Nah, you were too hard on Bernadi, Bolta


So Senator Cory Bernadi has been dumped for arguing that same sex marriage could lead to bestiality.

Bolta has endorsed this dumping.

But Bolta himself argued that same-sex marriage was wrong because it was the start of a slippery slope.

Well, you can’t have it both ways, Andrew.

Arguing that the so-called slippery slope could (would?) lead to polygamy – as an example – and then condemning Bernadi for taking that argument to another logical step makes no sense at all.

It sounds weak.

So the narrative goes: polygamy is bad a) if you’re a Righty, it’s because Muslims do it and b) if you’re a Lefty, it’s because Mormons used to do it before it was outlawed and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney is Mormon and c) this is the result of ridiculous religious ideology, and atheism is the go… but we’ll just attack right wing Christians for now whilst we establish our power base.

Ho hum, a quick Google image search (sans filters) might tell you that all kinds of people love their pets a bit too much.

All in all, Bernadi makes a lot of sense with his usual writings, although not with that quip. Thus, all in all, this should be the time to give him a break, not break his neck at the gallows!

Oh, and never mind that same sex marriage is just that: same-sex marriage, give or take a hyphen.

Why we’re arguing about this crap in the first place is another question. 🙄

PS This kind of stuff bugs the thorax out of me. The Liberals did it with the anti-AGW bloke, Dennis Jensen, as well… to the point of dis-endorsing him.

Plant five billion bucks worth of trees if you like, Tony – after all, even loggers like trees – but don’t piss on me and tell me it’s raining claim that it’s a better solution to the non-solution to save the planet (which doesn’t need saving anyway).

That’s just “crap”..

Advertisements
    • Sean of Deer Park
    • September 19th, 2012

    I agree to a point. I liked Bernardi. A silly choice of words which have lost him his job. I think his view has been taken out of context. Obviously, it is important in positions of high profile to be careful how you put your argument. Bernardi, did fail in that regard and left himself open to what happened today. I think Andrew is right in his assessment. Perhaps harsh overall, but logically right.

    Listen to Andrew and Steve tonight when the link is up. I put my 2cents worth as the second caller in their show. Says all I have to say really.

      • Sean of Deer Park
      • September 19th, 2012

      The link here:
      http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=14381

    • Before I click that link I will respectfully disagree.

      • Sorry. My bad. Had a listen. Strongly disagree.

        • Still listening. What a load of shite. Bolta was wrong. My argument stands.

          • You’re not up yet but I can’t believe I’m listening to this shite.

  1. All right. Heard it now. If only Bolta read this blog, he could contact you anytime.

  2. Still listening. My argument stands strong.

    • Zeva rocked.

  3. My thoughts keep going back to the excellent James Patterson from the IPA. He stated on QandA a while back that it’s not a question of “if”, but “when”, and that how we go about it is most important. To be sure, to be clear, no, I don’t agree with Bernadi’s statement, but nor do I agree with Bolta’s argument on this one – they’re both barking up the same, wrong tree. The point I’m trying to make is that Andrew can’t use his “slippery slope” argument on the one hand, and then effectively denounce it on the other. No, gay marriage is in no way bestiality, but neither is it polygamy. Bernadi should be cautioned on this one, but to dump and denounce him is weak, an own goal, and the other side is going to have a field day with this one. I usually love Bolta’s work – I’m pretty sure that’s obvious – but as with his views on Larry, I feel he was off target in this instance. Anyway, over in Asia, some Japanese bloke married his pillow.

    • mabba
    • September 20th, 2012

    That Jap guy is onto something- after all, he didn’t just marry any old bag! As for Cory: sacrificial lamb so Arthur Sin’tis could be brought in – will be a real asset – ex C of Staff, Howard; has been going thru’ all the regulations that need repealing as soon as they get into govt (like section # that got Bolta on vilification) – ALP could go even harder if bestiality link ‘accepted’. Also, clips Mal’s wings a bit cos his electorate are nearly all gays (as are the sisters of both Abbott & Bolta) who’d be outraged at the bestiality link. As for the argument- this is pure politics, brutality 101.
    BTW, I think Cory is courageous & has personal integrity – but he gave too big a free kick to the other side when the bill wasn’t going to pass anyway.

    • Carpe Jugulum
    • September 20th, 2012

    “That Jap guy is onto something” – that was close to what my wife would say.

    Except it would be “That stunningly beautiful Japanese woman is onto something”

    BTW – i support Cory, he didn’t articulate well, but what he said was true.

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • September 20th, 2012

    G’day guys, this is one of those situations where everyone is right. A minefield of perspective. Mabba touched on the crux by saying “this is pure politics, brutality 101”.

    What we are seeing is one the most beautifully executed political moves the Lib’s have come up with this term. Honestly, it is brilliant! The same-sex marriage issue has successfully been put to bed federally, for now. A few things have happened which can only be good for Tony Abbott.

    1. Parliament voted 42 to 98 against (I think those numbers are right?), legislating for same sex marriage has been defeated for now.

    2. Bernardi went the extra step in the near empty Senate chamber and threw “bestiality” into the mix. He could have left it at polygamy but decided to take his arguement a little further (the slippery slope, Bolta is talking about). (Representing the far Right of Conservative Liberals)

    3. Abbott then accepts Bernardi’s “resignation”, as secretary for the party. Reality is, Bernardi is going nowhere. He is on a plane to London and will return to continue his duties as a Senator.

    4. Abbott now looks less extreme. He has effectively protected the LGBTI community from being associated with less desirable characters in the community (those into bestiality, incest, polygamy, pedophiles etc) Suddenly, he is the friend of the “Gay”, protecting them from vilification and at the same time leaving the door open to Civil Unions from the party stand point. All he had to do was accept Bernardi’s “resignation”. (Abbott is now the middle ground – the reasonable voice of the Liberals who can represent the ‘Gay’ vote – Fucking Genius!)

    5. Turnbull again looks more Labor than Gillard herself. He is now back in his box, isolated. (Left of the Liberal Party)

    6. The conservatives can now argue amongst themselves as to where they sit on their side of the political fence. (It’s a broad church)

    7. Gillard is now accountable for not allowing the vote to pass in parliament. She had the numbers to do so, she said she would before her election. The Liberals were never going to vote this way anyway and the focus as now been put back where it should be. (This is the most important point of the whole exercise)

    Honestly, gay men really don’t care for ‘marriage’. The majority like being left out of the arguement the Lesbians and Greens are having world-wide to make it law. Gay guys like their independence, the fact their partners can’t take them to the cleaners financially every time a short term relationship breaks up. (Whats mine is mine, whats yours is yours)

    The only people who are really brawling about all this are Greens voters and some in the ‘progressive’ Left of Labor who think it sounds like a good cause. I wonder why?

    I have a gay mate who went to Canada and got ‘Married’ when they changed some rules over there. He ended up shortly after being the first ‘gay divorce’ case in Canada and come home with a few Million dollars in alimony. Hmm.

    Gay men here do not want to be exposed like this financially. The Greens on the other hand think any opportunity to make a quick buck is an opportunity not to be missed. Money for nothin’.

    Above all, gay men love the concept of being free and recognise they are different to other blokes. Diversity, anyone? That is my experience. Keep politics out of the bedroom is my advice. Bernadi has done the Party and gay men a huge favour in my opinion, he’ll be back.

    At the end of the day, I do believe marriage is between a man and a women. I don’t see a need to offend religious groups in terms of this definition and feel the law can look after long term same sex relationships financially if they break down.

    I don’t like the fact the government is talking about legislating and regulating who I root. It is none of their business. Children have rights, too; a right to a Mum and a Dad. Social experiments that play with innocent lives broadly is wrong. Circumstance is another matter and people in those circumstances realise the dilemma and do the best they can. They don’t go out seeking point scoring for a political agenda, they look after the best interests of the child. Within marriage, the best interest is for the child during divorce. Stuff the parents who have broken their marriage vows. No one is taking about this aspect.

    If the gay community were really serious about ‘rights’, they would be marching in the streets demanding the Human Rights Commission advocated to stop the execution of gay people around the world for being homosexual. That is a cause I could get behind; not argue over a marriage certificate.

    • At the end of the day, I do believe marriage is between a man and a women.

      Man, if only I could get away with advocating the plural. 😉

      Nah, good comment, mate. Dare I suggest you’ve come round to my point of view a little? Maybe I’m too libertarian/classical liberal, whatevs, but this one reckons marry who the fuck one likes so long as my tax dollars aren’t affected.

      I did like your breakdown of the fallout.

    • Carpe Jugulum
    • September 20th, 2012

    At the moment i am running around the blogosphere in a response to the defeat of the gay marriage bill.

    No Gay wedding – “Diddums Sarah Hanson-Young Diddums”.

    post it, tweet it, redit, bebo it, just put it out there to piss her off. 😉

  4. It strikes me as a little odd that for decades gay men have been fighting for an end to persecution and to be liberated, and then in a heartbeat they turn around and say they want to get married. Talk about going back to square one! 😛

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Surely you're thinking something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: