 and home repossessions had gone up by 60 per cent.

And wouldn’t it be nice to give the wedding industry a boost by allowing same-sex couples to get married? Some of the people needing jobs could get them in photography, florists, catering, limo hire, and the like.

With all this happening, all the member for Throsby can think about is same-sex marriage

CF-W can apparently read minds. She should nominate for the Australian Skeptics’ challenge for proof of paranormal phenomena – there’s a big wad of cash in it for her if she’s successful.

This is not an issue of concern to the people of Throsby or the Illawarra in general.

Polls say otherwise. It is among many issues that people have an opinion on. Really? You can’t deal with more than one at a time?

This is an area which is doing it tough and it galls many in the area to see their local member focussing on this 10th order issue. I ask you, Stephen Jones: how will introducing same-sex marriage give people jobs

I just mentioned the marriage industry.

save them from losing their homes

By giving them jobs.

or lower the cost of living?

Does anyone argue that it will have any CPI impact? There are lots of cost-of-living measures rolling through in the past couple of terms of government, like the tripling of the tax-free threshold which CF-W’s party opposed.

How will same-sex marriage put the budget back into surplus?

I was unaware that anyone argues it would. The budget measures do that, they’ve been debated already. Were you there for that Senator or has it just slipped your mind?

It will do none of these things. At the present time, Australia is not in a position to be discussing an emotive, and I believe destructive, subject such as this one, when there are much more pressing issues that need to be addressed urgently.

Again, parliaments and governments can deal with multiple issues. If you believe it’s a waste of time, why waste further time making a speech on it? Why not cut your speakers list and just vote for or against so you can get on with what you feel is more important business? Oh, I know why, because you want to argue against same sex marriage and because you can’t find good arguments you’re going with this bad one.

One must ask: where will this all end? You do not have to look very far to find the answer. There are already legal challenges in Canada and Utah that have been brought forward by polygamists who claim they have a right to polygamous marriage, and polyamorous activists are relentlessly campaigning for legal recognition of their relationships.

Hang on, didn’t your buddy Cory get in trouble for such statements? If your point about same-sex marriage leading to polygamy was correct we’d see polygamy and same-sex marriage both approved of legally where the other is approved of, right? However, the facts are against this – same-sex marriage is illegal in countries where polygamy is legal and polygamy is illegal in countries where same-sex marriage is legal. Polygamy is legal in Saudi Arabia. How do they feel about homosexuality you ask? It is punishable by death there. So, not only is this argument based on a logical fallacy of the slippery slope it doesn’t accord with facts.

These relationships have already been given legal status in the Netherlands. Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby has said, ‘We do not know what the future decades may hold in terms of relationships’, and he has commented that polyamorous relationships are ‘matters for the future’. This is the thin edge of the wedge

This is the slippery slope fallacy.

Even the Greens ACT convenor, Simon Copland, has criticised Sarah Hanson-Young’s stance that marriage should be limited to only two people.

You were debating a Bill on same-sex marriage not polygamy. The Slippery slope argument NEVER holds up in a parliamentary debate because the fact is that the parliament can limit an issue in legislation in any way they want and if it is really a slope parliament can apply the brakes at any point they want.

Most Australians would find these concepts repugnant, abhorrent and destructive to our social fabric.

Are you talking about your own speech above or Senator Bernadi’s? Apart from him mentioning “creatures” and you not, they are barely distinguishable.

But this is where we are heading.

No slippery slope, bad slippery slope!’

I therefore support the sanctity and uniqueness of marriage in its current form, and I acknowledge the very important role that it plays in Australia. Marriage is a very important institution not only for the traditional Anglo-Saxon culture in this country

Aren’t you Italian by ethnicity?

but also for so many others in our culturally diverse community

So you’re saying it is important to protect and continue the discriminatory perspectives of a range of cultures not just one. Again, it’s an argument to popularity fallacy, and one that loses because the polls of individuals (who vote) rather than groups (who don’t) say the opposite!

I know that the chattering classes do not share that view and constantly denigrate those who do.

I’m noting that your argument is shithouse but I’m not doing too much particular denigration of you personally. Still, if you want your ideas to be respected, try having respectable ideas, and if you don’t want your ideas ridiculed don’t subscribe to ridiculous ideas.

As I have said, the silent majority in this country agree

As I have said, this “silent majority” line is a crock. If I say the silent majority favours same-sex marriage what’s the response? No they don’t you say! But they are silent, I say.

about the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of what is the traditional family.

I will conclude with a time-old African proverb that simply and profoundly states: ‘Don’t tear down a fence until you know why it was put up

Marriage was instituted for many reasons throughout history. Academics has cleverly concealed very detailed analysis of this question in papery things called books which are held in large publicly-accessible things called libraries.

