Australia's Same Sex Marriage Plebiscite - The Straw Man Cometh

Australia is about to have a postal plebiscite to vote on same sex marriage. Woo-hoo! With opinion polls continually returning approval of the change in the 70% range - it sounds like it's going to be a huge gay party. (Everyone knows they're the best type.)

But not so fast. The plebiscite will cost over one hundred million dollars - money the government could save by simply passing a law. The vote would be nonbinding, not compulsory and would allow the conservative government to vote it down even if the vote from the plebiscite overwhelmingly supported changing the marriage act.

The opposition to the vote warns such a vote gives conservative groups the opportunity to legitimise, promote and publicise damaging, hateful and erroneous views towards the LGBTQ community in the name of campaigning for a no vote.

And this fear is now being realised.

It's ironic that those who are clearly no friend of Dorothy, rely on all her friends to argue against things they don't like or understand.

They clearly don't have a heart, given they want to stop people in love from declaring their relationship in a formal way, equal to all others.

They don't have a brain, given they keep confusing marriage between a loving couple with polygamy, bestiality and the ability to have and raise children.

And they don't have the courage to stand up and declare they have an issue with anyone under the LGBTQ banner having equal rights, and those reasons are, largely, that they don't like, understand or consider them equal.

We should all become more aware of the straw man arguments continually rolled out for debate on emotive issues and call these arguments out for what they are. Cut the debate short by declaring an argument is not on topic.

The definition of the straw man argument is to give the impression of refuting an opponent's argument while refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.

For instance - Gay marriage has nothing to do with having or raising children. They are two separate issues. Gay people can already have children in Australia. This is a legal right and can be achieved by many different means. Whether they are married or not has no bearing.

The reason gay parenting has been raised by the pro same sex marriage advocates is that these kids shouldn't be told by the anti lobby groups their parents are less able to raise children, or less worthy or that the children themselves are at a disadvantage.

The Australian Christian Lobby argues this case hard - but never once wraps that argument around the millions of single parents who are in the same exact situation as not having both a male and female parent present. Again, be honest if you are going to argue a case. This argument, by the inclusion of single parents, is quickly reduced to a nasty, emotive, manipulative straw man argument that is not on the topic of should same sex marriage be legalised.

If it wasn't a straw man argument and therefore null and void, you could argue that marriage between a gay couple provides the child or children with a better level of stability, security and legal surety, making it harder for a parent to leave the relationship. You could - but that would also be an adjunct to a straw man argument - so I won't.

Similarly, arguments like the wonderful, inclusive, loving Christian Arch Bishop who is up in arms because a change to the law may force him to teach same sex marriage in schools or other religious based organisations. Straw man argument - go away. This is a curriculum issue. If you want to teach your students about a world that doesn't exist, go ahead. The hard right conservatives are always looking for new members and the bright kids will see what's going on through things called windows. Christian schools do have windows, right?

Similarly, as I've argued in a blog post before, Here, if you feel your religious freedoms are being usurped by people next door doing things you don't like, don't include them/us. Just make sure you have the courage of your convictions and make this known. I would suggest a door sign that reads: "We do not support or welcome GLBTQ marriage in this church congregation."

I'd be far more assured about religion if all religious based programs were happy to lead by example instead of asking people to follow their words and not their deeds. Just like a plebiscite - the people of this ever changing, and I'm optimistic enough to believe, forward thinking nation, will vote with their feet on knowing your views.

Tradition is another good argument. Except that traditionally women weren't seen as equal, and are, as a result, still catching up in terms of representation at executive levels, equal pay and in Parliament. Also, Aboriginals were classed as part of Australia's flora and fauna until 1967 - so who isn't proud of tradition? Why should we ever change anything?

Come on - it's a pro gay blog - it must include a musical!

Tony Abbott, Australia's former Prime Minister and Alt-Right poster boy, has raised the idea that a 'No' vote is a vote against political correctness. That argument certainly is.

This is another classic straw man argument wheeled out by a man who is very smart, (A Rhodes Scholar no less), but not at all clever. This is a Trump supporter's view of the world. Abbott is one of the down trodden, privileged white citizens being oppressed by the world forcing him to accept others as equal. Equality for others is not oppression. Equality for others often does mean the privileged get less of the pie - but not less than an equal share. It's hard to argue in any way against equality. Those who do don't seem to understand what the word means.

It lessens the sanctity of marriage is another argument. Maybe some people do feel this. That's so sad. That you would love your wife or husband less because Tony and Guy from next door got married. Or you feel your marriage is less binding because Penny and Jude tied the knot. That feels a little like an excuse to get out of your own marriage to me - maybe you and your significant other should talk and not try to argue that your marriage is suddenly less binding because of what's going on with your neighbours.

Gay marriage is a form of gay privilege, is another argument getting a good work out. Ricky? Any thoughts?

As the arguments flow they get increasingly more desperate and disparate. More straw man and not the type of straw man who was a friend of Dorothy, a man looking to change and better himself.

This vote - if it turns out to be a legitimate vote - is about letting all couples in love marry. Period. (Thank you for that Spicey)

Let's call out the emotional rhetoric, the straw man arguments and any other arguments that are not based solely on that single question.

And once again I call out homophobia for what it is. It's fine not to like us - and I get not to like what you don't understand. It's hard to empathise with something that you have no connection to or understanding of. I genuinely don't have an issue with that or with you for feeling that way. What I do have an issue with is you dressing your lack of empathy and understanding up in different clothes and arguing on a range of emotive issues, designed to shield you from being honest about how you feel towards the GLBTQ community. If you don't like us and don't see us as equals - own it.

Don't use straw man arguments to hide your true motives - to stop people you don't consider equal from gaining equality.

President Trump presents, The Greatest Show On Earth!

Remember The Donald, before he was The President Trump? 

Remember how he held a press conference and all the journalists and networks were waiting for hours, cutting into their programming and holding off shows as they waited with bated breath?

And they waited and waited and waited some more.

Then The Donald arrived and made his big announcement. It was little more than an infomercial promoting Trump products and Trump Hotels. Remember that? I always thought it was Donald J just testing how far he had hooked his suckers.

The angry journalists waved their angry little fists and flapped their angry little gums in the middle of their angry little faces and decried, "He played us! There was no big announcement. He promised us a big announcement, and he didn't deliver!. He used us to gouge a little more of the billion dollars in free media coverage we're giving him! What a complete rogue!"

Then the media went back to giving him their undivided attention and promoting fake news they'd sourced from facebook, twitter or by quoting someone else who'd sourced the idea from facebook or twitter.

It's journalism 21st-century style... where unvetted information is raced to air in a bid to be first and Dulcie from Bachas Marsh has just tweeted, 95% of all foreigners are assassins according to a man wearing a white coat and holding a clipboard. Fascinating, Dulcie.

So jump forward a year and President The Donald is under some heavy scrutiny. First, there were claims he was part of a conspiracy with the Russians. There were claims those pesky Russlanders had infiltrated social media to the extent that they had posted unbelievable crap on facebook and Americans had failed to spot that Hillary wasn't in fact possessed and controlled by Honey-Boo-Boo and had adjusted their vote as a result. Those Russians! How did they ever come up with such an ingenious plan? Zuckerberg - Arghhh! The name of an Eastern European sleeper agent if ever I heard one.

If you submerge yourself in the exabytes of metadata the government is now legally allowed to keep on all of us, you'll find The President, The Donald's head of security was shown to have been discussing things with Russia before the election. Gadzooks! 

What had they been discussing? Fake news? Fake science? Fake reality show drama? We may never know because they removed Mike Flynn as the National Security Advisor. It's time to go - Mike Flynn - and don't answer any questions on your way out unless you get immunity, granted by The Donald's people. Tick, tick, tick - won't be a moment with that immunity - just take a seat.

Then Jeff Sessions, The Trump - The Donald - The President's appointment as Attorney General, suddenly came under even greater scrutiny as the next Babushka doll in the Russian election scandal.

 
That's the moment P.T Barnum - The Donald - The President Trump tweeted that Obama had Wiretapped the Trump offices leading up to the election. It was finally a scandal that could have used the suffix. "Gate," because it was an accusation of spying on your opponent during the lead up to an election. It would have made sense to add "Gate" to the end of it, but the media had finally worn "Gate" out.

NIPPLEGATE

Hardly a word has been heard about the controversy surrounding Jeff Sessions or any implications surrounding his connections with the Russian scandal since that bombshell was tweeted by The Leader in Tweet.

The Donald, The J, The Trump, The Tweeter in Chief, The President created a bigger news story. With the skill of a world-class showman orchestrating a misdirect, he caused all the investigative journalists to run off, following the sign he planted reading, "This way to the egress."

Jeff Sessions was in the clear. This left him as the Attorney General, with his first job being to put in place and oversee a thorough investigation into the Russian influence scandal - and I am predicting, and I know it will shock many, that the verdict he returns will be that he, Jeff Sessions, did not done it.

But the pesky journalists were like a dog with a bone and they just kept digging into the story. Russia would not go away.

Kaboom! A US airstrike took out a Syrian airbase. And not just any Syrian airbase. This was the one that launched O-Zone's Dragonstea Din Tei or Numa Numa on a poor, defenceless, unsuspecting world. 

I'm sorry, I'm just being told that was Moldova, not Syria, but in Trump's world, a world of fake news - it's close enough.

Then the angry Russians waved their angry little fists and flapped their angry little gums in the middle of their angry little faces and decried, "He played us! He should have asked us first! He doesn't know the first thing about bombing ettiquete. Now we don't like him at all."

That's why relations between Russia and The Donald's USA are at an all time low - low - low! But wait! They can go even lower - if they need to.

Trump was quick to agree. Things with Russia are bad. Biggly bad, which is the very worst type of bad and let's all hope they don't become bigglier badder.

Within a month, The Donald's love fest with Putie dived into a hatefest. And coincidently, it was the very same month when the investigations into Putin giving The Donald a reach-around, election wise, was building up steam. 

But now, the bigglier baddest relations between the two ever proves how wrong those suspicions were. THIS WAY TO THE EGRESS PEOPLE!

To summarise, Russian and American relations are at an all time low. Anyone thinking there was a collaboration between Russian oligarchs and extremely wealthy American business interests, to gain a sweetheart deal with billion dollar oil pipelines or other environmentally questionable, but extremely profitable infrastructure, is simply wrong. 

Even though those very profitable projects that stalled or were impeded by global politics, ostensibly blocked through lobbying by the Obama administration and the Democrats, are now мертвый. There is no communication between the two countries at all. If people thought those billion dollar projects were more likely to go through now that Trump and his Droogs are in office - Подумайте еще раз - it's just not going to happen.

So, that's the state of affairs in Trump's American administration. Mike out, Jeff in, look over there, me and Putin aren't friends, and mind your own business or I'm going to call you a name. 

There will be no civility or agreement reached anytime soon between Donald.J.Trumperica and Vlad the Terrible's Rossia. And certainly not complicated contractual business agreements between Russian and American superbusinesses to make lots and lots of money flow. That's just not on the cards - because relations have never been so biggly bad. 

You rogue, Donald.J, you rogue - now, can you point me towards the egress?

The Different Types Of Racism

Casual racism is an interesting term. It sounds like something you’d do on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

“I’m going to ring Bazza, Thomo and Dougie and see if they’re up for creating some hatred down the beach.”
“It's a beautiful day for it, just make sure you cover up.” 

Once you start defining racism, you have to follow through and finish the job.

If there's casual racism, then there must also be permanent part time racism. The later would cover your right wing conservatives within the larger political parties. It’s a sort of closeted racism or what I call iceberg racism.

“Can we get two Sauvignon Blanc and a Latte, please?”
“I’m not the waiter. I'm a member.”
“You’re a member... here?”

These people are full-time racists, but they know they can't let that slip out in public, so they temper their racist ways to all but their most trusted allies. They are still permanent racists, but they only let their racism show part time - hence, permanent part-time.

Full-time racists are racist all the time and proud of it. They cover those you’d expect - Pauline Hanson, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage.

These populists are suddenly in vogue, riding a wave of nationalism and they don’t even try to hide their view that people who are different to them are untrustworthy, take jobs away and reduce the entire country's standard of living.

Australia’s Pauline Hanson tripped into power twenty years ago. At the time she warned us our country was about to be swamped by Asians. Now she’s back and warning us we’re about to be swamped by Muslims. If we’re ever swamped by Asian Muslims, her head’s going to implode.

Pauline Hanson and others are a throwback to a simpler time - a time when our grandparents were schooled to believe white is right. Many of our current grandparents fall into the category of full-time racists, and we often give their generation a free pass and excuse their behaviour with a myriad of platitudes.

“They're from a different time.” 
“They had the war that influenced them,” or “She/He doesn’t understand what She/He is saying.” 

All of this, of course, is bullshit. The truth is Nanna doesn’t have long to live, and it’s easier to wait her out than retrain her.

When I was fifteen, my family rented a beach house in beautiful, peaceful Hawk’s Nest. It's one of the most perfect beaches on New South Wales central coast. When we arrived, we checked out the rental to see what we had, what the various rooms were like and so on. Nanna went out the back and was gone less than thirty seconds. When she returned, she loudly declared there were people next door. Although, people wasn’t the word she used. I'd never heard the word she used, except in the context of the name of Australian's favourite family block of tasty cheese.

“Formerly manufactured byKraft, Mr Hagan claims the cheese used to have a black wraparound and was namedCoon as a joke.” Brisbane Times. 

My Nan was such a full-time racist she eventually qualified for racist long service leave. We sent her to Vietnam. When she returned and tried on her racist ways, like announcing in a crowded place, “We might as well be in Vietnam,” we were able to respond with, “No, Nan, you visited Vietnam, remember?  This is nothing like that - this is Sydney, and that makes every person here Australian."

LEY BY NAME - F*#CK YOU BY NATURE.

Government Health Minister, Sussan Ley proved she has her finger on the impulse of the nation when she revealed the purchase of a property, while on a ministerial trip to the Gold Coast, was unplanned.

Some condemned the minister for buying a property worth around $800,000 on impulse, but it’s an easy trap to fall into and reinforces why properties aren’t displayed at supermarket check-outs.

Opposition leader Bill Shorten ignored Minister Ley’s attempt to kick start the trickle-down-economy by inserting a catheter into her portfolio and leaking onto the nation's poor, instead, like a union official at a gentleman’s club, he leered over the cost of the tax-payer funded trip.

Remembering how well the tactic worked when, extra from Wentworth, Bronwyn Bishop hired a private helicopter and told the Australian taxpayers to sit and rotate, Shorten scrutinised Minister Ley’s ability to make it rain on the government tab while on a trip that included her unplanned, late night purchase at a Gold Coast street auction. (Who hasn’t been there?)

Outrageous, out of touch, political elitism at its most blatant? Without question - which is why the purchase of the luxury beach-side property went without question. If you’re wondering where the current string of protest votes comes from; why the UK Brexited; why Trump trumped Hillary: Why we have Pauline Hanson the sequel, it’s because people are tired of being told to bend over by people like our Health Minister while she gauges the nation's temperature with her ever expanding property portfolio. 

Sussan Ley is the co-payment nobody wants. She’s out of touch with your average young non-home-owner. Yet Bill Shorten is silent about a Government Minister spending fifteen times the average wage in the same way most of us buy bread, milk and a kayak from Aldi. He’s silent at a time when the government, so governed by self-interest, are ready to swindle their parents out of their pensions? He’s silent about their entitled lives while Minister Ley and her colleagues trawl Centrelink recipients like a patient with an STD calls ex-lovers, “Yeah, hi, not sure If I gave you something extra or not – but now it’s up to you to check.”

It’s this sort of behaviour and Bill Shorten’s silence that is encouraging voters to look to outrageous alternatives. People see sameness between the main parties and are rolling the dice, figuring if the alternatives can’t fix the system, they’ll at least blow it up.

Sussan Ley charged $3,125 in travel expenses to the Australian taxpayer while her party surgically excises wealth from the poor to heal the deficit. She says her $800,000 purchase of a luxury property was, “Not planned or anticipated,” – to which I say to you Health Minister – "Don’t splash me with your urinary tract trickle down policy and tell me it’s raining."