Australia should not legalise gay marriage because ASIA

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-02/p ... ge/6590446

Eric Abetz on same-sex marriage: Won't somebody please think of Asia?
Opinion
The Drum
By Ben Pobjie
Posted Thu at 2:04pmThu 2 Jul 2015, 2:04pm

Eric Abetz is right. If Australia legislates in favour of marriage equality, our global neighbours might call us cruel names like "Marriage Redefiner" or "Rainbowface". Ben Pobjie takes a (yes, satirical) look at some of the other objections to this social change.

It may have escaped your notice in all the recent celebration regarding the advance of the cause of marriage equality, but there are in fact some people who don't like it. They tend to keep it to themselves, most of the time, but actually there are people out there who don't much like the thought of two people of the same sex marrying each other.

It is easy to dismiss these people, to call them bigoted, or out-of-touch, or stupid, or badly-dressed. But it becomes a lot harder to dismiss them when their concerns are given voice by the velvety throat of Senator Eric Abetz. Senator Abetz, in that suave, charming way of his, quite reasonably pointed out that since Asia has yet to legalise same-sex marriage, and since this is the Asian Century, and since everyone's been saying "Asia" a lot lately, it would be foolish for Australia to introduce equal marriage.

A valid concern? Certainly - we don't want to find ourselves slap bang in the middle of the Asian Century, with all the Asian countries standing around laughing at us and calling us cruel names like "Marriage Redefiner" and "Rainbowface". It's pretty important not to antagonise Asia, because as far as I know, it's pretty big. Better, perhaps, that we should stick to our usual routine of copying everything Asia does? A debate worth having at least.

It would be unfair to suggest that FOA (Fear of Asia) is the Senator's only objection to marriage equality, though. He also raises the spectre of polyamory and the dire consequences that loom if we do not maintain strong controls on just how much people should be allowed to enjoy their lives.

And then, of course, the clincher - Bill Shorten supports marriage equality, which makes it a bad idea according to both common sense and the Labor Party charter.

All of those are solid reasons for resisting the redefinition of marriage, but Abetz need not have stopped there: compelling arguments against this particular bit of social engineering abound, and I expect the Senator and his colleagues to roll them all out in the coming weeks. For example:

Children
Many advocates of same-sex marriage ignore the crucial issue of children: why won't they let children marry each other? Fairly clear case of hypocrisy here I think.

Christianity
The Bible is very clear on the issue of same-sex marriage, or at least if it's not it should be. God, it has been recorded, made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. This raises the disturbing question: who made Steve? Where did this mysterious man come from? Until we solve the troubling conundrum of Steve's genesis and what it says about our vulnerability to interstellar attack, we can't afford distractions like same-sex marriage.

Communication
Right now, when we say "marriage", we know what it means: it means a man and a woman legally bound together in an increasingly passive-aggressive living arrangement. But bring in same-sex marriage, and when someone uses the word, we won't be sure what they're referring to. Do they mean man-woman marriage? Man-man marriage? Woman-woman marriage? The figurative marriage of punk and reggae pioneered by the Clash? There will simply be no way to know, and hence language as we know it will collapse and we will be reduced to grunting pre-lingual cavepeople.

Promiscuity
Right now the gay and lesbian community is a model of chaste fidelity. Do we really want to inflict upon them the institution that has made heterosexual Australians such notorious sexual risk-takers? It's for their own good, really.

Happiness
A lot of people are pretty unhappy about same-sex marriage, so it seems kind of mean to just go ahead and do it without thinking about their feelings.

America
America has just authorised marriage equality in all 50 states. As we all know, Americanisms are vulgar and unattractive, and we become culturally poorer every time we ignorantly take on another one. If we follow their lead on marriage, what's next? Removing the "u" from "colour"? Saying aluminium wrong? Not on my watch.

Bestiality
If a man can marry a man, what's to stop a man from marrying an otter? That's a question that nobody seems to have a good answer for. And it's not just otters - the proposed marriage equality law contains no safeguards against marriage to a whole range of animals. Elephants, crocodiles, mosquitoes - all are up for a white wedding if we're not careful to at the very least add an amendment. Relaxing the boundaries around marriage simply invites people to give in to their natural urges to form romantic relationships with pets, livestock, and most worryingly, the African "Big Five" game animals. I know it's tempting, but a little restraint, please.

Ben Pobjie is a writer, comedian and poet with no journalistic qualifications whatsoever.

Original article by Abetz can be found here
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... 702-gi336j

Of course if we so want to follow Asia and not America, maybe we shouldn't bow before the US just because China decides to set up a bank.

[Soontir C'boath]

Surprise he didn't take a crack at dowries or would that be too easy of a jab?

[dragon]

Well considering how many developed countries now allow gay marriages. So far there's 22 developed countries where gay marriage is legal; Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, England/Wales, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, US, Uruguay

link

Eventually of the developed nations Australia will be alone in their Bigotry.

[Irbis]

Eventually of the developed nations Australia will be alone in their Bigotry.

*cough* You forgot Poland *cough*

[Eternal_Freedom]

And while it's fairly irrelevant, I object to you listing England/Wale and Scotland as separate nations.

[madd0ct0r]

I fecking dont!

[Lord Pounder]

And while it's fairly irrelevant, I object to you listing England/Wale and Scotland as separate nations.

Yet Northern Ireland which is also a part of the United Kingdom doesn't allow marriage equality.

[Elheru Aran]

The United Kingdom is a complicated entity... at least you don't have Wales stirring up a stink to boot

[ray245]

The faster being Asian can stop being linked with an excuse to be culturally conservative, the better things will be for human rights. Asia as a cultural construct is rather damaging to any progressive change.

[dragon]

And while it's fairly irrelevant, I object to you listing England/Wale and Scotland as separate nations.

Yet Northern Ireland which is also a part of the United Kingdom doesn't allow marriage equality.

Hey that wasn't me blame the Pew Research Center. They're the ones that did it.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The faster being Asian can stop being linked with an excuse to be culturally conservative, the better things will be for human rights. Asia as a cultural construct is rather damaging to any progressive change.

It's Australia. The land where at one point of time, the GREATEST THREAT TO AUSTRALIAN WAY OF LIFE was the YELLOW FLOOD/PLAGUE.

100 over years later, it's not like their hypocritical xenophobic tendencies are gonna change.

[Gandalf]

Fun fact: It was the fear of hard working Asian people putting white people out of work which prompted the introduction of the"White Australia" policy.

[Korto]

Actually, this has some possibility of becoming quite amusing. Abbott, according to some political reporters, is a pragmatic man. He wont let ideology get in the way of good politics (translation - he'll throw his ideals out the window as soon as it looks like they might get between him and power).

Now Abbott is against gay marriage, but 70% of Australian voters (you know, the people who put his party in Government) are for it. Simple decision there right? HOWEVER, 70% of senior Coalition members (you know, the people who made him Prime Minister) are against it. And Abbott's position as PM is already pretty wobbly.

A Liberal MP (don't remember who, don't care) has already talked about his dread of going to the next election with the Labor party saying "Vote Labor if you support Gay Marriage, because you know the Liberals wont"

[Hillary]

A Liberal MP (don't remember who, don't care) has already talked about his dread of going to the next election with the Labor party saying "Vote Labor if you support Gay Marriage, because you know the Liberals wont"

The Liberal Party don't support gay marriage? As a non-Aussie, can you explain to me how this works?

[Korto]

The name comes from being economically liberal, anti-communist/socialist. Socially, under Abbott (and Howard before him) they're quite conservative. They're also called the conservative party, or the liberal-conservatives.

Socially, while liberty and freedom of enterprise form the basis of its beliefs, elements of the party have wavered between what is termed "small-l liberalism" and social conservatism. Historically, Liberal Governments have been responsible for the carriage of a number of notable "socially liberal" reforms, including the opening of Australia to multiethnic immigration

While under Abbott, expect only conservatism, if Turnbull takes over, there could be a big shift back.

[Gandalf]

A Liberal MP (don't remember who, don't care) has already talked about his dread of going to the next election with the Labor party saying "Vote Labor if you support Gay Marriage, because you know the Liberals wont"

The Liberal Party don't support gay marriage? As a non-Aussie, can you explain to me how this works?

In the nineties under Liberal PM John Howard, the party took a big swing to the right in order to prevent a loss of voters to Pauline Hanson, a vile far right xenophobe. Here 60 Minutes tries to explore it. Look out for mentions of "the yellow race."

While under Abbott, expect only conservatism, if Turnbull takes over, there could be a big shift back.

I'm not convinced that Turnbull would enact any significant changes to the party platform. Since being repeatedly whacked by Abbott's faction of the party, he seems to have really fallen into line.

[Hillary]

Thanks, both. That's interesting.