Prev
Next

The law still agrees with Wendy Francis

Senthorun Raj

by Senthorun Raj

10 Aug 01:25pm

Must Reads

Rudd quits: Now for the next episode in his soap opera - this is a caption

Rudd quits: Now for the next episode in his soap opera

372

Game listens to fans, replaces stupid finals system - this is a caption

Game listens to fans, replaces stupid finals system

51

Sweet-talking Rudd has forced Gillard to be a bad guy - this is a caption

Sweet-talking Rudd has forced Gillard to be a bad guy

182

Filed under: Election 2010, Families, Gay Rights, Marriage, Politics

100 comments

Legitimating gay marriage is like legalising child abuse’. Family First Senate candidate Wendy Francis’ comments on Twitter reiterate the homophobic anxieties towards same-sex parenting and marriage that continue to plague the political imagination in Australia.

Ms Francis’ archaic commentaries reflect a traumatic history in which same-sex couples were not simply discriminated or alienated, but were produced as criminal deviants. Much of the rhetoric that connected pedophilia and homosexuality emerged in the early 20th century where psychological, legal and religious institutions claimed that being ‘gay’ was a perversion or a disorder. Francis’ comments recuperate this history in an extremely unpalatable way.

While the comments may not have the same currency today, the homophobic rhetoric of ‘difference’ continues to be recycled today in different ways. Today, homosexuality is not a crime. However, the law uses sexuality to limit involvement in other social relationships.

For example, in the current adoption reform debates in NSW, same-sex families continue to suffer the rhetoric that the absence of a ‘gender complementarity’ in their relationship undermines their ability to perform as parents.

While not equating same-sex parenting to child abuse, the reliance on a gendered model of ideal heterosexual parenting is problematic. Not only does it privilege some unspecified innate sexual differences between men and women that ensure good parenting, it also stigmatises those children already living with two mums or two dads by claiming they ‘lack’ optimal parents.

Medical and social scientific research contends that sexual orientation is not a meaningful indicator of parenting ability. A recent study on lesbian parenting published by the American Academy of Pediatrics reiterated this. The longitudinal study, which mapped children living in 84 lesbian households, noted that the children “were rated significantly higher in social, school/academic, and total competence and significantly lower in social problems, rule-breaking, aggressive, and externalising problem behavior than their age-matched counterparts”.

Rather than evidence the alleged ‘social problems’ and ‘depression’ that Ms Francis claims is faced by children in same-sex families, the study recognises the value of lesbian parents. Same-sex foster carers are actively recruited in Australia for their capacity to parent children from the most vulnerable and displaced backgrounds. Perhaps Ms Francis should avail herself to this information before continuing to moralise on the degeneration suffered by children living in same-sex households.

The 2006 Australian Census figures illustrate that there are over 4,300 children living in same-sex families in Australia. With the exception of Western Australia, the ACT and Tasmania, children in same-sex families still struggle with obtaining the legal recognition of both their parents. Adoption laws in most states reflect Ms Francis’ sentiments, serving to privilege some abstract notion of the perfect family, rather than concentrate on empirical research about parenting. Who suffers when stereotyping is placed above empirical research? Children.

Parenting is not the only arena for political intervention. As Ms Francis forcefully reminds us, children are pivotal sites for the regulation of intimacy in Australia. Movement towards marriage equality has been undermined by the insistence of conservative figures, such as our former Prime Minister John Howard, that marriage is fundamental to the reproduction of the species.

Where then do childless couples or infertile heterosexual couples fit in the rubric of ‘natural’ reproduction? Following this logic, a biological inability to reproduce or social desire not to do so, regardless of sexual orientation, should exclude couples from marrying.

Marriage is a civil institution, governed by secular laws, of which all people are entitled to access, irrespective of sexual orientation or gender identity. Legislation should not dictate family planning and the Marriage Act rightly makes no mention of children.

However, if you accept the moralising argument that marriage is crucial to rearing children, it seems disingenuous to then deny same-sex couples access to such a ‘legitimating’ institution to raise their children.

How can we claim to contest the vilifying statements by Wendy Francis, when legislation continues to discriminate against same-sex relationships? We may not use her words like ‘abuse’ or ‘wrong’ to characterise same-sex families, but the legislative exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and adoption in some states reinforces bigotry based on sexuality.
If we are truly committed to the protection of families, let us start by removing the inequalities faced by sexual and gender minorities in Australia.

Most commented

372Rudd quits: Now for the next episode in his soap opera
371The plague is already on both their houses
324We need to help asylum seekers help themselves
290The war over personality, hatred and grudges
263I wanna knock the bottom out of this advertisement
242Leaking of Rudd outburst does Gillard no favours
228Punch: Piracy on the High Cs is music's greatest enemy
194Why is this man so popular, and how long can it last?

100 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • AliceC says:

      03:16pm | 10/08/10

      The basis of adoption should be if the parents can provide a safe, nurturing and loving home for the child, sexuality has nothing to do with it. It’s amazing that in the 21st Century, homosexuals are still fighting for rights heterosexuals take for granted.

      Reply

    • Soultrader says:

      04:21pm | 10/08/10

      When Adam and Steve can produce healthy babies like Adam & Eve, then let them have equality. But who is the Alpha Male? All societies need leaders and followers - not just negotiating panels

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:33pm | 10/08/10

      @ Soultrader

      “When Adam and Steve can produce healthy babies like Adam & Eve, then let them have equality.”
      You seem to be confusing physical reproductive abilities with human rights here.  Unless you’re arguing that gay couples can’t raise children to be happy and healthy, in which case you’re just wrong.

      “But who is the Alpha Male? All societies need leaders and followers”
      Wait, are you sayiong leaders have to be male?

    • Jen says:

      04:41pm | 10/08/10

      You make a good point, Soultrader, but for the other side. Adam and Eve were ideal parents, were they? And were Cain and Abel ideal sons??? Bring on Adam and Steve.

    • Budz says:

      05:02pm | 10/08/10

      @Soultrader: Does that mean single mothers should have their kids taken off them if the father dies?

    • Clif says:

      03:23pm | 10/08/10

      Thank you for this article. The misrepresentation of parenting by non-heterosexual families (and Australian society more generally) needed to be called out for the bigotry it is. It is disgraceful and irresponsible. Ms Francis: the majority of Australians do not agree with you.

      Reply

    • novocastrian says:

      03:28pm | 10/08/10

      agreed Cliff I most certainly do not agree with her.

    • shabangabang says:

      03:51pm | 10/08/10

      Seconded. To judge an individuals parental capabilities based on their sexuality is archaic and has no place in Australia.

    • Soultrader says:

      04:19pm | 10/08/10

      Sorry Cliff,
      I don’t agree with you - I agree that “normal” relationships can end in abuse and maltreatment, but to have 2 parents who think the same, only gives 1 perspective on the world - and that is not healthy. How are children supposed to get a balanced view in the formative years? when both parents either talk everything over endlessly or not at all..

    • JohnJones says:

      04:22pm | 10/08/10

      Clif, how can you say the majority of Australians do not agree with her? You have some research to back that up do you? I’d like to see that!

    • Joe says:

      04:55pm | 10/08/10

      I agree totaly with Wendy Francis for one. I think you need to get out of the intercity and realise that a lot of people agree.

    • Clif says:

      06:11pm | 10/08/10

      @Joe: Get out of the “intercity” should I? If you mean “innercity” I do not live there. Unfortunately, I probably live next door to you. Sigh.

      @ soultrader: “two people who think the same”. Well, since when did all men think the same and all women. I think nothing like you soultrader ...

      @JohnJones : Do you have research to prove that I am wrong? I’d like to see that!

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      07:06pm | 10/08/10

      If we let this woman get away with this the next thing yoy know they’ll discriminate against people because of the colour of their eyes or skin or even religion

    • Roja says:

      08:24pm | 10/08/10

      “I think you need to get out of the intercity and realise that a lot of people agree.”

      I think you need to realise that vastly more people live in a city, where this is largely a non issue to all but the intolerant (ironically that is among the religious, those taught to turn the other cheek).  As one of many who grew up in the country dealing with attitudes like that, it’s not surprising that rural areas have trouble retaining people.  Not that I am gay, I just cant stand intolerance.

      Sexuality has nothing to do with parenting skills, but has plenty to do with discrimination.

    • TheRealDave says:

      03:42pm | 10/08/10

      If a child can have a happy, safe and loving environment to grow up in then it should not matter if his/her parents are gay, straight, vegetarian, pastafarian, catholic, black, orange, white, old, middle aged, young or Collingwood supporters….well….not sure on the last one…but I digress…

      As a heterosexual male, a father of 3 young kids, I have ZERO objections to gay marriage. I fully support the rights of homosexual people to be just as miserable as their heterosexual counterparts wink I also fully support their rights to raise children in a stable loving environment. This is the 21st century - not the 19th. And this is modern democratic Australia and not Victorian England.

      I think a political party that equates Gay Marriage with legalising Child Rape should not only be ostracised for the primitive throwbacks that they are but also be outlawed from ever being a political party in this country. This kind of primitive religious backed ideology has no place in modern Australia and never should.

      Reply

    • JohnJones says:

      04:15pm | 10/08/10

      Hang on a minute. What about the child’s rights to live in a normal stereotypical upbringing.  The percentage of same sex couples is very low, and regardless of what you say it is not the norm. The authors comments are just trying every way to twist and swindle peoples thoughts. I’m not religious, I’m not a Liberal voter, and I’m not an old fogy. But I do agree this is a form of child abuse to put in child deliberately in the hands of an environment which is alien to most others. Stop thinking about yourselves for once.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:39pm | 10/08/10

      @ JohnJones

      “Hang on a minute. What about the child’s rights to live in a normal stereotypical upbringing.”
      Having a ‘normal stereotypical upbringing’ is a right?!?  You can’t even show that’s a necessity for being happy and healthy - those are real rights.

      “But I do agree this is a form of child abuse to put in child deliberately in the hands of an environment which is alien to most others.”
      Like having parents of mixed race?  Like having parents with different religious views?  Like having parents who are abnormally short or unusually tall?  Should we just outlaw being different, JohnJones?

    • Kordez says:

      04:52pm | 10/08/10

      @JohnJones, what your eager to point out as being abnormal, already exists. Without legislation to reflect the increasingly different families, there will be further alienation and exclusion from benefits which only impact the child’s upbringing.
      Single parents, older sibling parents, reformed drug abuse parents, bankrupt parents, porn star parents, prostitute parents and Britney Spears are and/or were considered abnormal but still require the same support as a married male female parental unit. This can only be provided through legislation that reflects equal rights.

      You may remember an Australian Prime Minister once apologised to a minority who were considered unfit to raise their own offspring. Wendy’s opinion mirrors the same reasoning which lead Kev to an extremely overdue and embarrassing “Sorry” to our Stolen Generations.

      Suggestions that same sex couples could only raise a child through abuse are offensive and discriminatory, they could only come from the mouth of a Nazi or moron.

    • Budz says:

      05:04pm | 10/08/10

      John, haha! Stereotypical upbringing? Are you sure this isnt satire?

    • JohnJones says:

      05:19pm | 10/08/10

      These pro gay adopting children people always bring up these stupid parallels. A homosexual couple compared to a couple with short wife and tall husband, or black husband and white wife. I think those people would be offended you draw parallels to them. Just for once you guys consider the kids. You honestly believe in your heart that given a choice of a happy mum and dad or happy dad and dad, you honestly think a kid would prefer a dad and dad? Kids would laugh at you. Please don’t torture our children, consider the human rights issues please!

    • Steely Dan says:

      05:49pm | 10/08/10

      @ JohnJones

      “A homosexual couple compared to a couple with short wife and tall husband, or black husband and white wife. I think those people would be offended you draw parallels to them.”
      You didn’t even attempt to look at my analogy critically.  These people are technically abnormal, don’t you agree?

      “Just for once you guys consider the kids.”
      The Mrs Lovejoy defence!  ‘Won’t somebody think of the children!’

      “You honestly believe in your heart that given a choice of a happy mum and dad or happy dad and dad, you honestly think a kid would prefer a dad and dad?”
      A healthy, happy child with a mum and dad will prefer their mum and dad to any alternative parents.  The same for a healthy, happy child of a gay couple.

      “Please don’t torture our children, consider the human rights issues please!”
      You’re saying having parents of the same sex is actual torture, but my analogy was off? Really?

    • Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

      07:10pm | 10/08/10

      What’s the bet these people posting against gay relationships are the ones that post against boat people, refugees in just about every instance.

    • Campbell says:

      11:19am | 11/08/10

      I think, given the choice, a child is going to have two parents who love and care for it, no matter the sex of their parents. A child who is brought up in this environment does not grow up thinking that this is abnormal or alien, you are shoving these ideals on to them, if they want it or not! Surely this is about choice, and providing the best option and opportunity for a child, not shoving your ideals onto them?
      Also, do the human rights of the couples wishing to adopt matter less than those of the children? And why so?
      And a “normal, stereotypical” upbringing does not exist at all, every family is different, Steely Dan is right.
      So, stop thinking about your self for once.

    • Kordez says:

      04:25pm | 10/08/10

      Wendy Francisy must have done little to no research on the internet filter and represents a step backwards in Modern Australian Family equality.

      Reply

    • Tarzan says:

      08:40pm | 10/08/10

      Kordez, theres an old saying: “If it’s slack in creek, river will soon run dry”.

    • TheRealDave says:

      04:36pm | 10/08/10

      I’d rather a child have a stable loving environment with a homosexual couple than the kind of upbringing poor little Kiesha Abrahams had.

      Reply

    • MelG says:

      05:35pm | 10/08/10

      I totally agree, how many young children have been brought into this world for the purpose of their parents getting a cash handout from the government and now the foster parent system has to deal with the fallout and children such as this fall through the cracks. Her own mother allegedly bit her so hard she ended up in hospital, give me gay dads any day.
      By it’s very nature parenting by gay couples is much planned and sought after, there are no children born from a drunken one night stand at the local pub, children deserve parents who love each other and no marriage certificate is a guarantee for that. In this day and age there is no ‘normal’ and every child needs to be loved, safe and protected.

    • Super D says:

      07:41pm | 10/08/10

      While homosexual adoption is still contentious I think we can all degree that uneducated, substance abusing bogans should breed less.

    • JohnJones says:

      04:38pm | 10/08/10

      Actually Mr Raj, I thought you would have been better writing a post about the new extradition laws with the UAE the Gillard Government wants. Extraditing an Australian Citizen back to Sudia Arabia for a stoning execution is far more real at the moment. Your organisation is spending a lot of money promoting this. Perhaps you can write another post and inform us the details?

      Reply

    • PaulB says:

      10:57pm | 10/08/10

      Changing the subject already?  You’re not doing very well here are you.

    • Googleit says:

      02:18am | 11/08/10

      PJ, it hasn’t been ratified yet. This Government is about to do it. Gillard is about to do it. Check with Amnesty International and Civil Liberties Australia. You are a little picky aren’t you?

    • dave more says:

      04:54pm | 10/08/10

      I agree with JohnJones’ comments and Wendy Francis’ view that it is unfair on children to be brought into an unnatural parental environment. And G rated outdoor advertising is a great idea. What kids are exposed to these days throughout everyday media borders on porn imo.

      Reply

    • Kordez says:

      05:13pm | 10/08/10

      @dave more, it is the parents job to restrict a child’s exposure and movements not the Australian Governments. Do your job and don’t expect the Government to do it for you.

    • TheRealDave says:

      05:35pm | 10/08/10

      Your views on what is porn is so far out of kilter from the sane world then Dave.

      I do agree children need to be protected and encouraged to BE children, but I am against religious throwbacks dictating to me how to raise my children or what two consenting adults can get up to in the bedroom.

    • Matt says:

      05:08pm | 10/08/10

      Bigotry, pure and simple.

      It’s nasty people like Whinging Wendy who stop me from moving back to Queensland.

      My great fear is that if Tony Abbott does get elected, then all the bigots, racists and haters will feel their views have been vindicated. Tony Abbott’s Liberals are giving comfort to people like Wendy Francis, and it should be a real concern for Australians.

      This shift to the right is not just worrying Labor voters - a lot of my Liberal voting friends, people who hate Labor with a literally unreasoning passion, say they don’t want to vote for Abbott. However, ask the question “what if Turnbull was still leader”, and you get the impression that he’d romp it in…

      Reply

    • Mel says:

      06:45pm | 10/08/10

      Is it possible to disagree with something on the left and not have a pejorative thrown out? How about the fact that in almost all discussion on this subject the main argument thrown out is the feeling of gay couples, not the upbringing of a child. Anyone that thinks, all other things being equal (this being the important point), that it is just as good for a child to be brought up in a gay, or transgender, or polygamous household as by a heterosexual couple is elevating feelings over rationality. It’s hurtful and probably unfair but that should be the basis of discussion.

    • Freeman says:

      10:08pm | 10/08/10

      That’s right matt,
      any one who questions the value of allowing same sex couples to adopt and raise children is a bigot.
      I guess anyone calling for immigration control is a racist and anyone supporting stronger border protection is a hater? and of course, everyone you would label as a bigot, racist or hater will vote for abbott?

      I’m not totally against gay adoption but it should not be granted lightly and should not be rolled out simply for the sake of equality. a gay couple live an alternative lifestyle and it is not theirs or anyones ‘Right’
      to choose adopt a child.

    • Muttley says:

      01:45pm | 11/08/10

      Freeman, that was an excellent post. Sums it up perfectly. Well done.

    • Queerin SA says:

      05:09pm | 10/08/10

      Soultrader, your arguments are so poor they are laughable. Do you seriously think that ALL gay people think EXACTLY the same about every last issue on the planet? Gay people are not clones! And not all Adams & Eves can procreate, ever heard of infertility? How many times a day can you read about children being bought up by heterosexual couples that are being abused by them, prostituted by them, neglecting them and even killing them? Is this the sort of normal stereotypical up-bringing you think is acceptable JohnJones?

      I would really love to hear a VALID arguement as to why gay couples should be denied the right to raise children and not this same old clap-trap that gets shovelled out every time the debate is raised. If you are against it because you just don’t like it, thats fine, your life and your opinion. But shut the hell up unless you can make a VALID arguement as to why.

      And FYI, my valid point as to why I support gay parenting is that I was raised by a lesbian couple, as were my 2 sisters. No emotional issues here, we are all as successful as the next person, I’m gay but my sisters are not. In fact, our lives were a lot more stable than those of our friends whom mostly consisted of divorced parents. Now there were some real emotional issues.

      Reply

    • grow up says:

      05:25pm | 10/08/10

      The confusion is here: having children is NOT a right. When we look on having children as a right, then we don’t want to discriminate against anyone having that right. For a couple, having children is a great gift.

      When we look on it as a right, we seriously undermine the dignity of a child. The child becomes a commodity and hence we have a situation where gender selection and eye / hair colour selection etc. is looking like a reality in the near future.

      Since the sexual revolution selfish adults have wanted to have their cake and eat it too. To have a long career and then to have the ideal 1.3 children after kicking the career goals; to sleep around and ‘try before you buy’ and then not want to end up at marriage as an emotional wreck; to be in a homosexual relationship and want to somehow give birth to children.

