Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » The misplaced wedding bouquet blues, or our learned friend keeps flogging that poor dead gay marriage nag

The misplaced wedding bouquet blues, or our learned friend keeps flogging that poor dead gay marriage nag

What is it about Gay marriage that so rings the bell of our learned friend?

The nub of the issue that drives him to write post after post about it?

It can’t be anything practical because one of the few things that Brother Number One did while in office, that I fully endorse, was to remove 180 or so instances where federal law discriminates against same sex couples. Perhaps its the rather desperate prospects for the Labor  governemnt and the inability  of the Greens to force Gillard to move on the issue no matter how close such a change is to the heart of Bob Brown.

 So having worn out all of his arguments based upon any sort of logic he resorts to a sort of dark sarcasm which of course in his usual style does not quite hit its mark:

click for the source if you must

You would have thought that a Sensitive New Age Lefty would think twice about using the quite sweet story of two people in their twilight years   finding love for his own political agenda, Ah no, not our Jezza, he will grind the bones of any story if it helps further the cause of same sex marriage.
There is an irony here though insofar as our learned friend has been twice married and has not as yet produced any offspring (well some of us should be thankful for that 😉 )so were his sarcastic scenario to be real he himself would be denied the joys of state sanctioned nuptials, maybe that is why he feels such empathy for those who now can  dare to speak the name of their love?

Cheers Comrades

Advertisements

20 Comments

  1. Ray Dixon says:

    It’s bizarre, Iain, and yes, very disrespectful of that elderly couple. He’s just bamboozling his readers with this nasty sort of attempted irony. Irony is a fine tool and, if well applied, can make a good point. But used this way, it simply shows him up as a bit of sour puss and a bufoon. I seriously doubt that the gay community wants this type of bad-mannered advocacy.

  2. Damage says:

    I agree about irony Ray. {edit – cut the crap, damage}

    Here’s the true irony though.
    I’m quite sure that this government will fall reasonably soon (BTW Strutter – Grange is not that easy to come by so be patient please before the abuse) and upon being elected Tony Abbott will allow a consience vote on this matter. It will be passed and Jezza will have his dream shattered because a conservative PM brought it in. Can you imagine the grinding of his teeth?
    So the push is on to get this government to make it happen before the inevitable happens and they are consigned to the waste bin of history as a footnote.
    Now that’s ironic.

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    It’s actually quite possible that the Libs will introduce it. Only if Gillard stays as ALP leader though. Otherwise it’ll be the churchy Rudd who brings an end to Jezza’s f*cken drum beating about gay marriage, made on behalf of people he not only doesn’t represent, but who abhor his aggresive and confrontational stance on the issue.

  4. Ray Dixon says:

    It’s non-plussed his avid followers, Iain. Only one (barely coherent) comment on his puzzling post. I think they’re just being polite by saying nothing!

  5. Iain Hall says:

    Yes I had noticed that he had got only one comment, sad really

  6. Ray Dixon says:

    Still only one comment. Have you ever noticed that despite J’s obsessive drum-beating and prolific number of posts he’s written in support of gay marriage, he doesn’t seem to attract any gay people in the comments saying things like “you are so right – thank you for being our unelected spokesperson”. There might be a message in that.

  7. GD says:

    he doesn’t seem to attract any gay people in the comments saying things like “you are so right – thank you for being our unelected spokesperson”

    Very telling point there Ray. Good call.

  8. Ray Dixon says:

    I have a number sequence for you:

    1, 1, 0, 2, 1, 0, 0

    Can anyone guess what it means?

  9. Iain Hall says:

    Yep its lead balloon time at our learned friend’s blog I think 😉

  10. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes, Iain. That is the comment count from, Jezza’s 7 March posts to date. A total of 5 comments. From 7 posts. He’s not only lost “it”, he’s lost his followers.

  11. GD says:

    Rubbing his nose in it 🙂

    How did you figure it out Iain? Then again, I have a short attention span. Old muso’s early onset dementia….

  12. GD says:

    It’s not surprising really. If you block all comments that don’t agree with you, stifle debate and only allow the incoherent ramblings through, it doesn’t make for much of a blog.

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Just a lucky Guess GD 😉

  14. Iain Hall says:

    And on top of that the comment counts on PP are not that healthy either..

  15. GD says:

    I guess PP really is poisonous for readers 🙂

  16. Ray Dixon says:

    He could have had more comments if he’d let my (non abusive & relevant) ones through. But he didn’t.

  17. GD says:

    That’s what I meant about ‘stifle debate’. He doesn’t even allow discussion depending on who submits it.

    Childish, narcissistic and not worth wasting time on.

  18. mrBrennan says:

    Some people have said that gay marriage can never be a real marriage because it can’t produce children. The Onymous Lefty is using satire to point out nobody objects to people past child-bearing age getting married, so the statement “Gay marriage can never be real marriage because gays can’t have babies” is obviously false.

    You’ve made it clear that you dislike the way he presents this point, but you don’t actually address the point he’s making. Presumably you agree that this elderly couple should have the right to marry, despite being incapable of producing children? And while you may object to gay marriage on other grounds, presumably you agree that gay couples should not be denied the right to marry *because they can’t have kids*?

  19. Iain Hall says:

    Firstly welcome to my Sandpit Mr B

    Some people have said that gay marriage can never be a real marriage because it can’t produce children. The Onymous Lefty is using satire to point out nobody objects to people past child-bearing age getting married, so the statement “Gay marriage can never be real marriage because gays can’t have babies” is obviously false.

    Naturally I disagree with your reasoning here, marriage is a social construct to suit a particular social purpose, namely the creation and nurture of the next generations of the species and it pre-dates any real understanding of the biology beyond children being a blessing of the creator that we now understand biology much better now does not change that.
    But what is the primary purpose of a homosexual relationship?
    I would argue that it is much more about the co-dependency of its participants than anything else,and while I agree that such a relationship needs and even deserves some sort of legal endorsement does not need to usurp the marriage act. I favour some form of civil union to meet the needs of homosexual couples.

    You’ve made it clear that you dislike the way he presents this point, but you don’t actually address the point he’s making. Presumably you agree that this elderly couple should have the right to marry, despite being incapable of producing children? And while you may object to gay marriage on other grounds, presumably you agree that gay couples should not be denied the right to marry *because they can’t have kids*?

    This issue has really only come to the forefront of the public debate because this government has been desperate for any issue that would distract the public from much more serious matters facing the nation. In many ways its a perfect smoke screen. Thanks to Rudd removing all of those discriminations that I mention (and endorse) in the post there are no real practical problems for any gay couple making their life very happily together entirely as they please. Further the government can let those on the far left like our learned friend expend all of their energy fighting for this cause rather than issues that matter to the majority of the people.

    What is the real thing that Gay activists want here? The reason that they so want to redefine marriage? I think its about acceptance and affirmation of their sexuality and to be honest I don’t think that will come from changing the marriage act, instead I think it will come over time as the public image of homosexuality changes from the gay Mardi Gras to one of domestic normality. As I said to Nigel Featherstone (a frequent gay visitor here)the best way that Gay people can get the acceptance and affirmation they seek is just living their lives and loves openly and honestly. Bludgeoning through changes to the marriage act won’t give them what they want.

  20. mrBrennan says:

    “marriage is a social construct to suit a particular social purpose, namely the creation and nurture of the next generations of the species”

    No, it isn’t – or at least, not always. And you don’t really think it is – not always. Otherwise you’d be objecting to anyone over the age of menopause getting married.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: