Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Domestic life » Janet Albrechtsen, Gay Marriage and making gravy

Janet Albrechtsen, Gay Marriage and making gravy


If you have listened to this song before then it should not have escaped your attention that the process of making good gravy is just as important as the nature of the the ingredients  I hear the song on the radio this morning as I read Janet Albrechtsen this morning.

Janet Albrechtsen click for source

Janet Albrechtsen click for source

Gay marriage is not akin to securing the vote for women or ending apartheid. After all, civil unions are commonplace. Gay couples enjoy the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples. If they don’t they should. But the political battle to claim the word “marriage” for homosexuals is an elite agenda of the political classes for reasons not always honest.

Take the disingenuous claim that traditional marriage is an evil form of discrimination against gays. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in Hollingsworth last week, “when the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”

Yet, those who oppose gay marriage for legitimate reasons are too often treated as morally inferior, out-of-date, and worse, bigoted.

Whether it’s a snooty editorial from The New York Times ridiculing the “incoherence” of opposing gay marriage in Hollingsworth or mocking grumbles from the audience on ABC1’s Q&A, too many gay marriage advocates have chosen the wrong way to advance their cause.

Redefining marriage in a way that promotes social cohesion means winning people over with reasoned arguments rather than trying to guilt them into agreeing.

What our activist friends seem to forget is  that for the sort of social changes they desire they have to convince  rather than coerce a change from those of us who want to see marriage remain as a heterosexual institution.

Patience is a virtue that seems far too removed from the activist mindset, maybe it shouldn’t be so if they want the changes they desire to be enduring accepted and effective.

Cheers Comrades

wedding-bouquet-1861-2560x1600

Advertisements

12 Comments

  1. deknarf says:

    I just can’t reply (sob!). I’m just aghast that you would quote Janet Albrechtsen! 😦

  2. Iain Hall says:

    There in lays the difference between you and I.
    You want to ignore the opinions of those of a different political ilk I make a real effort to explore, understand and engage with those I disagree with. Admittedly it does get me into a bit of trouble sometimes but its more interesting than just seeking the like minded.

  3. deknarf says:

    There are some great thinkers in this world, on all parts of the political spectrum! Sorry, but Albrechtsen isn’t one of them!
    I’m more than happy to read the great thinkers, but Albrechtsen? Nah!!

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Mate, even “ordinary” thinkers can often come up with some good sense which is why I am asking you to get past the author’s name and to instead consider the thing she is saying here.

  5. deknarf says:

    I’ve read some of Albrechtsens work and my opinion was formed from that material. Has she got it? No she ain’t!! Typical ‘win the people over with reasoned argument’ stuff. She needs to go read some decent psychology material on how/why people make positional decisions!

  6. rjryan says:

    ‘ a skanky ho’ Keating on Janet Albrechtsen. poo take a shower Janet.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Did you read the passage that I quote here?

  8. deknarf says:

    Yup! Basically a reiteration of what’s been said before!

  9. Iain Hall says:

    Well everything has been said before Deknarf, the question is does what she is saying make sense? If you don’t think so then please explain why you disagree with her argument.

  10. deknarf says:

    Gay marriage is not akin to securing the vote for women or ending apartheid [no it isn’t in a numerical sense but it is for gays]. After all, civil unions are commonplace [a generalisation including both hetero and gay]. Gay couples enjoy the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples [rubbish!]. If they don’t they should [nice throwaway line excusing the former]. But the political battle to claim the word “marriage” for homosexuals is an elite agenda of the political classes for reasons not always honest. [Really? Generalist statement without any specific examples]

    Take the disingenuous claim that traditional marriage is an evil form of discrimination against gays [I have never heard/seen that argument expounded]. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in Hollingsworth last week, “when the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals [nor did the primitives define marriage (or their word for it) in term of religion]. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”[I assume that for the purposes of procreation some form of recognised act was undertaken to demonstrate that the particular pair had bonded for the purpose of living together and producing children. Given that this pair bonding occurred pre history, there is no evidence that such bonding events didn’t occur between homosexual. The argument is based on AD beliefs and rhetoric]

    Yet, those who oppose gay marriage for legitimate reasons are too often treated as morally inferior, out-of-date, and worse, bigoted.[what are the legitimate reasons (‘legitimate’ used to strengthen reason)? Again AD religious argument is being used to support the argument]

    Whether it’s a snooty editorial [denigrations of contrary views, typical JA] from The New York Times ridiculing the “incoherence” of opposing gay marriage in Hollingsworth or mocking grumbles from the audience on ABC1′s Q&A, too many gay marriage advocates have chosen the wrong way to advance their cause. [They’ve chosen to make a noise about it, in the same manner as objections to War, etc etc. It may be wrong to JA but has not been proven to be wrong on other issues when the change has come about]

    Redefining marriage in a way that promotes social cohesion means winning people over with reasoned arguments rather than trying to guilt them into agreeing. [The science says (JA would roll eyes here) that winning over people with entrenched views does not work with reasoned argument as their views have been entrench by non-reasoned instinctual behaviours/experiences]!
    That’s why I treat JA articles with contempt!!
    You are a bloody hard taskmaster sir!! 😉

  11. Iain Hall says:

    I know I’m a hard taskmaster but don’t you feel better for the effort?

