Dogged Bernardi sticks by bestiality claims

sunny says:

02:26pm | 16/10/12

That’s bestiality AND polygamy .. .. . .. .. ... bestiolygamy!!

It’s a good thing we have Cory Bernardi on the case and giving a rat’s arse about these things.

Austin 3:16 says:

12:33pm | 16/10/12

Yeah, but they shouldn’t

Don says:

05:17pm | 16/10/12

Excatly Alfie. Basically another day, another article in the punch going after the Liberals. I am shocked! Shocked, I say!

Who is your editor Tory, Acotrel?

Seano says:

06:22pm | 16/10/12

Thompson was Labor and no criminal charges have been laid against him.

Slipper was Liberal and no criminal charges have been laid against him.

The ALP/independents were supporting due process as by convention the parliament is not a Kangaroo court.

Something that should be remembered in case a future LNP parliamentarian is arrested for say ...shoplifting.

Al says:

11:49am | 16/10/12

You mean like the changes made to the Marriage Act to stipulate that marriage is between a man and a woman?

HC says:

11:56am | 16/10/12

Except he wasn’t because there is no evidence to support his opinion.  An opinion can not be judged correct until there are facts supporting it.  So far no countries have legalised bestiality or incest or polygamy after legalising gay marriage.  Though oddly enough a number of the states in the US that most vehemently oppose gay marriage already have laws in place allowing marriage of first cousins (incest) so I guess incest is A-OK from a biblical perspective so long as it’s hetero.

Still, it is refreshing to see an idiot politician or two sticking to their beliefs, maybe we could finally get a moron or two in Canberra to genuinely admit that they are wrong sometimes and make mistakes

MarkS says:

12:32pm | 16/10/12

The bestiality link is silly, limp whatever. But just the bestiality argument is stupid does not mean that the entire argument about other changes following is stupid.

Straw Man is Straw

The argument in relation to polygamy is another matter. The very argument being used by gay people will be used by people in polygamous relationships. Said relationships being supported by their culture & religion.

Austin 3:16 says:

12:37pm | 16/10/12

Or the change to girls of 14 being allowed to get married

CJ says:

12:56pm | 16/10/12

That’s ridiculous. It’s like arguing against a proposal to increase the speed limit from 80kmh to 90kmh on the Wakehurst Parkway by saying, “Well, what next? People will want to raise the speed limit to 290km.” It’s just, just ... stupid. Even if some clown proposed a 290km speed limit or a marriage act that allows people to marry animals, have we such little faith in ourselves as a community that we’d ever perceive these things as being remotely possible? We’re not an idiocracy. It seems to me Bernardi is a proud homophobe and is simply keen to remind us of that fact.

marley says:

01:00pm | 16/10/12

Marriage of first cousins is not incest.  It’s legal in much of the world, including most of Europe, Canada, parts of the US and, of course, Australia.

james says:

01:02pm | 16/10/12

maybe a priest can marry a 12 year old boy as well?

Tim says:

01:10pm | 16/10/12

CJ,
no it’s like changing the speed limit on 1 highway to 150km/hr and expecting no one to campaign to have other highways changed to 150 km/hr.

The bestiality argument is a thin one because of the issue of consent but polygamous and incestuous marriages don’t suffer from those problems and can use the exact same arguments as the marriage equality (read same sex marriage) proponents.

Ando says:

01:45pm | 16/10/12

The bestiality argument is laughable and to stand by bit it is ridiculous.
The polygamy argument is sound but it doesn’t worry me as long as there is consent and no advantageous loop holes (welfare etc).

CJ says:

02:00pm | 16/10/12

Tim,
Senator Bernardi specifically invoked the notion of bestiality. That’s what’s at issue here, not incest or polygamy. And do you honestly believe we’re so galactically stupid as a nation to have the idea of marrying animals taken seriously?

marley says:

02:12pm | 16/10/12

@CJ -  the point Bernardi was making is that people like Singer seem to believe that bestiality can be ethical, even consensual.  And Singer is far from being “galactically stupid”

AdamC says:

02:17pm | 16/10/12

Tim is right. Bestiality and underage marriages are not going to happen. Polyamorous marriages, on the other hand, would become almost inevitable, based on the ‘equality’ argument. (Assuming, that is, people apply equality equally.) Incestuous marriages may be prevented through in-breeding fears.

Tim says:

03:07pm | 16/10/12

CJ,
Bernardi’s point was that if we allow these changes then other people might want further changes in the future.
His example of bestiality is a bad one but his point in general is correct.

Two Cents worth says:

06:44pm | 16/10/12

@HC
There are indeed facts supporting the quantum leap that you choose to refudiate.
One of the leading lights for same sex unions, Germany, who first recognised these unions back in 2001 (August 1) now have legal bestiality brothels as reported in the Frankfurter Rundschau (6 Feb 2012).Technically you are right, these are not same sex marriages in the strictest definition but you would need to split hairs to define the difference. As you are so quick to call people morons and idiots you may wish to consider applying for one of the jobs as you have not checked all your facts and are therefore eminently qualified.
@ P.Darvio - it is so easy to jest at the expense of Judeo Christian faith, which really doesn’t matter all that much as Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, however your exceedingly low grade humour might be better suited to a union dinner. Consider if someone of Judeo Christian or any mainstream religion were to denigrate a person in the Gay community, you would be “up in arms” and decrying them as bigots.

lower_case_andrew says:

01:03pm | 16/10/12

So, yeah ... the children of Adam and Eve. Who did they marry?

And was it a formal wedding, or a defacto relationship or just a casual shagfest?

Anywaaaay, I think Bernadi had a valid point to make about slippery slopes. However, he went overboard with the bestiality thing. 

And now he’s being attacked most viciously by politically correct types who hate hearing things they don’t want to hear.

Craig says:

02:01pm | 16/10/12

Note that Adam and Eve were NOT married. Neither were many generations following that (without considering that they had no-one to marry).

At least they were not married under our ‘traditional’ (new) form of marriage - legislated by a state and supported by a religion that didn’t exist until thousands of generations after Adam and Eve.

Hence everyone has ‘sin’ in their ancestry - a purpose built guilt trip for religions seeking to control people.

Ugh says:

05:48pm | 16/10/12

Er .. as Adam and Eve were the first human beings who were then commanded by God to populate the earth, didn’t either they, or their children have, to commit the act of incest to do so?

They didn’t even have a choice - as the Christian Bible states, they (and/or their children) were COMMANDED to commit the act of incest.

What a disgusting religion.

Geoff says:

12:19pm | 16/10/12

exaclty. I love people who take a line out of someones speech and make that the point when it clearly is not the point.
His point was for all you who missed it is once the door is open it can never be shut.

CJ Johnson says:

12:41pm | 16/10/12

Yes Geoff, once the door is open it can never be shut.

That’s why, since the late 80s when Homosexuality became legal in Australia, I see all these people openly kissing dogs and children, and even lamp posts. Because the door was opened, and it can’t ever be shut.

Redneck Lotion says:

12:45pm | 16/10/12

Geoff doors by their very nature are designed to be opened AND closed, maybe you grew up in a barn? Geoff are you strangely attracted to animals?

Geoff says:

03:19pm | 16/10/12

@CJ Johnson & Redneck Lotion
You have just proven my point. You can not make your points without mentioning animals because thats what you have taken as the meaning entirely missing what was actually said. 
Just for the record I do not entirely agree with what Senator Bernardi is talking about. But just shows that some people do not listen at all and will latch onto anything because it does not fit their agenda.

PJ says:

03:44pm | 16/10/12

Perhaps it’s all a non starter anyway.

I say this because regardless of legislation, Catholics and Muslims will never accept the law.

HC says:

12:09pm | 16/10/12

There’s a lot more difficulty involved with changing the laws to allow polygamy though.  With gay marriage it’s simply a removal of the man and woman clause and everything continues as normal (divorce law, custody agreements, inheritance law, wills etc).  With polygamy all these other laws require changing and that gets far too messy.

And not many muslims even want mulitple wives, it’s hard enough keeping one wife happy, most men (including muslim men) are reasonable enough to know their limitations.

Besides as long as you’re only legally married to one woman, you can have as many “wives” or “husbands” as your sanity can handle, it’s how that polygamous mormon sect has dealt with getting around polygamy laws.

Al says:

12:40pm | 16/10/12

HC - the REALY funny thing is, due to a decision re: inheritance it was found that a person (even if married) could have multiple de-facto partners even if they don’t live with them all, they just had to show a ‘financial dependence’.

Scotchfinger says:

12:41pm | 16/10/12

The Arab husband has to work night and day to provide hay and chaff for his wives. No wonder he is envious of the west, when he sees how fat and content our donkeys are! His own wives bray and kick night and day, they are never happy with their lot…

Levi says:

12:53pm | 16/10/12

HC, I don’t think some Muslim men are too concerned with keeping their wives happy. The sad thing is in many cases the women of a family (wives, daughters, sisters) must simply do as they’re told. And if that means keeping quiet while their husband marries two other women, then so be it.

Unfortunately that is the way some people in their culture work. (DISCLAIMER: Notice Tory I said SOME, not ALL, put the dog whistle away).

max fact says:

03:04pm | 16/10/12

Levi, ditto for men in western cultures, not caring what thier wife, daughters, sisters think and do what they are told whilst having various mistresses

PsychoHyena says:

03:09pm | 16/10/12

@HC actually while the fundamentalist Mormons might still practice polygamy, mainstream Mormons don’t and it has been removed from their allowed practices. Their reasoning being that they preach about the sanctity of family, to allow polygamy the husband would need to provide for multiple partners and any children involved also. This would mean the husband is working constantly and unable to provide the emotional needs for their family.

Fezzbo says:

12:14pm | 16/10/12

I love them too Daniel. Good to have you on board.

lower_case_andrew says:

01:05pm | 16/10/12

Yeah, like you needed your feelings confirmed.

Any excuse will do. Any scandal/incident to justify existing viewpoints. Save one from having to think.

Alex says:

02:27pm | 16/10/12

@lower_case_andrew

Interesting statement andrew. Would you like to be the Pot, or the Kettle?

Markus says:

12:10pm | 16/10/12

Is making it with a hot alien babe not what man has dreamt of since first he looked up at the stars?

CJ Johnson says:

12:36pm | 16/10/12

Not to mention the vile, child-innocence-destroying horror that is the Mass Effect games.

James says:

01:51pm | 16/10/12

@ CJ

1. Mass Effect, ME 2 & ME 3 all had MA15+ ratings so if a child has played them i’d be looking at the parents for blame.

2. The Human Romance options in ME were fairly lacking… Ashley was a racist. Miranda was only there for one game really( played by the ever beautiful Yvonne Strahovski). Kiadan was an annoying whining pain in the ass. Steve Cortez and Spec. Traynor were both homosexual options ( im hetero so that discounts them) Garrus from my view point was a best mate, leaving only Tali or Liara…. One a smoking hot blue skinned goddess and the other a rather cute bubbly tech geek female ( who unfortunately lives in a environment suit so you never really know what she looks like anyway…)....  what the hell is wrong with that?

@ gobsmack

I’ll leave it to the cab driver in Total Recall to answer that…..

“Baby you make me wish i had three hands!!!!!”

Shane From Melbourne says:

01:55pm | 16/10/12

What? Gay marriage will lead to affairs with Tribbles?

CJ Johnson says:

03:21pm | 16/10/12

@James

(*ahem* “/s”)

James says:

03:37pm | 16/10/12

@ CJ

As im new to the whole punch commentary tribe I’m assuming “/s” is sarcastic? If so then apologies…  I’m a rabid gamer and ME happens to be one of my top 3 of all time

Austin 3:16 says:

12:41pm | 16/10/12

Yeah JT one day you give women the vote, next thing you know one of them is PM. terrible isn’t it.

CJ Johnson says:

12:45pm | 16/10/12

Can you please give us some examples?

Phil S says:

12:46pm | 16/10/12

His slippery slope argument is flawed because animals cannot give consent.

Polygamy is a better end for the slippery slope argument, but it is much trickier to implement because of various legal reasons (like how do you share the right to decide medical decisions).

But to be honest, do the people complaining actually care if polygamy became legal? All marriage does is change the legal framework surrounding that couple There is nothing stopping someone from having sex with multiple people (at the same time, or interchanging between the two) outside of marriage. So why deny them a legal framework to solidify their relationship?

The answer is that the people complaining feel that redefining marriage for other people will somehow effect their perception of marriage. Which is BS. People should be less concerned with others’ marriage and more concerned with their own. Or we could propose a legal union called marriagev2.0 (shortened to marriage in common use, but legally called something else) which no one should have a problem with right? I guess if you are still a fundamentalist of certain religions you might have a problem, but I’ll continue to ignore said arguments until they start campaigning to legally forbid divorce and premarital sex (otherwise the sanctity of marriage arguments they put forward are hypocritical). Like many things, hypocritical religious arguments seem to rule the day.

Ando says:

01:51pm | 16/10/12

JT,
Marriage between Man an beast will never be recognized no matter how slippery the slope.

JT says:

02:57pm | 16/10/12

@CJ Johnson

Austin 3:16 just gave you one.

Now before morons get their undies in a twist (i.e. I have no problem with women voting or as PM*) make sure you realise my argument is that slippery slope arguments often come true because society itself is a slippery slope. Eventually many things people oppose become accepted and eventually normal.

* - well except this one because she is an incompetent lying hack but that’s not gender specific.

Jad Jones says:

12:49pm | 16/10/12

As distasteful as incest between adults and polygamy may be, I agree with Mahhrat.  Put simply, consent is the important factor.  Kids and animals can’t give it.

If a man agrees that his wife can marry a second man (or another woman, for that matter) why shouldn’t they be allowed to?

That said, slippery slope arguments are always poor arguments.  If there is a good reason to deny gay people the right to marry (I’m yet to see one), then make your argument on that basis and not because you don’t like like a bunch of other things you can think of.

Alternatively: if you want to employ a slippery slope argument and don’t like gay marriage perhaps you should argue that marriage between people of different races is wrong.  After all, allowing that has obviously led to this call for gay people to have the right to marry.

Or is that just a piss poor and unjustified comment?  Yeah.  I think it might be.

T S says:

01:11pm | 16/10/12

Except that the concept of “consent” is a legal idea as open to interpretation as any other law. At the moment animals can’t give “consent” only because they are not recognised as a legal person and bestiality is specifically illegal. As to whether philosophically an animal can give consent is something that Peter Singer (and a number of other animal rights activists) would would agree is possible.
As for age based consent who do you define as a “child”. The law currently says you need to be at least 16 to marry (with parental consent) but in the distant past the principal was the moment puberty was reached marriage was legally possible. Based on where things are today this would set the consent age at around 10-12 which I am sure would make several “rock spiders” very pleased.
Bernadi’s point (poorly made) is that arguing to extend the definition of marriage to another sexual orientation begs the question why should only those with a hetrosexual or homosexual orientation maintain a monopoloy over “marriage”. I am not sure I agree with his conclusion but I can understand his argument.

Ando says:

01:55pm | 16/10/12

Ts,
I don’t think the “rockspiders” lobby group will have much political influence.

Mahhrat says:

02:50pm | 16/10/12

T S - The very best social constructs we have available have led to the laws we have available.

100 years ago, we couldn’t even have this discussion, because we still thought anyone who wasn’t white was a lesser human, and women should be in the kitchen, if not pregnant.

Fortunately, we’ve grown up some since then, because there for the grace of Gok, etc.

This is the very notion of “Progressive” social policy - that change happens, is inevitable, and is informed by what has gone before along with what is happening now.

There are no moral arguments against same sex couples being married.  It is a gross injustice to not allow them the word, because the word carries a depth of meaning to their relationship which for a long time we have held with great importance.

The very reason people are so against it is exactly why it should be allowed.

Tubesteak says:

05:11pm | 16/10/12

The notion of consent comes from the ability to form rational and reasoned thought from a notion of the self. Aniamls and children do not have this ability so will not be able to give consent.

CJ Johnson says:

12:49pm | 16/10/12

“Chop chop, Dig dig, chop chop, dig dig!”

Alfie says:

01:06pm | 16/10/12

Think of this way: 3 lots of PMT to deal with, and 3 mother-in-laws.

No thanks.

leah j says:

03:41pm | 16/10/12

i agree, as soon as i read the title i thought, this old chestnut,  i couldn’t care less if gays marry nor do i give a crap what anyones opinion is on the matter, this is just typical biased Lib bashing dribble that Tory is really good at dishing out, but it’s getting old..i can’t read your crap anymore.

Tim says:

12:32pm | 16/10/12

Yep agree.
His remarks have been completely blown out of proportion.

If you actually read what he said its not that controversial but certain lobby groups don’t ever feel the need to accurately listen to what their opponents say. Much easier to sensationalise then attack.

Disagree with him if you want but leave the strawmen at home.

Phil S says:

12:53pm | 16/10/12

You do realise that a direct quote of what he said is in this article (you did read beyond 1 paragraph before writing outraged comments right?).

I’ll agree Tory could have written this better: “linking homosexuality to bestiality”.

Would you both be OK if she had written “linking the legalisation of homosexual marriage to the legalisation of bestiality”?

Because I’m pretty sure anyone with half a brain would be able to realise that is what she meant…

PeterM says:

01:12pm | 16/10/12

@Phil S - Context. It is all about reading excerpts in context.  That is what Tory and others have failed to provide as it would make a mockery of their mockery. Much simpler to give a snippet that can be taken any way they wish to persuade a partisan listener.

marley says:

01:15pm | 16/10/12

@PhilS - I think, if you read my comment, you will see that not only did I read Tory’s article, but I read Bernardi’s entire speech and not just the excerpt.

And, having read both, I concluded that her description was not an accurate reflection of his speech, and that therefore the description of Bernardi’s mindset as “sick and judgemental” was unfair.

Bernardi sees gay marriage as the start of a slippery slope leading to the undermining of traditional marriage concepts, to polygamy and even to bestiality.  That is not the same thing as equating gay marriage to polygamy and bestiality. 

Bernardi has a view of marriage that is very traditional.  I don’t agree with his view.  But neither do I agree that there is something sick about preferring an older definition of marriage, or that there’s no place in public life for someone of his views.

Tim says:

01:19pm | 16/10/12

PhilS,
ah no.
If Tory had meant that then she should have said so. You did read the first paragraph right?

Anyone with half a brain would read what she actually wrote and not made up some silly excuse as to what she actually meant to write. And the rest of her article goes along in the same vein so it’s not like it was just that sentence. Bernadi never equated homosexual sex with bestiality.

I personally think Bernadi is wrong with relation to bestiality because of the issues of consent but his point that there is no reason why the marriage act couldn’t be changed for other pairings or groups in the future is completely correct.

JoniM says:

01:56pm | 16/10/12

“But to say that Bernardi was comparing gay marriage with bestiality is a pretty big distortion of what he actually said.  To say that he was being judgemental about gays is a bit of a stretch as well.  He was simply supporting an old-fashioned, traditional view of what he feels marriage ought to be.”