      No matter what sort of technological advancement there is, and no matter how far we go in challenging ‘outdated’ beliefs and traditions, we will never be in complete control; we will never be satiated. Not content with controlling everything we can in this life - spouse, children etc, we will finally want complete control over the end of our life and demand that society provide us with euthanasia so that once again we can have our “right” to what we want.

      With this sort of ‘progress’ we are going to treat the valuable and precious people that come into our lives as commodities, as things that we can get something out of, until we have had enough. That applies to friends, spouses, children etc.

      Are ‘old’ beliefs and traditions bad just because they are old and outdated? We should have a more mature approach to history and get rid of what doesn’t work, but hold fast to what works.

      Reply

    • Tarzan says:

      05:47pm | 10/08/10

      Well said growup.

    • AliceC says:

      12:24pm | 11/08/10

      And heterosexual people don’t treat children as commodities? How many children are born into dole bludging households so they can get mroe government assistance?

      ‘Are ‘old’ beliefs and traditions bad just because they are old and outdated?’

      Yes! That’s what old and outdated means. Are you saying women shouldn’t vote and rich people should have slaves stolen from their communities? I bet that when they were changed, many though those beliefs and traditions were right, and should not be changed….

    • Bek says:

      06:53pm | 11/08/10

      Correct, having children is NOT a RIGHT.  It is a privilege, a joy, and can also at times be a curse (sorry, being a parent is not always sunshine and roses!).
      Incorrect, in the fact that we don’t want to discriminate against the ‘right’ to have a child.  We want to remove the discrimination against perfectly good people, that can provide the love and support to a growing child - that would otherwise have only the state, or foster system to do so.
      While I don’t think that all gay/lesbian couples should have kids (just like I don’t think a lot of hetero’s should be able to either) - this is where the agencies involved screen people.  I don’t know for sure, but I believe that for some years after an adoption those couples (and the child) are given some support as well - to make sure that the family is coping ok. 
      BTW - I am an illegitimate, heterosexual female who suffered through a stepfather - though he provided me a sister and brother I love dearly, I’m married, 2 kids, and have gay friends, and relatives - oh, and how about the single guys and girls I know, that would like to adopt - and that have the financial capability to manage, but don’t either want to wait for the right partner, or go out for a one night stand to get preggers?  Oh, but thats right, the government supports women who do that….  I Struggled for years to have kids, and finally do.  Why shouldn’t they have the opportunity?
      Oh - and what the hell is wrong with wanting to choose the sex of your child?  Aside from the possibility of getting too many of one sex?  Whats wrong with wanting one of each, or wanting to have a child of the opposite gender to what you have? How about those couples wanting to avoid certain genetic complications?

    • Ripa says:

      05:34pm | 10/08/10

      Im sorry, but thousands of years not one simple study dictates that men and women parenting together is good for children and for society. There can not be any scientifically credible study that states same sex would do anywhere near as good a job, the time frame just doesn’t exist and cant compare. That study on 84 lesbian couples, what percentage of the children turned out gay? was it higher then in normal heterosexual households? I could pull out 1000 heterosexual couples whose children would be academically and socially better then the 84 lesbian couples, please this argument is nonsense. The argument about heterosexual couples using IVF is also nonsense they are still reproducing using their own DNA, it is her egg and his sperm, tell me how this equates to two men? or two women? They must rely on someone external to help. These arguments waste everyones time. This is about granting same sex couples the same legal rights.

      What is this insistence on the word “marriage”? why are gays so determined to have that word, choose another word for same sex couples, grant people who enter into that commitment the same or similar legal rights. IVF, adoption, surrogacy, super, etc, there are many brilliant gay men and women and it would be a travesty to have their genes disappear, just because they were not allowed to become parents, just call the union something else please.

      Marriage is between man and woman and it is about family, it is across the world regardless of culture geographical location or religion. Aboriginal society 30-40,000 years ago were married, it is not a “new” idea or word.

      Same sex couples define themselves sexually, but heterosexual couples all of a sudden are not allowed to? This insistence on gay marriage is discrimination against heterosexual couples, and again ill say pick another word, leave marriage what it is,  the union of a man and a woman.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      06:05pm | 10/08/10

      @ Ripa

      “There can not be any scientifically credible study that states same sex would do anywhere near as good a job, the time frame just doesn’t exist and cant compare.”
      If decades of studies doesn’t do it, you’re just being ridiculous.  Indigenous Australians didn’t vote for thousands of years, why should we have been so reckless as to give them the same rights as everybody else? 

      “That study on 84 lesbian couples, what percentage of the children turned out gay?”
      Why, should that matter?  (Btw, the studies show no link between being raised by homosexual couples and a higher incidence of gay children).

      “I could pull out 1000 heterosexual couples whose children would be academically and socially better then the 84 lesbian couples”
      That what’s called selection bias.  Do you understand the scientific method at all?

      “The argument about heterosexual couples using IVF is also nonsense they are still reproducing using their own DNA”
      Both a hetero and homo couple using IVF requires external ‘help’.  If your argument is that it’s not ‘natural’, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

      “What is this insistence on the word “marriage”?”
      Why this insistence on not being segregated as second-class citizens?  The back of the bus still has bus seats.  What are those uppity negroes complaining about?

      “Marriage is between man and woman”
      That’s the legal definition, not an argument.  We should change the law.

      “and it is about family”
      I don’t have kids, should I get a divorce if I decide not to have them?

      “Same sex couples define themselves sexually, but heterosexual couples all of a sudden are not allowed to?”
      I define myself as part of a heterosexual couple.  How would changing the laws to allow gay couples to use the same word affect me?

      “This insistence on gay marriage is discrimination against heterosexual couples”
      Just like having a black player at your golf club discriminates against your whites-only rule.  Get over it.

    • QueerinSA says:

      06:08pm | 10/08/10

      Why shouldn’t the word ‘marriage’ be used? Why do heterosexuals get so defensive about gay people using the word? Why do you think we are"so determined to have that word” (like anyone can own a word)?

      I don’t understand - ‘Same sex couples define themselves sexually, but heterosexual couples all of a sudden are not allowed to?’ - I don’t define myself by my sexuality, I am more than just my sexuality, or the color of my skin or my favourite TV program.

      Your comment about marriage being between a man and a woman and is the same across the world is a little flawed, there are quite a few countries that allow same-sex marriage, and call it that as well.

    • Tim says:

      02:23pm | 11/08/10

      Steely Dan,
      yes selection bias.
      Like in the NLLF study quoted where self selected lesbians’ children were compared against the average?
      Looks like they don’t understand scientific method either.
      Let me take 100 kids from say a selective school or a rich area and see how they perform against the average too. 

      The study quoted is a sham.

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:19am | 12/08/10

      @ Tim

      “Like in the NLLF study quoted where self selected lesbians’ children were compared against the average?”
      How is this selection bias, Tim?  Are you saying they turned some lesbian parents away to affect the study outcomes?

    • Danielle says:

      05:34pm | 10/08/10

      I am a teenager whose biological mother is in a same sex relationship and has been since before I was born.  Would I recommend this or support it? No. Those of you who are opposed to the views of Wendy Francis are looking at it from the point of view of adults who believe they have more rights than children who are unable to make choices.
      I say, “Get real. Think of the child first. Have you any idea what we go through because of your choice?”

      Reply

    • QueerinSA says:

      06:00pm | 10/08/10

      I would be interested in hearing why this is so bad for you when my experience was totally different. I can only think of one issue, how you explain your parents relationship to your friends (and in this day and age I wouldn’t have thought people your own age would have a problem with this, my friends didn’t when I was a teenager and that was 20 years ago).

    • Tarzan says:

      06:05pm | 10/08/10

      That’s very powerful Danielle, and it says it all. Well done and goodluck!

    • PaulB says:

      11:05pm | 10/08/10

      Why not?  If you can’t tell us why then you aren’t contributing to this meaningfully.  It may be what YOU went through but why should that automatically extrapolate to everyone else?

    • Danielle says:

      10:53am | 11/08/10

      I do not have a problem explaining two female parents Queerin - although I have been teased about it.  What I feel is that I am ‘designer’ addition to their lifestyle. They wanted a child to prove to the world that they were ‘normal’. They went out of their way to have a child to prove a point rather than because they wanted me as an individual.  My biological mother went back to work six weeks after I was born and I was put into long day care.  This was not a financial decision but a career decision.

    • YZ says:

      12:36pm | 11/08/10

      But that was only your experience, you cannot speak for everyone that grew up with same sex families. I know plenty of well off hetero couple that had children just to have them and are left with nannies to raise.

    • Jason says:

      05:35pm | 10/08/10

      I’m not for or against, but I do wonder why nature evolved male and female of almost every species on the planet if it wasn’t for some deep biological or evolutionary reason.  We still only have an infant’s knowledge of the planet, and order of nature yet we possess enough hubris to choose a “better way”

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      06:08pm | 10/08/10

      @ Jason

      “but I do wonder why nature evolved male and female of almost every species on the planet if it wasn’t for some deep biological or evolutionary reason.”
      This is called the naturalistic fallacy.  You’re confusing an is (males and females make babies) with an ought (we need to legislate to make sure gay couples don’t have kids).

    • Michael says:

      09:58pm | 10/08/10

      But if species in history did not change and evolve, we would still be micro-organisms. The reason why we survive today is because our species, and our ancestral species chose a better way.

    • PaulB says:

      11:11pm | 10/08/10

      Evolution does not have or require a “reason”.  It just is what it is.

    • tethys says:

      10:55am | 11/08/10

      apart from those species that reproduce via parthenogenesis or change sex during their life time

    • neil says:

      05:39pm | 10/08/10

      Wendy Francis’ view of the ideal nuclear family is one of the primary causes of the degradation we are seeing in modern western society. Children need more than just two parents no matter what their sex or sexuality. The nuclear family is a post WW2 western social experiment that has failed. It isolates women and under stimulates children, a balanced environment to raise children requires daily contact with parents, siblings, extended family and community. The nuclear family locked away in their McMansion does not provide this.

      Reply

    • Zeta says:

      05:54pm | 10/08/10

      They’re both as bad as each other. The only thing worse than a sneering fundy looking down her nose at you and bundling up her own spiritual inadequacies and throwing them up in heaves of acrid vitriol is an aging, naive hippy that thinks every one can just ‘get along’ and that free love managed to survive the wave of distrust and paranoia that broke on the shores of the human sub-conscious in the wake of the summer of 1969.

      The problem with minor parties is they have no accountability, and no mechanism for purging themselves of toxic policy. They’re navel gazers. Dilletantes. Sexualised billboards are not the sleeper issue of this election.

      Reply

    • Kordez says:

      11:30pm | 10/08/10

      I agree Zeta, they are both idiots but I do like porn.. So the Sex Party does sound like a whole lot more fun than the L parties.
      I admire her spirit… “I’d like to be Prime Minister” made me chuckle. If there’s an election where it could happen, could it be this one?

    • Tarzan says:

      06:01pm | 10/08/10

      I’m 38 year old male, left home at 15, went to night school, trained as a Psychiatric Nurse, traveled the World, been in at least 10 different jobs including International Business, have a huge circle of family and friends, but I never encounter in my life such bizarre argument for gay to adoption of children. No one I have even spoken to in my life agrees with it. And when I read the arguments for gay adoption it is always about “rights” “my rights” “gay rights”. And the reasoning is just BS. Comparisons are alway to the worst examples of other parents. Get over it gay people, there is no right to have a child, it is a biological event.

      Reply

    • Clif says:

      06:15pm | 10/08/10

      @Jason: Maybe it is to reproduce. Nothing more and nothing less. The ability to reproduce does not equal the ability to parent. Ever heard the saying “it takes a village to raise a child”? I gather that means a wide variety of people, sexualities, races, ethnicities, sexualities etc. Gasp!

      Reply

    • Dark Rider says:

      06:15pm | 10/08/10

      @ Mr Raj - If you are going to write articles here, I suggest you improve your grammar - it sucks.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      06:18pm | 10/08/10

      Why is there any discrimination at all then?
      I as a single person want to adopt some kids too but preference is given to couples.
      This kind of discrimination against singles is disgraceful.
      Why should my living conditions as a single matter as long as I can provide for an adopted kid.

      I also have two girlfriends who I would like to marry but the state prevents me from doing so. Polygamists are people too.
      Where are my rights?

      Reply

    • GreekSnake says:

      06:31pm | 10/08/10

      The minute a sexuality based opinion is aired by anyone of any importance, in comes the Gay Parade demanding their right to be the same as everyone else.

      “While not equating same-sex parenting to child abuse, the reliance on a gendered model of ideal heterosexual parenting is problematic.”

      Wait a minute, you think a child’s natural parents are not ideal? You think the way that nature creates babies, to a man and a woman, is NOT ideal?  Please inform us Mr Raj, what the hell is ideal if this isn’t? A child being raised by it’s natural parents is about as ideal as it gets. You need a reality check sir.

      “Not only does it privilege some unspecified innate sexual differences between men and women that ensure good parenting, it also stigmatises those children already living with two mums or two dads by claiming they ‘lack’ optimal parents.”

      Yet again you are throwing those buzzwords around. “Optimal parents” and “ideal family”. I will ask you again Mr Raj, why do you think a gay couple makes for BETTER parents over a child’s biological mother and father?

      There is no argument that a child is best off with it’s biological parents… BUT in many cases where this option is not available, other, less preferred options are taken. The first (and most obvious) is adoption to family or friends.  The list goes on with less and less desired results further down the list. Obviously once we start heading to single parents looking after children it isn’t “ideal” or “optimal” anymore.

      I don’t know why you (and every other pro-homo out there) loves to push the idea of a homosexual family unit. There is no such thing. There cannot be, by nature, such thing. It is an abomination of the definition of family. 2 homosexuals (humans or animals) cannot reproduce. Therefore the family unit you talk about is just a couple. There can’t be kids without intervention from heterosexual couples.

      The idea that a homosexual couple makes AS GOOD a set of parents as a heterosexual one is laughable. If a male and a female find it impossible to raise a child that they could create, then something has gone terribly wrong.

      I’m not completely against the idea of a homosexual couple ending up with kids however. That said, their preference would be far, far down the list of available options. I would place a homosexual couple after a heterosexual couple wanting to adopt, and before a single parent wanting to adopt. The reasons are self evident.

      Reply

    • Campbell says:

      11:27am | 11/08/10

      So if a child can not be raised by its supposedly ideal biological mother and father we should let them live in an orphanage and suffer the consequences rather than let them be raised by a couple of caring people who will love the child? How is that either logical or right?
      Also, the reason is not self evident as to why a homosexual couple is worth less than a heterosexual couple based simply on their sexual preference and not taking into account the support and care they can give the child? Stop labeling everyone who has the same preference in partner as the same and putting them in the same box.

    • GreekSnake says:

      12:03pm | 11/08/10

      A homosexual couple, no matter how caring, cannot replicate the optimal environment for raising children. It really is as simple as that. A mother and a father have separate roles and 2 males or 2 females cannot replicate them.

      I question your phrase “supposedly ideal biological mother and father”. Do you not believe the biological parents of a child make the ideal environment?

      Stop labeling? Homosexual isn’t a label, it’s a lifestyle. A lifestyle that is not exactly designed for making babies. But people like you and the author, want to extend having kids to a group of people that exclude one of the biological requirements for parenthood. If a single parent, 1 mother, or 1 father was to raise a child we would say it is not ideal. Why is having 2 of the same parent all of a sudden an ideal situation? Do you not acknowledge the lack of a father or a mother as a problem for a child?

      Sure you can list many situations where the biological parents are bad seeds, but I can’t list a single homosexual couple that can provide what a mother and father can for a child. Not one. You know why? Wait that one is self-evident….

    • YZ says:

      12:34pm | 11/08/10

      And where do youplace single parents in this rant? be it mother or father raising the child on their own?

    • YZ says:

      12:43pm | 11/08/10

      @ GreekSnake - gay people can already have kids, through IVF and IUI and surrogacy. people have kids in hetero couples and that ends and they find love with the same sex and their child is raised by 2 of the same. why can’t they manage? usually in a lesbian couple (that i have seen) you have one butch and one girly (same with gay couples I know) where is the problem, you still get the sports and maculine influence and the feminine.

    • Alex says:

      04:12pm | 11/08/10

      So by your reasoning, a child produced by parents where one parent has been beating the other, and causing the other emotional abuse, perhaps also throw some drug abuse in there too, is better off than a child in a loving, caring, homosexual relationship who actually WANT to raise the child as their own… simply because the man and the woman created the child.

      Get real you idiot.

    • Alex says:

      04:15pm | 11/08/10

      And what’s more, in some cases a single parent can be more optimal for the child, if they have the support and help of their friends and extended family.  Takes a village to raise a child and all that.

      Better that than a pair of parents who hate each others guts.  But of course the world is black and white, isn’t it.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      06:35pm | 10/08/10

      I think children are more in danger from the child abuse by the Catholic Church that Family First supports than being reared by a same sex couple. How many recorded instances of child abuse by a same sex couple compared with the many recorded instances of child abuse by the Catholic Church? If we want to talk about unnatural circumstances, then let’s talk about a priest’s celibracy…..

      Reply

    • AliceC says:

      12:31pm | 11/08/10

      Well said!!!

    • Drew(Darlinghurst) says:

      06:39pm | 10/08/10

      OMG !!!! I’m a single gay man who lives a fabulous life in the inner city of Sydney. The whole concept of Children is certainly not for me.

      But…...I’m sure some members of the LGBT Community want Children so for them I say “Let Them Adopt”....

      As for Wendy Francis…..GET A LIFE !

      That’s my 2c worth. Have a Nice Day. smile

      Reply

    • Nat says:

      08:00pm | 10/08/10

      Believe it or not, but the ability to procreate does not mean one has the ability to nurture.

      Yes, it may be hard having a family structure different from the families of others, but who is making this difference hard? Certainly not the people who heed the studies inferring that good quality parenting does not rely upon gender ratios in a home.
      More importantly, we are at the beginning of an epoch: this is all fear of the ‘new’. This is all an expression of thoughts and feelings and needs that simply have not had the platform for expression. Give it 50 years, and all will be water under the bridge. And I doubt humanity will be any the worse for it!
      Prospective parents who must PLAN so intently must already be a step ahead of couples who did not – although this does not imply a burden of bad parenting on couples with the equipment to reproduce by mistake! But it does cast the question of the importance of intentional parenting. Children should not be seen as a ‘right’, especially within the confines of ‘natural reproduction’. We already live in a hugely artificial world!

      In the end, same sex parenting EXISTS. Same sex couples EXIST.  A large collective of Individuals (themselves of all persuasions) will not deny the opportunity of homosexual couples to raise children as well - or as badly - as heterosexual couples have for most of human history. But let’s be frank hear: doesn’t it take ‘a whole community’ to raise a child anyway?

      I simply do not care about the gender of the people waiting at home for a kid - I’m more interested in their ability to provide, nurture and protect, and surely these characteristics - and the willingness to employ them - is more dependant upon resolution, personality and partnership than something as arbitary and dated as conservative concepts of gender?

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      08:17pm | 10/08/10

      Let ‘em marry.
      In New Zealand.

      Reply

    • Kordez says:

      11:22pm | 10/08/10

      @stephen, New Zealand does offer same sex couples more rights than Australia with legal recognition through Civil Union and an inquest into gay marriage.
      Here, we ignore their union but demand that they provide these details for social security reasons. I was born here, and assuming you were too, I should have the same rights as you.

