The sham that is the Australian 'Same Sex Marriage' vote
The federal Marriage Act Sect 46(1) always required celebrants to provide a definition of marriage as part of the ceremony. The wording required is "Marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life", or "words to that effect" (Source)
The percentage of the Australian population who self-identify as gay or lesbian is uncertain, but is probably in the range of 4-6%.
This month Australians were given the opportunity to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage ('SSM') in Australia via a postal survey. The postal survey asked a single question that question could only be answered with a 'Yes' or a 'No'. The question was "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?".
I voted 'no', and no, it's not because I am hateful or homophobic. Does that make me a hypocrite or a liar? No it doesn't, and I think it's simplistic to the point of childishness for anyone to suggest otherwise.
My primary concern is in relation to the process, including the troubling precedent it sets for future political and legal 'reform'. As the campaign has unfolded I have also become deeply concerned about the behaviour of the media and elements of the 'Yes' bloc. On this latter note, see for example this article by Miranda Devine about assaults at Sydney University, the assault on Tony Abbott MP, and the young employee sacked for holding views that differed from those of her employer.
The linked video clips show separate incidents where 'yes' voters aggressively harangue people holding 'It's OK to vote no' signs (example 1/example 2/ example 3). Just as with Trump/Clinton supporters in USA, it's not the conservatives (typically labelled 'far right') who are behaving aggressively.
And now we're told that 'no' voters can't help it because they're too stupid.
Some readers will be asking "How is this a men's issue?". No doubt there are gay men who would appreciate having the option to marry in preference to the alternatives already available to them. I mean them no disrespect. I was motivated to write this post mainly due to the parallels with how the broader gender debate is playing out, recognising this to be a major obstacle to achieving recognition of men's issues and true gender equality.
The SSM postal vote is far from being a worthy model of the way to create legislation or govern the country. Our politicians must be told this in very clear and unambiguous terms.
At an estimated cost of $122 million it is also an incredibly wasteful exercise. The propensity of our state and federal government to convene Royal Commissions or Inquiries in order to delay or avoid making difficult decisions is a long-standing embarrassment, but compared to the SSM vote they are a bargain.
Further, the SSM vote is almost certain to be ineffective, not least because either the government and/or the 'yes' lobby or 'no' lobby will not accept the result. In particular, you can bet your bottom dollar that if the 'no' vote gets up on the day, then we are set to witness a replay of the Hillary Clinton loss all over again.
As others have already suggested, the process might have had some shred of validity if the government had circulated draft legislation, together with a summary of arguments for and against specific proposed changes. According to Peter Dutton MP and Treasurer Scott Morrison this was a decision of Cabinet.
A draft bill was prepared some time ago, but I understand that no commitment has been made that this version will be put up for parliamentary vote should the 'yes' vote prevail.
The voting paper asks "Should the law be changed …?" What will an answer to a question this vague tell our politicians that they could not judge for themselves in the context of a parliamentary vote?
So exactly how will the primary enabling legislation (the Marriage Act) be changed? What other legislation and regulations will subsequently need to be amended, and in what manner? What will be the likely tangible flow-on effect of these changes for ordinary Australians, for example in terms of financial costs/benefits?
If this were about a major infrastructure project then all relevant facts (or at least, estimates) would be set out for objective consideration. Instead the scope of discussion in relation to same-sex marriage has been, for the most part, remarkably narrow. Alternately tugging on heart strings/shaming those with alternative views, or dishing out some bible quotes, does not constitute an intelligent political debate.
Why so little discussion, for example, of what has happened in those countries that have approved SSM? (see here for discussion of the UK example, with related comments by Rowan Dean here)
Along with an abundance of predictable and sometimes shrill PC frou-frou, a few thoughtful pieces have appeared in the media. One example is 'Liberals find scant refuge in a surrender to identity politics' by Greg Sheridan.
"The destructiveness of identity politics is that it poisons relations between human beings by claiming that historic injustices require civic inequalities to remedy them today. This requires that some groups be classified as victims and others as villains"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Marriage_Law_Postal_Survey
Parliament of Australia briefing paper on Same Sex Marriage (undated)
Howard rejects PM's vow on religious freedom (29 September 2017) A copy of John Howard's full page newspaper advert is provided below
The failure of 'Yes' to control its militant wing (27 September 2017)
Same sex marriage in Australia – why I have to vote 'No' (26 September 2017) Video
The definitive guide to the gay marriage debate (21 September 2017)
"Because part of this strategy is to provoke an equally irrational response from the Yes campaign". Joe, wake up to yourself mate! No-one is manipulating the 'Yes' bloc into performing their special brand of craziness. No-one needs to – it's what people in this sociopolitical milieu do now. And not just with this issue, but many others. For a recent Australian example just look at my post regarding the 'Red Pill' movie.
Same-sex marriage: Yes, but spare the virtue-signalling (19 September 2017)
'It's not okay to be homophobic': Canberra contractor sacked for 'vote no' Facebook post (19 September 2017) What is happening to our country when people feel justified in jettisoning our open and democratic way of life in their quest to virtue-signal and shame.
Gay audience member shuts down MP's argument against same-sex marriage (19 September 2017)
On the issue of conflating the right to marry with other issues, which Mr Lau had also raised, Ms Wong said conflating issues was a tactic of the "No" campaign. "The 'No' campaign is finding every other issue to talk about," she said. "It's a deliberate scare campaign, and I think it's a tactic Australians are seeing through. And it's a disappointing tactic."
Leftists/feminists have no problem with conflating issues when it suits – the most common being the feminists=women furphy. In this case what Penny is really railing against is that other related issues might be considered, issues outside of the narrow parameters for debate approved by people such as herself.
Sure some of these factors will be over-reach or downright wrong. Most however will be legitimate and deserving of serious consideration in reaching an informed decision on this particular matter. And the many others that will follow.
Posted on September 20, 2017 September 30, 2017 Tags Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Government Inquiry, homosexuality, identity politics, marriageLeave a comment on The sham that is the Australian 'Same Sex Marriage' vote
Deep down in places feminists don't talk about at parties ('pussy cartel')
Let's set aside the dictionary definition of feminism. And all the nice cuddly things feminists are quoted as saying in the mainstream media. There are other significant considerations or issues of concern to real-world feminists. But even though they may feel deeply about them, they rarely admit to it. This post is about one such issue. It's referred to under different names including women's sexual currency, erotic capital, or the 'pussy cartel'.
Have you ever wondered why feminists have such a visceral reaction to the topic of western men with foreign wives, prostitution (involving men paying women for sex), men viewing pornography, men using sex aids for solo pleasure, and MGTOW?
That reaction is summed up succinctly in this post in a discussion thread about men with foreign wives:
"Anything that gives men more options seems to piss them off. Also why they despise prostitution. They really seem to think that women derive value from sex, and treat any women who aren't trading it for things as they see fit, the way a union views scabs." (Source)
Yes, sure, that's just one person commenting about a one particular topic. But I have seen the same suggestion put forward, often simply as an aside, by others in many separate discussions about the various topics listed above.
Granted this does not apply to all women who identify as feminists, but please let's not divert into the maze that is NAFALT. Likewise I won't be side-tracked into discussions as to the fairness or appropriateness of women choosing to sleep with alpha males rather than 'nice guys', or remaining celibate, or whatever. Women can choose to do pretty much whatever they want with their own bodies. And, aside from women in sexual servitude in third-world countries, women exercise this choice every day of their lives. Good for them.
What I do object to though, is the denial and hypocrisy surrounding the reality of modern-day sexual mores, and of feminists claiming the moral high ground when often so very poorly qualified to do so. And to those who acknowledge reality but attempt to lay responsibility at the feet of the 'patriarchy', I say nonsense! Utter nonsense!
In the film 'A Few Good Men', a 'Code Red' was said to be an unofficial military order to rough up an uncooperative soldier, with the aim of enforcing and strengthening team unity. Who remembers Jack Nicholson (as Col. Jessep) bellowing the line: "You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.".
Is it true in fact that feminists recognise that a woman's strongest (and increasingly now their only significant) bargaining chip is their power to grant or withhold sexual relief?
Is it not also that feminists see people who fall into the categories mentioned above (e.g. men with Asian wives, etc) as devaluing the sexual currency of women, and loathe them for it? Often even seeking retribution against them?
Does the feminist version of a 'Code Red' consist of a package of shaming tactics? For example, slut-shaming for prostitutes and party girls. Shaming of men with Asian wives with comments like "you couldn't get a woman in your own country" and "you're too weak to handle a union of equals".
This theme is explored further in the following papers:
Why Do Men Watch Porn? (25 April 2021)
Author Tells Women to Use Their "P*ssy Power" to Get the Men They Want (6 April 2015)
Study reveals price plays exclusive part in women's approval of sexualy explicit advertisements (9 December 2013)
Seems like its women who mostly slut-shame (27 September 2014)
You can't get laid in the United States (26 September 2011)
http://theumlaut.com/2013/07/02/the-economics-of-slut-shaming/
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/sex-cartel/
http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/20ptr7/stormblade260_explains_why_people_think_women/
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-women-without-any-rights-know-all-about-erotic-capital-2341700.html
http://www.the-niceguy.com/articles/SupplyDemand.html
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/07/08/sexual-economics/
They're afraid of men masturbating (20 September 2010)
Reddit discussion thread on slut-shaming
On Australian men seeking foreign partners
Will fembots be a game changer?
Posted on August 25, 2014 May 4, 2021 Tags cross-cultural relationships, fembots, feminism, homosexuality, MGTOW, pornography, prostitution, pussy cartel, retribution, shaming, slutsLeave a comment on Deep down in places feminists don't talk about at parties ('pussy cartel')