In the comments of this post Miglo was curious about my reaction to his critique of Tony Abbott’s position on a grab bag of social issues well I wrote out a long comment answering each point in turn only to have it disappear into the either when I tried to use it as a comment to a re-blog here at the Sandpit So this is “take two” and hopefully this one will not disappear…
So without further adieu I will go through the points in turn
Same-sex marriage: Mr Abbott has said marriage is between a man and a woman not just to fulfil their own personal happiness ”but because we have obligations to the children that come with families”.
I see no reason to fault Abbott on this position as marriage is much more about the children that it is about social affirmation for homosexuality
Mr Abbott said he felt “threatened” by homosexuality on Sunday night’s program, a comment that has angered the gay and lesbian community and something he tried to back track from during an interview on the ABC last night.
“There is no doubt that it (homosexuality) challenges, if you like, orthodox notions of the right order of things” Mr Abbott told Lateline.
At the risk of being howled down as a homophobe I tend to think that homosexuality is against the natural order of things and it serves no biological purpose (given the simple fact that such pairings must be sterile) that said I am a realist who thinks that what consenting adults do in private is entirely their own business and the law and society should not penalise them for their choice of partner(s).
Abortion: Christians aren’t required to right every wrong in the political arena, but they can help change the nation’s culture, suggests Tony Abbott DESPITE the debt that political institutions owe to the West’s Christian heritage, there is the constant claim that Christians in politics are confused about the separation of church and state. There’s also a tendency among Christians in the community to think that Christians in politics have to sell out their principles in order to survive. Christian politicians are often warding off simultaneous accusations that they are zealots or fakes. Indeed, the public caricature of a Christian politician is hypocrite or wuss, in denial about the ruthlessness and expediency necessary to wield power, or too sanctimonious to be effective. Take the challenge of abortion. The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.
Abortion is the classic example of competing moral imperatives and the simple fact is that those competing imperatives each have different levels of validity depending upon the stage of gestation. Thus very early on its easier to argue that a women’s bodily integrity and autonomy should give her unfettered rights to terminate an unborn child the longer that the gestation endures the greater the argument for the protection of the unborn from arbitrary execution becomes. Anyone who does not realise this is essentially a sociopath who is ruled by a dark and vicious feminist ideology.
Boat people: Tony Abbott yesterday claimed boatpeople were acting in an un-Christian manner.
Given the fact atht most of these mendicants are not in fact Christian then what is contentious about this observation
Euthanasia: Legalising euthanasia in Australia would put elderly people at risk of being “bumped off”, federal Health Minister Tony Abbott has warned, after an Australian man travelled to Switzerland to legally end his life.
Killing oneself is not rocket science and you really don’t need much more than simple things that are common around the house, nor is suicide actually a crime. But there are lots of downsides to making it easy for doctors to assist. In extreme circumstances if there is a legal cost to “helping” some one end their lives then it is a small sacrifice that should be paid to prevent malicious pressure on the unwell.
The needy: “We can’t abolish poverty because poverty in part is a function of individual behaviour”.
Contrary to leftist ideology the reality is precisely as Tony Abbott observes here some people just can not be saved from themselves no matter how much money you throw at their problems.
Women’s rights: Tony Abbott warns women against sex before marriage. And how about this brain fart: “I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons”.
Is promiscuity really such a good thing for anyone in society? The left seem to believe that sexual intercourse is something akin to a contact sport that is little different to any other amateur sport. However this ignores its true purpose which is to propagate the species and to provide the glue that cement the pair bonds that are foundational to raising subsequent generations. As for the difference in aptitudes of men and women in different roles and professions only a fool denies that there are differences but the other side of that coin is to have a society that allows and appreciates those who want to step outside the usual gender expectations.
Recognition of Indigenous culture: ‘Western civilisation came to this country in 1788 and I’m proud of that . . . Aboriginal people have much to celebrate in this country’s British Heritage’.
Compare and contrast the sort of colonial experience that this country benefits from with the sort of colonial experience under different European colonial regimes and its clear that we would be a lesser nation under the French, the Dutch, Spanish or the Portuguese. So Abbott is spot on here.
Climate change: As a climate denier, Tony Abbott is most famous for his statement that climate science is “absolute crap“. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg – he actually has a long history of denying climate change science. “The fact that we have had if anything cooling global temperatures over the last decade, not withstanding continued dramatic increases of carbon dioxide emissions, suggests the role of CO2 is not nearly as clear as the climate catastrophists suggest.”
Does it matter what the man personally believes about the AGW proposition? I think not when it comes down to it. However if his scepticism about the millenarian cult of “climate change” leads this country to a more nuanced policy setting that eschews useless lip-service to AGW as a front for social engineering then the nation can only benefit. If AGW theory is correct which is the greater sin? To agree with the liturgy and preform pious acts of contrition that have no effect on the problem (like Gillard’s Carbon tax ) and cost our economy a Motza Or to disagree with the theory but to act in a prudent manner to improve the environment?
Technology: “There is no way on God’s earth that we need to be spending $50 billion plus of borrowed money on what is going to turn out to be a telecommunications white elephant – school halls on steroids.”
We would all love to have a Lamborghini or a Rolls Royce in the garage but when it comes down to it most of us would be happy with a Nissan or a Ford. lets consider just what people actually want out of the Internet rather than getting carried away by the dreams of the technophiles and the latte sippers
Foreign investment: Tony Abbott made headlines recently when during a visit to China, he declared that “it would rarely be in Australia’s national interest to allow a foreign government or its agencies to control an Australian business”.
In other words: foreign direct investment by such entities would not be welcome.
How is it a bad thing to be concerned that a totalitarian state owned corporations may not have Australian’s interests at heart when they try to buy the farm here?
Divorce: Liberal Party frontbencher Tony Abbott wants laws toughened up to make divorce harder. The opposition families and Aboriginal affairs spokesman has called for a return to the fault-based system of divorce discarded in 1975, which was replaced by a “no-fault” system. Mr Abbott’s plan, outlined in his soon-to-be released book Battlelines, would see a grounds for divorce reintroduced, including adultery, cruelty, habitual drunkenness and imprisonment.
It would be similar to the defunct Matrimonial Causes Act.
There is a great deal to recommend in our “no fault” divorce system but its not perfect and there are times when a judgement of fault would aid justice in adjudicating some of the issues associated with the dissolution of a marriage, its property and children that make divorce tough and the experience of our system shows it could do with some review and reconsideration at the very least.
So there you go Migs I have gone through your points and shown that none of them are the black marks that you seem to think they are, all are quite reasonable positions to take and most reasonable people will be able to see that.