Marriage is a unique institution in our society and it is one that we as senators and members of the Australian parliament should do everything in our power to protect and to ensure that it is supported,

Subtext: Except for letting two consenting adults who want to do it do it because of their particular match of gender.

encouraged and backed up in every way, shape and form. I will be voting against this bill

These are mutually contradictory statements.

Tagged with: • •
Sep 14

Jensen and Homosexuality

General 6 Comments »

There’s been a lot of talking this week about Catherine Deveny and what she said on Q and A on Monday night.  There’s plenty of information out there.  I’d like to spend some time looking at what Peter Jensen said.

Jensen who has the title of Archbishop of Sydney, was a quietly speaking, smiling man with what seemed a sunny disposition.  It’s the same sort of smug attitude I’ve noticed on others who think they’re right and have nothing to worry about.

I’ve taken the following from the transcript of Q&A.

This Question was asked:

PETER KEEGAN: The Australian Christian Lobby has again made the headlines for offensive remarks made by its director, Jim Wallace. As a Christian, I continually find that the ACL does not speak for me and does not represent the kind of faith that I see reflected in the teaching and ministry of Jesus. Archbishop, will you publically say that contributions like those we heard from the ACL pose a greater risk to the health of our public discourse and the integrity of our faith than the presence of lifestyles or beliefs that may differ from our own?

And Jensen’s response:

PETER JENSEN: Again, thanks for the question. No, I won’t say that. I am generally supportive of ACL, I have to say. I don’t support everything that’s said by its leaders.

Jensen straight off makes it clear that while he is generally supportive of the ACL, he agrees with them in this case.

TONY JONES: What about this very specific statement where Jim Wallace suggests that homosexuality poses the same kind of health risk to the community as smoking does?

PETER JENSEN: It needs to be observed that he has been somewhat quoted out of context in some reports.  I’m not sure about that one but in some reports he’s been somewhat quoted out of context.

No it wasn’t. This is evident by Wallace restating the claim many times in the media after the event.  There is no doubt that he said that being gay is worse than smoking.

 But what he has done for us, rightly or wrongly, what he has done is given us an opportunity to talk about something significant, namely the question of health risks.

You must be blind.  The health risks of having unprotected sex are well-known.  In an effort to educate people last year there was a campaign in Queensland that included two clothed men hugging holding a wrapped condom.  The image was displayed on bus shelters, and the ACL sought to have that removed1.  They don’t want to talk about it.

Now, I think it is true to say – I think it is true to say – it’s very hard to get all the facts here because we don’t want to talk about it and in this country censorship is alive and well, believe me.

Yes, yes it is.

So what I’m about to say, I don’t want to say because I know I’m going to be hit over the head for the next 100 years about it so – and it’s a virulent censorship. Now, I will still go ahead.

Before the words are  out of his mouth he’s claiming to be a victim.  Don’t forget this is a man who has his tie checked by an assistant2.  It’s hard to imagine him as a victim as he lives such a life of luxury.  Just as his god demands.

What I want to say is that as far as I can see by trying to get to the facts, the lifespan of practising gays is significantly shorter than the ordinary, so called, heterosexual man. I think that seems to be the case.

If you were in the slightest bit interested you would have tested the facts rather than simply stating that they seem to be true.  Plenty of people have pointed out that Wallace has relied on discredited research.  Check out Chrys Stevenson’s great blog to start with3.

 Now what we need to do is to look at why this may be the case and we need to do it in a compassionate and objective way.

People already have, it’s called research, and it’s out there and available.  Alas, you seem reluctant to accept it.

Some people say it’s because of the things I say and the position I take and that creates, for example, a spate of suicides. That may be true but how can we get at the facts if we’re never willing to talk about it? Now, there may be other things as well.

Jensen accepts that some people may kill themselves because of the words he says and the position he takes.  Let that sink in a bit.  Really?  He admits that people may die because of his attitude?  You’d think if he understood that he’d actually take the time to ensure that he’s right.  Instead he again ignores the research from some very well-respected people who clearly shows religious intolerance causes emotional distress to young people.  The facts are out there, they are being talked about.  How hard can it be for a church man to access the internet and check?  You could check the position statement of Suicide Prevention Australia, in particular this paragraph:

Similarly, those belonging to religious faiths that promulgate negative discourses about homosexuality are particularly vulnerable to suicide and self-harm. Conflicts between spiritual or religious beliefs and sexuality can result in significant psychological dissonance as well as division and exclusion from family, friends and community.

Then a video question is played from Alistair:

ALISTAIR CORNELL: My question is for Peter Jensen. I was born and bred Anglican but at the age of 15 I tried to take my own life. What advice would he give to a 15 year old suffering almost to the point of death from the rejection of his community about being gay?

PETER JENSEN: Thank you and thank you for the courage of coming on and telling us that story.

I agree, it does take courage to tell the story.  Alistair, thank you for sharing with everyone and showing us the depth of your despair.  I for one am glad you didn’t reach the point of death.  That must’ve been horrible for you.

You see, one of the difficulties is to get that story, to get it to someone like me and to give me the chance to assess it for what it is.

We know what it is.  A young many struggling with rejection for his community.  What assessment do you need to do?  And why?

to offer whatever pastoral advice I may be able to offer, to listen to what’s being said, but to recognise that we’re dealing with very, very complex issues here.

Leaving aside the fact that his solution is to offer pastoral advice rather than get some real help for people like Alistair.  I find it rather difficult to swallow that this is complex.  This isn’t an unknown issue.  The churches reject homosexuality.  Some people are homosexual. That means that they either leave the church, some through suicide, or follow the churches’ rules.  The church has a high level of intolerance on people’s sexuality, at least the hierarchy does.

It may be that the things I say are having such an effect but it may be something quite different all together and…

TONY JONES: Such as what, for example?

PETER JENSEN: Well a 15 year old sorry, I need to be careful here. We don’t want to talk about this particular young man with his courage.

I disagree, that’s exactly what we want to talk about.  But you don’t because then it becomes about a real person.  Someone who has said the words to your face.

But clearly a teenager is going through a period in their lives, exciting as it is, in which they’re seeking to find themselves. A person who feels in themselves same-sex attraction and I might add, a lot of such folk have talked to me over the years, is seeking, I think, to find themselves, to find an identity and in our sort of society, with its emphasis on sexual activity as an identity finding activity, there is therefore the opportunity to think that that is the way to do things and yet here you have this frowned upon same-sex feeling.

It’s hard to unravel that little beauty.  It seems to me that he’s saying young men have confided in him about their same-sex attraction and that he’s told them it’s frowned upon and that it’s because society has an emphasis on sex and being gay is just a phase you’re going through.

TONY JONES: Okay, I’ve just to interrupt because we do need to hear other panellists on this subject but put simply are you saying or repeating, in a way, or making, you know, a sort of more complex argument about what Jim Wallace said, which is homosexuality is bad for your health? Are you seriously trying to make that argument tonight?

PETER JENSEN: I would like to know see, people tell me that it is and they produce literature on the subject. I can’t get a discussion going on this because it’s a forbidden subject.

You’re happy to take the words of Wallace as they’re said, but anyone else has to present the literature to you.  There’s plenty of it out there.  Perhaps your staff could do a Google search for you.  The discussion is happening right now, in lots of places, so why are you claiming it’s a forbidden subject?

Now, I’m open on this. I hope it’s not true, Tony. I don’t want to see my friends dying and I’ve seen my friends dying. I don’t want to see that. I don’t want to hear stories like that. But, dear friends, sorry, when do we get to the point where we can talk about this without shouting at each other and hurting each other?

When you stop insisting that Wallace is giving you facts and when you are open to others talking to you.  You’re not listening to all the other voices out there are you?

PETER JENSEN: Sorry. Yes, I am really serious but I would like to know in a dispassionate way, in an objective way, what the facts are. I think it’s very, very…

CATHERINE DEVENY: I think she’s got the facts for you.

PETER JENSEN: I think she says she has the facts.

Just like Wallace thinks he has the facts.  How easy it is to dismiss someone else’s point of view because it doesn’t match yours.  If you’re serious about having a dispassionate discussion then all you have to do is call on a few academics to give you the heads up.  It’s really very easy.  While you wait for someone to show you the facts, rather than find them yourself, young people are dying or in great mental anguish.

PETER JENSEN: Thank you, Tony. God did create homosexuals. I don’t need the gene to tell me that. God created homosexuals. God created every person and loves every person, without doubt.

TONY JONES: No, I mean he created if there is a gay gene, would you say the creator was responsible for creating that?

PETER JENSEN: Well, I would say that that that may be the case but we’re not talking about same-sex attraction, we’re talking about the acting out of same-sex attraction. We’re talking about well, I realise that we’re living in a very, very different world from the one I’m talking about but I’m living in a world where a number of my friends have life long committed themselves to no sexual relations.

The admission that his god is said to have created homosexuals, but they’re not to have sex.  That’s what it amounts to.  People may like to not have sex, there are those who seem very happy to abstain.  But for a vast majority of the population that’s unacceptable, unfair and unjust.  To even suggest that just because you’re attracted to somebody of the same sex means you can’t be physically intimate with them is to deprive them of the most basic of human desires.  To be accepted and loved.  Putting people inside marriage may curb the desire to have multiple sex partners, but there are plenty of divorces out there because one of the two had sex outside the relationship, and there is no escaping that sex outside marriage is probably happening more than inside marriage.  Jensen is right, he lives in a different world, and he is allowed.  Where I take issue is when he attempts to use his world to force the rest of society to follow it.

And that’s the crux of the matter.

Jensen and Wallace are not interested in hearing anything that gives approval to homosexuality as normal and natural.  They use their positions to push their own ideology, ignore any research that disputes it and rejects anybody that shows them the research they rely on is flawed.

Under Jensen’s facade is a determination to treat gay people as second class citizens, and that is driven by the bible.  He considers me to be a sinner.  Sin comes from the devil, therefore I’m evil.  I’m immoral, I’m without hope.

Jensen is allowed to have the last words for the program:

PETER JENSEN: Well, the last word is that in Jesus Christ we have that equality and in Jesus Christ was have that salvation and all I can say is the most wonder that the love of God for everyone, no matter who they are, no matter how they’ve lived or whatever, is the greatest reality in the world.

I accept that this is Jensen’s belief and he’s entitled to it.  He can believe whatever he wants.  I’ve also said that my acceptance of his right to believe means I have the right to not believe.   To suggest that the love of his god is for everyone and that that is the ‘greatest reality’ is false.

In my mind his devotion to his religion causes great harm, and using it to influence government policy is unethical as we don’t all subscribe to his religion.

The facts are out there, religion causes harm.  Gay people are more likely to be kicked to death by a duck than have a fundamentalist Christian sect accept all people as equal.

 

  1. Initially the posters  were removed, but later reinstated.  Brisbane Times ↩
  2. As observed by Catherine Deveny “At one point I watched Jensen’s adviser straighten his tie and wondered how much Jensen had been groomed and prepared for the appearance.” ↩
  3.  In her blog Chrys reverse engineers the ‘research’ that Wallace and the ACL rely on.  A bit of research would help the ACL see the truth. ↩
Tagged with: • •
Sep 08

Qantas and Emirates – Money Trumps Ethics

General 2 Comments »

[SOURCE]

The Australian airline, Qantas, has made arrangements with the United Arab Emirates airline, Emirates, to form a partnership for the next ten years.  On the surface that sounds fine I guess.  I don’t know how airlines function, nor do I know the importance of such strategic alliances, I’m sure somewhere it’s about making money.

We know that Qantas’ CEO is one Alan Joyce.  Joyce has been in a relationship with another man, his partner since 1999.  That’s great to hear.

Emirates is owed wholly by the Government of Dubai, and that Government forms part of the United Arab Emirates.

In the UAE you can only legally have sex inside a marriage between a man and a woman, punishment for having sex outside marriage (so that’s unmarried hetero and homo sex) ranges from prison time to the death penalty.  The anti-gay laws, some of which were introduced by the British during the colonial period are still vigorously enforced. However, in some cases, the police have been turning a blind eye to such behaviour as long as it is discreet1.

Let’s hope that Joyce is discreet if he should ever visit the UAE.

Now I’m left wondering just how I feel about Qantas and their business relationships with a government that potentially kills people just like me because of their sexuality.

It doesn’t feel right.

It’s a quandary to be caught between ethical and business decisions.  It becomes ok to turn a blind eye to all sorts of things because it may be outside our control, or in this case, it seems that the airlines are so far removed from government that it simply doesn’t matter.

That doesn’t stop me from going… ummm… really?  The CEO of Qantas, a gay man living in a democratic nation that is diverse, has lined his airline up with an airline owned by a regime in the middle east that kills gay people.

How does this line up with Qantas’ diveristy policy?

Recruitment and selection is based on merit, and when making hiring decisions managers are encouraged to not only comply with Equal Employment Opportunity and anti-discrimination requirements, but also to bolster a diverse workplace culture when selecting from the pool of qualified candidates.

I’ve long thought the best way to deal with organisation that make ethically bankrupt decisions is not to use them.  It would seem that making money is more important to Qantas and Joyce than protecting the human rights of people who are gay.
Money always trumps ethics.  How sad.
  1. Wikipedia – LGBT Rights in the UAE ↩
Tagged with: • • • •
Previous Entries Next Entries
preload preload preload

With Google+ plugin by Geoff Janes