Are you really surprised, marley ?
We all know that this is really all about the politcal game herel !
We must feign outrage and shake our heads in disgust just for effect !
If a bloke had said the same thing down the pub with his mates, half would agree with him , half wouldn’t , and then they would move on to talk about the footy or the races !
Only if there is political advanatage to be gained or lost for someone, does it even get any media airtime !
Next thing you know,  the progressiives will be out there calling Abbott a misogynist ! Surely there are some points to be scored with that one !

Louise says:

02:24pm | 16/10/12

Agree.  Bernardi didn’t make a direct link between homosexuality and bestiality. He just fell foul of the pro-same-sex-marriage campaigners by daring to criticise their objective.

It could be said that calling Bernardi’s thinking “sick and judgmental” is in itself judgmental. We all have opinions; we all make judgments. We just tend to prefer our own.  Democracy means allowing for other people’s as well.

evelyn says:

06:41pm | 16/10/12

Marley is right. Free speech is too important to lose in a wave of political correctness. This will be the terrible legacy of Gillard PM and her ‘I take offence’ speech. The Liberal machine has been wanting Cory’s scalp for a long time because of his opposition to sharia law. Niki Savva called for his sacking for ‘transgressions against Muslims’ (ie possibly costing them the Western Sydney vote) some time ago because he embarrassed them by opposing sharia law and wanting a burqa ban. For the same reason Tanvir Ahmed has been marginalized for technical reasons - copying - whilst Waleed Aly’s work remains unscrutinised. Just read his book. Is there any copying there I wonder? Every source properly attributed? Name a journalist who hasn’t copied at some time.  Sharia law, especially blasphemy law, is gradually being implemented in the West because democracy is simply a numbers game - more mass Muslim immigration and Muslim refugees - more numbers, votes and power to them.

Chris says:

01:00pm | 16/10/12

Damian,

It is not ok to bash or kill people.

Full stop.

C

JB says:

03:45pm | 16/10/12

Take a breath mate!!! Geee!!!
Clearly you are a member of the Gay lobby group that believes that anyone who says no to you that they are anti-gay etc etc etc!!!
The Gay lobby is vocal but small and there are many more people out there that do not support gay marriage or surrogacy.
If you want these “Rights” that you bang on about get it to a referendum on the issue to the nation as a whole can decide.
It is also not OK to bash or kill anyone regardless, case closed!!!!!

Angry_Of_Mayfair says:

01:29pm | 16/10/12

Paddle faster! I hear banjos!

PJ says:

03:42pm | 16/10/12

Pity Julia Gillard is against Gay Marriage, otherwise this would have been a done deal by now

Gordon says:

05:33pm | 16/10/12

+1 for AofM

marley says:

04:13pm | 16/10/12

@Shane - “why should heterosexual males in marriages be the only ones miserable? “

They’re not.  Heterosexual females are pretty miserable too.

Slim says:

05:26pm | 16/10/12

What is your reference/authority for speaking on behalf of ‘the vast majority of people who don’t comment here…or anywhere else for that matter’? Or is that just what you and the people you talk to believe? Not the same thing at all.

MH says:

05:58pm | 16/10/12

Well said Captain Col.  I don’t happen to agree with Bernardi as to whether or not gay marriage should be legalized.  But it is entirely wrong of Tory and others to dismiss out of hand those who either do, or just don’t sufficiently care about gay marriage to actively join any crusade in support of it.  It is also incorrect to dismiss the slippery slope argument.  Sure Bernardi was taking it to a ridiculous extreme but it is not a long bow to foresee subsequent pushes for polyamorous and other variants. 

Changes to entrenched societal norms necessarily move slowly.  Those at the vanguard of whatever progressive cause is the flavour of the day really ought to learn a little about human behaviour.  If you want to change the status quo push your case reasonably and with respect for those who are quite happy with the way things already are - you’ll find people are much more open to the prospect of change when you’re not being smugly superior and dismissive of their point of view. 

It’s really not that hard.

Seano says:

06:50pm | 16/10/12

The silent majority, rarely silent and rarely in the majority.