    Gay marriage is not akin to securing the vote for women or ending apartheid [no it isn’t in a numerical sense but it is for gays].

    It is a second order issue by any measure

    After all, civil unions are commonplace [a generalisation including both hetero and gay]. Gay couples enjoy the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples [rubbish!]. If they don’t they should [nice throwaway line excusing the former].

    Don’t you know that Rudd removed all discrimination in the way that same sex couples are treated in commonwealth legislation, under the social security act ext. Even I know about that and endorse the changes made.

    But the political battle to claim the word “marriage” for homosexuals is an elite agenda of the political classes for reasons not always honest. [Really? Generalist statement without any specific examples]

    No its fair to say that only the inner-city demographic is hot to trot on this issue there is not even universal approval from the homosexual community.

    Take the disingenuous claim that traditional marriage is an evil form of discrimination against gays [I have never heard/seen that argument expounded].

    If you look around you will find it easily enough.

    As Chief Justice John Roberts said in Hollingsworth last week, “when the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals [nor did the primitives define marriage (or their word for it) in term of religion].

    I would dispute the claim that religion did not have a part to play in the understanding of marriage from the very beginning of time.

    The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”[I assume that for the purposes of procreation some form of recognised act was undertaken to demonstrate that the particular pair had bonded for the purpose of living together and producing children. Given that this pair bonding occurred pre history, there is no evidence that such bonding events didn’t occur between homosexual. The argument is based on AD beliefs and rhetoric]

    Its biologically impossible for two individuals of the same gender to produce children, that was the case in ancient times as much as it is now, don’t kid yourself that ancient people had not worked out the realities of procreation even if they did not quite understand all of the biology the did appreciate that a man’s seed implanted inside a woman would grow to a new baby

    Yet, those who oppose gay marriage for legitimate reasons are too often treated as morally inferior, out-of-date, and worse, bigoted.[what are the legitimate reasons (‘legitimate’ used to strengthen reason)? Again AD religious argument is being used to support the argument]

    My argument is that marriage is an innately heterosexual institution with the primary purpose of providing an environment to nurture children and that the needs of same sex couples can be totally met with civil unions.

    Whether it’s a snooty editorial [denigrations of contrary views, typical JA] from The New York Times ridiculing the “incoherence” of opposing gay marriage in Hollingsworth or mocking grumbles from the audience on ABC1′s Q&A, too many gay marriage advocates have chosen the wrong way to advance their cause. [They’ve chosen to make a noise about it, in the same manner as objections to War, etc etc. It may be wrong to JA but has not been proven to be wrong on other issues when the change has come about]

    Its counter productive in the long run which is Janet’s point here. Sure activists can speed things alomng but unless you truly take society along with you on changes like this you won’t get the acceptance of homosexuality that is the real desire of the activists.

    Redefining marriage in a way that promotes social cohesion means winning people over with reasoned arguments rather than trying to guilt them into agreeing. [The science says (JA would roll eyes here) that winning over people with entrenched views does not work with reasoned argument as their views have been entrench by non-reasoned instinctual behaviours/experiences]!

    If the rise and fall of communism teaches us anything its that Lenin’s conception of a small group of revolutionaries seizing power and then being able to mould an enduring socialist utopia is fatally flawed insofar as it ignores the fact that without real popular support such enterprises eventually fall. The same applies to activist achieved changes they tend not to endure and are generally undermined with the same methods that were employed to make them.

  12. GD says:

    The campaign for ‘gay marriage’ is going well in France, that most libertarian of countries.

    Here in Australia, Liberal politician Cory Bernardi took it a step too far by referring to comments made by leftist wacko Peter Singer, who advocates sex between animals and humans.

    Not however before he raised the question of the grey area between gay marriage and polygamy.

    Wacko leftist Peter Singer is on record, on the tax-payer funded ABC, arguing for the acceptance of ‘consensual sex’ between animals and humans.

    This raises, once again, the question of a slippery slope leading to the destruction of marriage as we have known it for hundreds of years.

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: