In 2008, leading gay activist Frank Kameny declared bestiality was acceptable. He wrote '
"Bestiality is not my thing. But it seems to be a harmless foible or idiosyncrasy of some people. So, as long as the animal doesn’t mind (and the animal rarely does), I don’t mind, and I don’t see why anyone else should."
This proves Cory Bernadi was absolutely spot on. Malcolm Turnbull and other Liberal elites are opening the door to truly vile behaviour. Concede on one thing, and soon you'll have to concede on more.
Logic fail. Just because a=b does not mean b=c. In your quote you have failed to demonstrate: 1> that the activist was supporting marriage to animals, 2> that the activist is speaking of marriage at all, 3> the context surrounding the statement (why is the activist speaking about bestiality at all - it's an atypical conversational topic), though you have admitted it was from 2008 and so completely unrelated to the topic today, and 4> that the activist's views represent the views of the greater gay and lesbian community (you will notice all the 'I's in the quote - means it's a personal opinion). You've done a scarecrow attack. The logic is invalid.
ReplyDeleteBy that logic, 110 years ago we should not have extended voting rights to women, because that would have led to us extended voting rights to horses, cows, chickens and goats...
ReplyDeleteOn what planet is he a "leading gay actvist"?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context by Vern L Bullough he was "one of the most significant figures" in the American gay rights movement - see also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Kameny
DeletePerhaps planet Earth, my friend.
I think Cory Bernardi's argument was that making the basis of marriage 'love' between two individuals opens the door to other types of arrangements. How will you argue against polygamy when two women declare that they both 'love' the same man? Why should marriage only be about two people? How about incestuous couples? After all, the basis for marriage is now to be based on 'love', not suitability for marriage and definitely not something as out-of-date as reproduction.
ReplyDeleteSo, come on, give me your oh-so-compelling arguments as to what you would say to the polygamous or incestuous among us when they, too, ask to be married. Because, as the illustrious Adam Bandt has informed us, marriage is about 'love'. To deny those who wish to have multiple spouses or closely-related spouses would be discriminatory, would it not?
Luzu
This is absolutely right. I was speaking to a friend the other day who supports gay marriage, and I asked if they supported multiple marriages. They said no, but couldn't really give a reason, accept that it was 'disgusting'. Ironic - those people who are against one form of alleged 'discrimination' are discriminatory in other areas.
Delete