    • The Goose says:

      09:14pm | 10/08/10

      Can anyone tell me if it’s possible to disagree with a homosexual and not be labelled a homophobe?

      Reply

    • alan says:

      09:56pm | 10/08/10

      The desperate squeals of a dying, outdated bigotry. The nutcases are always the last to let it go and are, unfortunately, the nuttiest.

      Reply

    • Tarzan says:

      02:33am | 11/08/10

      yes, I could never work out why pencils are always used at electoral booths. BTW did I mention I don’t agree with Gay couple adoptions?

    • Brut Guy says:

      12:11am | 11/08/10

      Such drivel and Ill informed scared homophobes.

      I’m on a horse.

      Reply

    • AliceC says:

      12:45pm | 11/08/10

      Look at your bigot, then look at me, look at him, then look at me.

      I’m not a bigot, I don’t care what you do in the bedroom.

      Look at your bigot, now back to me

      I’m holding a bible, now it’s going up in flames, now I’m holding a white dove, the sign of peace.

      I’m on a horse

    • the apologist says:

      10:03am | 11/08/10

      The central issue here is: are there any do’s and don’ts when it comes to sexuality? central to this is the idea of an appeal to authority.

      The position against homosexuality as ethically wrong is founded in an appeal to God as the definer of human sexuality and the determiner of what is right and what is wrong.

      Those against homosexual marriage have often rejected the grounds of the original appeal, and are then left in the ridiculous position of trying to defend traditional marriage ‘just because…’ (although there are plenty of arguments as to why it should be defended from a pragmatic view).

      It’s not a question of homophobia (i’m certainly not ‘scared’ of homosexuals), it is a question of what is right and wrong.

      If you shift the appeal of authority as the author has done, and claim that homosexuality is not wrong, you are left with the conundrum of no appeal to any authority.

      The logical implication of the position is that there are no longer any grounds/authority appeal on which any sexual preference of any description can be deemed as wrong. All sexual expression becomes legitimate. Those who favour homosexual union should start getting consistent and welcome any and all expressions of sexuality.

      Reply

    • Nat says:

      11:17am | 11/08/10

      Clearly that’s just ridiculous: there is a WORLD of difference between two (or more!) consenting adults in a relationship as opposed to, oh lets say, paedophilia? Rape? The issue at hand is not about swaying from one extreme to another like you are suggesting – heterosexual couples to, well, absolutely everything?! – but it is actually about another rather conservative configuration of human relationships: TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. Who just happen to be of the same gender.
      And further, what’s happening here is an appeal to this ‘authority’ for inclusion in the cannon of legally recognised partnership and therefore some of the opportunities extended to the model at hand: heterosexual couples. Not an attempt to include absolutely everything. But I hear your fear: yes, it may just be that legal recognition of same sex couples will begin the debate around other less common or currently unacceptable sexual relationships. But honestly, do you really think this will include the whole spectrum including those things that deny basic human rights?? I don’t. We’re not that mad.
      It’s clear your ‘authority’ is a very black and white Christian God. Relax. Half the world is still as backward as yourself. Calling on very simplistic ideas of ‘right and wrong’ as though it’s a given is not good argument.

    • TheRealDave says:

      12:15pm | 11/08/10

      Hang on, did you just use God and Logic in the same argument?

      Own goal son, own goal wink

    • the apologist says:

      12:36pm | 11/08/10

      @the Real Dave:
      I could say the same of the possibility of logic in an evolutionary/random universe - logic? how is that possible?
      God is what allows the possibility of coherency and logic to exist. Darwin’s interpretation of the universe can’t account for it…

    • AliceC says:

      12:41pm | 11/08/10

      @ the apologist

      My holy book, ‘The Loving Spagetti Monster’, states that all people are created equal, regardless of skin colour, gender or sexuality. The Spagetti Monster is the all powerful creator, and it decides what it right or wrong. I don’t know who this ‘God’ is, but it can’t be real, as the Spagetti Monster did not create it…

    • the apologist says:

      01:09pm | 11/08/10

      @ Nat, you dismiss my comment on this issue as an ethical issue as being simplistic, but you presume an ethical dimension by mentioning the notion of ‘currently unacceptable sexual relationships’. You also presume the existence of an ethical approach in the area of sexuality by judging rape and paedophilia as wrong (which I would of course agree with, I just don’t think the way you drew the conclusion was legit).

      But what are you basing such judgments on? On what basis are you validating your opinion? Without an authoritative appeal, all you’ve got is your subjective position – and why should your subjective opinion be worth more than that of those who hold a different sexual persuasion than you? And so you’ve got no grounds to condemn the sexual persuasion of others – it’s game on for anything and anyone by that standard.
      To phrase my argument in another way: why is any sexual relationship unacceptable?
      Unacceptability inevitably implies a moral dimension.

      You might call God simplistic or black and white, but in rejecting him you’ve reduced what is right and wrong to a matter of subjective judgment. On those grounds, the logical implication is that there can be no sexual discrimination at all.

    • Salec says:

      02:23pm | 11/08/10

      The morality argument for God has been debunked many times. For a quick overview I suggest you read this - http://www.examiner.com/x-8829-Salt-Lake-City-Freethinking-Examiner~y2009m6d22-The-Moral-Argument-for-God—reviewed. The biggest one for me is relying on God for morality implies that without someone watching over and judging you, you would be perfectly willing to to cause harm to others. I find that horrifying.

      I do not murder, rape or pillage, not because God says it is wrong, but because I believe it is wrong. As a being capable of thought and logic, I have come to my own morality.

      How can you explain morality changing over time? Some things that were considered wrong, are now considered right, and once considered right are now considered wrong. Surely God doesn’t change his mind?

    • the apologist says:

      09:25am | 12/08/10

      Hi Salec,

      Discussing the implications of God as the reason behind the possibility of an objective ethical standard (what you’ve discussed in your comment) is one thing.

      Explaining and demonstrating the validity of ethics in a universe where there is no God is another – and that is the point I’m making.

      Without God, one cannot objectively conclude that something is wrong. They can only say that their evolutionary conditioning has inevitably resulted in them having a strong aversion to certain behaviours. For someone with a different opinion, or even someone who rejects their moral instincts and acts against them – there is no grounds on which to objectively establish one opinion as better than the other, and you should recognise the equal validity of their opinion.

