The Red-Capped Prophet

Ran across this effort from Uncle John Anderson earlier....it's a year or so old, but presumably still how this little man and his mates think.

I know this subject's an oldie, but it's still a goodie. And it illustrates the sort of crap that the Right spews out on a regular basis. The lack of comprehesion in this piece is stunning.....the lack of logical thought....Voltaire famously defended the right of every idiot to speak his feeble mind. He may not have been so vehement in that defence if he had had to endure these sorts of assaults on the national IQ level.

So we're going to step by step walk through this lunacy. Take a deep breath....

You can get a fair idea of how much grasp old Ando has of reality from the opening paragraph; "So far it [the same sex marriage debate] has been conducted in emotive terms...which has not always been helpful or beneficial".

Nice way to start, John. We're dealing with marriage here, not the budgetary figures for the Assistant Vice-Deputy Chairman for the Department of Pens and Paper. Marriage is always emotive, and so it should be. If people are ever getting married without their emotions involved, I think even the conservatives will stop preaching it's benefits.

That's before I even point out that most of the emotive language has come from the moron chorus that opposes equal rights for gay and lesbian people....or that it's Johnno's government that has sought to manipulate people through emotive language on refugees, welfare recipients and the like. But we move on....

After carrying on about how he believes in the Bible - nice little sop to his bible bashing constituency - he then demonstrates why that doesn't matter, and starts off with this gem;

"A democratic society rests on two principles: that citizens exercise choice in political and personal processes, and that the choice of the majority rules (while respecting the view of the minority). Bearing this in mind, the Australian Government of the day is the embodiment of the majority choice". Now for once I agree with Johnny boy. Choice. Citizens exercising choice. Apparently it's one of the cornerstones of democracy. Remember that, we'll come back to it.

The choice of the majority rules? In matters of government, yes, but in matters of personal morality too? We might as well dissolve marriage altogether, on the basis that de facto relationships are now the norm. What a stupid argument.

But it get worse. He goes on the assert that Government of the day represents the majority view. What, on everything? Someone ought to tell Petrou Georgiou that. People don't vote for an issue, they vote for a party. That doesn't mean they agree with every word that proceedeth from the mouth of a Coalition speaker. If John actually thinks that every voter who returned the Coalition is against gay marriage, he's either mentally diseased or just plain dishonest. I doubt Ingrid Tall, for one, signed up for that plank of the platform.

And presumably, when a Labor government is returned, John will never oppose any of their policies, because they will represent the majority view. Crap. Arrogant, idiotic crap. And we've only just begun.

Now we get to the fun stuff. "A homosexual lifestyle is a valid choice within a secular society. However, it is a decision that is made and exercised with an understanding that other lifestyle choices might be negated or denied". Excuse me? A valid choice? Presumably Mr Anderson chose to be a handsome white man, as well. Come on John, this is ridiculous. With all the homophobia, government-sponsored inequality and intolerance in our society that is aimed at gyas, who in their right f*cking mind would sit down one day and think, "I know! I'll turn poofter. What fun that'll be!"

No pun intended, but it buggers me how people can continue to peddle such crap. Homosexuality involves the same element of choice that being heterosexual does. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Zero. Got that? Ever spoken to a gay or lesbian person? Any of them ever tell you they just chose to be gay? Didn't think so.

So Ando is saying that if you choose to be a willy woofter, you deserve to be ostracised. Hardly a surprising attitude, from a Government which thinks that if you choose to be a refugee you deserve to be locked up, but quite nonsensical and quite immoral.

Even if sexuality were a choice, the question is not that they shouldn't complain, but why, in a secular society, is that not considered a valid one? Ando's just arguing for the status quo, from the status quo. Amazing....and not only does this man vote, he actually runs the country.

But we press on...."Within Australia, the homosexual community represents roughly 1.5 percent of the population. Within that community, it seems unlikely that a majority support same-sex marriage. Gay marriage, therefore, represents a minority view - which must be respected - but can never dominate the majority view that heterosexual marriage is the norm for Australian society".

Hang on. why assume that every heterosexual is opposed to gay marriage? I'm straight, and I'm all for a bit of husband-and-husband action. John's maths only work if you assume that every non-gay person is an anti-gay person; let me enlighten him, that is certainly not the case.

And no-one is arguing the numerical supremacy of us straight folk, or that the "norm" is, by weight of number, a heterosexual one. Big f*cking deal. Once again, if we apply that logic, we should ban inter-racial marriages, because most marriages occur between people of a similar background. Stupid, John. Stupid.

Then after babbling that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice (choice my arse, but we've been through all that), we come to this bit of gold from Uncle John;

"...the dominant view within Australian society is that of heterosexual marriage – one man and one woman. In that sense, the definition of marriage proposed – that marriage is the “union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” – is merely the expression of the democratic majority. It is a view upheld and supported by the Australian Government. Similarly, the logical corollary is that children are best served when raised by both a father and a mother. It would be inconsistent to separate these two issues in any legislative protection of marriage".

We've aready seen that the dominant view is no way to run a railroad, and certainly no way to determine what is right or wrong. I'm sure that, as a Christian, Johnny baby wouldn't suggest that truth is arrived at by a show of hands. It's no justification to say that because the majority believe something, it's a good idea, or good policy, or generally right at all. Because the mob must have a reason for saying what they do, too. They must be valid reasons at the core - and John doesn't have any, just assumption and inconsistencies.

Hang on - what's that second part of this paragraph? Children are best served by a mother and a father? Tell my dad that, who was raised by his sole parent dad. Tell widows that, looking after their kids. Presumably Mr Anderson will support compulsory divorce for anyone investigated by the Child Protection Unit.

But there's another assumption here, that marriage is about children. Ever heard of people that don't want children, John? And here's another gross inconsistency - while gays can't marry, because it'd be bad for the kids, paedophiles can. So can convicted wife-batterers. And if marriage is all about kids, I suppose Ando reckons that infertile people should be banned from the altar.

What this inconcsistency shows is that real issue for John and Co. isn't kid's welfare, or anything of the sort. Their real agenda is to isolate and demonise a section of society. Now, I know I'm a pinko commy gay-whale loving lefty, who sees a conspiracy theory under my bed every night, but the Coalition have got form on demonising people - they do it to win elections.

Ultimately, John couldn't give a toss about gay people. He has no real arguments to support his position, just assumptions and inconsistencies, and a fair dose of ignorance. Hell of a way to run a railroad, wouldn' t ya say?

And here's the kicker; "While minority views must be respected and accepted, they must not dominate if the true definition of democracy is to be upheld".

Now you just wait a cotton-pickin' second. Wait right the f*ck there. Who the hell said anything about domination? Are the Gay Liberation Army marching on us? Secret fifth columnists posioning our pure, straight society, waiting to take us over? That feared terror group, the Mauve Hand, trying to subjugate us all?

What's at issue here is not the outlaw of straight marriage. You won't have to turn gay to get a ring, you know, John. No-one is denied their straight preferences just because Uncle Bob and Aunty Craig want to be able to say they're married. No, it goes back to what Ando says is the foundation of democracy.

Remember that from the beginning? That bit about exercising choice? The issue is that at present, gay people cannot exercise the choice to get married, while heteros can. If gay marraige was legal, then straight people could still get married. You don't like poofters getting married? Simple - don't marry a poof!

Anderson would deny the foundation of democracy to 1.5% of his nation. That's a fact. Gues how many people's participation in the full rights of democracy gay marriage denies?

Zero f*cking percent. Got it? None.

The wishes of the minority in no way devalue or dominate the majority. Would Ando's own marriage be any less precious, if a couple of shirt-lifters could tie the knot too? Would two committed men in a marriage devalue it any more than Britney Spear's 48 hour job?

I just don't get it. This bloke runs the country. In a civilised society, he wouldn't allowed to vote, with mental processes that dulled. Pull your head out of your arse, Anderson. You should apologise to the country for the national disgrace you and you conservative mates are.

One final thought - if conservatives are so damned keen to stop gays people having sex, why don't they let them get married? It seems to work for everybody else....