      You said it yourself, your morality is based on your own beliefs. To do that reduces morality to subjectivity, and again there’s no intrinsic reason why your moral beliefs are worth more than anyone else’s (thus my original assertion on total sexual permissiveness as the logical end result of such a position).

      That’s my argument here, and I’ve never heard an answer to it. I would welcome your rebuttal.

    • Ella says:

      11:52am | 12/08/10

      Try reading the work of John Rawls. I believe he does a fairly decent job of establishing a concepts of fairness, justice and ethics without appeal to authority, based on the idea of a social contract and the idea that right behaviour within a society is that which a group of rational individuals would agree to if they didn’t know what place in the society they would hold. I.e. if a group of people where sitting around deciding on this issue without knowing whether they would be gay or straight would they allow gay adoption

    • the apologist says:

      02:20pm | 12/08/10

      Ella,

      Yes, I’m familiar with Rawls. He recognised the necessity for an appeal to authority to legitimise enforceable moral norms. He just replaced God with the social contract as the authority.

      The problem with the social contract is that it doesn’t deal with the issue I’ve raised, it just takes the problem to a new level. Instead of one persons belief/perception of ‘right’ verses another persons, it’s simply the moral views of the majority tyrannising the moral views of the minority.

      Couple of other issues with the social contract.

      The ideal of the social contract essentially suggests that what the majority agree on, and say is right, is right. How about the social contract that existed throughout the course of WWII and the holocaust in German society at that time? The social contract legitimises their social position as ethically legit. I’ve got problems with that.

      The social contract also intrinsically recognises that ethical standards subjectively shift (they change across time). If what is right and wrong shifts, how can it rightly be ‘right’? How can something be right at one point in history and wrong at another? In such a universe ethics are fluctuating, contradictory, subjective, and ultimately illusory (illusory in that they are a metaphysical construct that we’ve invented).

      The viel of ignorance is interesting, but too far removed from reality and somewhat contrived. Even if I did agree with using it as a method, why should I be wrong if my opinion was ‘Well, that worked for you Rawls, but I’m gonna go with my own ideas instead’. It still requires the assent of others for its legitimation, and if I’ve got a different and perhaps contradictory approach and standard on ethics, there’s no reason in the cold random universe why I should have to adopt Rawls’ approach. His ethical construct has no more right to existence and practice than mine.

      Lastly on the example you gave with the veil, if I thought that being gay (or any other example of conduct or consequence) was ethically wrong, it wouldn’t matter to me whether I was behind or in front of the veil, I would oppose it.

    • YZ says:

      12:50pm | 11/08/10

      Why is everone focussed on ‘normal’ families? who is to say what is normal? just because it is how it is always done doesn’t mean it’s the right way. it used to be girls as young as 12-13 were married off to start families, that has changed now. What is normal? are we to include conditions on hetero couples that we are on gay? what about couples that are into S&M? Domitatrix? is that normal? what if they have kids? will people then complain that they are abusing their children with their ‘perversions’?

      just because it has always been the way does not make it right or ‘normal’

      Reply

    • Somewhere Over The Rainbow says:

      06:24pm | 11/08/10

      Some (i.e. greeksnake) may say that homosexuality is a lifestyle…..right or wrong (but definitely wrong) it is unquestionably a FABULOUS lifestyle we lead.
      Thats my 2 cents worth.

      Reply

    • AJ says:

      10:31am | 12/08/10

      Excellent article.

      Even IF gay marriage is legalised and even IF adoption by married gay couples was permitted, those couples would be subject to the same strict requirements that heterosexual couples have to meet in order to adopt (although it will presumably permit non-biological parents and step-parents of children to adopt more easily).  If anything, there would be less opportunities for gay couples to adopt since it is unlikely they would meet the requirements for inter-country adoption set by most foreign nations (which require the adoptive parents to be a heterosexual couple).

      Furthermore, given it takes heterosexual couples up to 10 years to adopt and not every heterosexual couple is lucky enough to end up adopting a child, will legalising gay marriage and adoption by gay couples really make a significant difference? Hasn’t gay adoption been legal in Western Australia for years and so far only one gay couple were able to adopt?

      The whole “won’t someone please think of the children” argument really seems ridiculous. It’s not like there is an army of gay couples just waiting for gay adoption to be legalised so they can race into orphanges around Australia and snatch up children which match their shoes.

      And irrespective of everything else, why is it that so many organisations (including some religious organisations) actively target same-sex couples as foster parents if their parenting equates to “child abuse”? Surely a child that is in foster care needs the best care that is possible? If they can care for a foster child on a temporary basis, then they should be able to care for a child on a permanent basis (via adoption).

      Reply

    • Mitchell says:

      08:17pm | 02/09/10

      I wonder if Wendy approves of being branded with Ms? I’m sure she’d much prefer to known as Mrs Francis.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 Feb 12 08:23AM

Meanwhile, in the real world, hard-working Australians pack the kids' lunches and bundle them off to school #Ruddvenge#Auspol

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 23 Feb 12 08:16AM

And @_Tors on Labor's scorched earth shenanigans http://t.co/E9I69dG5

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 23 Feb 12 08:15AM

Malcolm Farr on what a Rudd administration would look like http://t.co/MSwM7ZWR

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 22 Feb 12 11:26PM

Stuff all this Rudd bullshit. Read this fantastic yarn about the making of the greatest Simpsons episode of them all http://t.co/HB4ztLdX

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

A sneak preview of PM Kevin Rudd Mark II

by Malcolm Farr

27

A sneak preview of PM Kevin Rudd Mark II

After modest carousing following his second elevation to Prime Minister - no more than half an hour -…

Scorched earth is all that will remain if they keep this up

by Tory Maguire

56

Scorched earth is all that will remain if they keep this up

Never underestimate the furiously protective streak of an adult daughter towards her father. Last night…

Kindergarten philosophy

by Emma Jane

0

Kindergarten philosophy

My freshly kindergarten-ed daughter has been learning all sorts of stuff at her new school. Last weekend,…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Australia, we’re a bunch of heartless travel snobs

Justin says:

My 2 cents worth, If you feel the need to belittle other peoples holidays/methods of travel/experiences/destinations/restaurants they choose etc etc, then you should probably take a look at yourself in the mirror as well. People should be free to travel as they can best afford, best suits… [read more]

From: This Sally’s no lay down, she’s a lay down misère

Jacques Meoff says:

"Why can't we have more athletes like Sally Pearson?" The answer is actually pretty simple, notwithstanding the simple fact that she is an incredible athlete, the AIS pour 99 percent of their money into supporting the swimmers. Unless you form part of that team you fund yourself to train, travel and… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

160 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed