Senator links gay marriage to bestiality

2012-09-19 10:05

Sydney - A conservative Australian senator was forced to resign from his parliamentary role on Wednesday after he linked gay marriage to bestiality and polygamy during a debate just before lawmakers overwhelmingly rejected a bill that would have legalised gay marriage.

Speaking on the gay marriage bill before parliament late on Tuesday, outspoken Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi described it as "another tear in the fabric of our social mores".

"If we are prepared to redefine marriage so that it suits the latest criterion that two people who love each other should be able to get married irrespective of their gender... then what is the next step?" he said.

"The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society.

"There are even some creepy people out there... [who] say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?"

The comments sparked outrage in the ruling Labour Party and elements within the Liberal Party, including high-profile former leader Malcolm Turnbull who described them as "hysterical, alarmist, offensive" remarks.


Liberal opposition leader Tony Abbott said Bernardi, a South Australian senator, had offered to resign his position as his parliamentary secretary as a result, and he had accepted this.

Staunch Catholic Abbott, who opinion polls suggest could become prime minister when an election is held next year, described Bernardi as "a decent bloke with strong opinions" but said his comments had been ill-disciplined.

"They are views that I don't share," Abbott told reporters. "They are views which I think many people will find repugnant."

Meanwhile, Australian lawmakers overwhelmingly rejected the bill that would have legalised gay marriage.

The House of Representatives voted 98-42 against the legislation on Wednesday. It was the first of four bills introduced to Parliament that aim to lift the country's ban on same-sex marriages.

A separate bill was also being debated in the Senate on Wednesday.

Voting according to conscience

Bernardi had been reprimanded by Abbott in the past, notably for his comments on Islam in 2010 when he called for Australia to ban the burqa, the all-encompassing garment worn by some Muslim women.

Advocates of marriage equality say it has broad support in Australia, where same-sex unions are recognised in five states.

However, because marriage is covered by federal legislation which defines it as only between a man and a woman, couples united in civil unions are not seen as "married" by the national government.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard opposes legalising same-sex marriage, but had asked members of her party to vote on the issue according to their consciences.

  • Bob.Cee123 - 2012-09-19 10:45

    Aaaah, the trusty old slippery-slope fallacy. - 2012-09-19 11:34

      There are many weird people in this world, we have serial killers, child molesters, pornography addicts, gays, lesbians etc.... some things are not morally acceptable and should be practiced in private, dont go parade your sick causes in public, and even have the arrogance to demand your rights on that!! What do we base our morals on? When does something become right and when does it become wrong, or does something remain right or wrong irrespective of how many people approve of it? Most people in this world have slowly been deceived by the opinions of the masses. When there were 2 gay people it was wrong, now that there are more gays it becomes acceptable. Today most people despises the idea of Bestiality, but what will happen in a few years time when we have millions of people fighting for their democratic right to have sex with and marry animals, are we going to allow this?? You've been so badly deceived, none of your gay arguments can ever morally justify 2 people of the same gender having sex or entering into marriage... not just morally, but biologically as well. Perhaps the reason why gay people are always "fighting" for their rights and especially for marriage rights is that deep down they have such a hard time accepting their immoral behaviours that they need the rest of the world to approve and help justify their actions.... sad reality is even if 6 billion deceived straight people approve of this it still does not make it right.

      goyougoodthing - 2012-09-19 11:57

      Jock you have some serious issues. I mean it, seek help.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-09-19 12:07

      @ JockBlack - Read the posts which discuss the concept of consent. Maybe then you'll understand that your 'slippery slope' argument is fallacious and legalizing gay marriage will take us not one step closer towards bestiality than interracial marriage, which was once outlawed in many countries, did. - 2012-09-19 12:12

      so goyougoodthing you are 100% happy with 2 men having sex and getting married??, you honestly think that is normal and acceptable, wow I wonder who needs help.

      goyougoodthing - 2012-09-19 12:22

      Jock. Yep I do. Like anyone else the people in question should be able to make their own choices. Two men marrying does not affect my life or my children's life. If my son sees two men or women hand in hand it's not going to turn him gay, unless he is gay. If he is, then I say fantastic, at least he would have the courage to tell all you bigots and stad up for being himself. Why homosexuals want to get 'married' in a church is beyond me, as far as I know church disapproves but that is their choice not mine, even if I don't get the church bit. At the very least they should be able to be legally married and afforded the same rights and protection as any other couple, including inheritance, tax breaks etc etc. Why you have a problem with other peoples' lives is beyond me, and, if you use your book, then start with the bit about thou shalt not judge. - 2012-09-19 13:09

      goyougoodthing, what gay people do certainly effects me, my children and the moral fibers of society. I have not even spoken to my young children about "gay", yet ironically when they see 2 men kissing they are completely creeped out, I wonder how they will feel if they ever witness sex between 2 men, they will probably feel the same as seeing a human having sex with an animal, equally wrong and revolting. Remember 1 thing, "gay" is not normal, straight is. The best compromise would be to admit this and then say how do we deal with this, but the overall attitude of gays are that its their right and straight people like me are wrong, how utterly messed up and delusional can they get.

      goyougoodthing - 2012-09-19 16:28

      Jock, you will never understand until you look at yourself. It's all based on fear. I pity you.

  • carol.harvey.9406 - 2012-09-19 11:03

    Oh for goodness sake ... what a moron!!! Glad he had to resign. Go crawl back under your rock ....

      michael.a.devilliers - 2012-09-19 12:27

      It's not natural? A little Googling might change your mind.

      SarcasticAgnostic - 2012-09-19 12:34

      What's wrong with eroticism? Do you find missionary alone satisfying? What about your sex-partner? Do you even care? Do you know what I find unnatural? Your unhealthy obsession with what others do in their bedrooms. Damn closet voyeur.

  • vracaza - 2012-09-19 11:18

    But I get the point the guy is trying to make, the question he is asking is: Where do you draw the line in terms of defining what marriage is. When I say , if a person wants to marry a dog whom he loves, can this be recognised as marriage? That doesn’t mean I am comparing gay union to persons trying to marry dogs. I am merely asking a question "Where do you draw the line?" Currently as they say its defined as a union between a man and a woman. Now the govenrment is challenged to redifine it, until when? WHere do you draw the line, if later on people come requesting it to be redifined again, until what point would you agree to this? The guy didnt say, marrying same sex partner is like marrying an animal.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-09-19 11:32

      vracaza - Can humans talk to dogs? Can dogs talk to humans? Can a dog verbally 'consent' to anything? Can dogs demonstrate a clear understanding of the concept of marriage? If you believe in arranged marriages where the female has no choice, then I can see why you might be tempted to compare gay marriage to inter-species marriage, but when you consider it as a case of consenting adults entering into a mutual agreement the comparison with human-dog marriage bears no relevance in this argument. As for his comparison with bestiality, which is effectively animal rape, he is simply way off the mark and has shown his ignorance. Marriage between two consenting adults is incomparable to marriage between a human and an animal. The slippery-slope fallacy is an easy one to commit in such cases. Not all slippery slope arguments are invalid, but in this case it clearly is.

      chikunga - 2012-09-19 11:46

      can people consent to drink blood from each other's veins. There are things that even if adults consent are just wrong morally, biologically, naturally, culturally and all the other ....lly

      jacqui.daanevanrensburg - 2012-09-19 11:54

      Vracaza. well you will first have to ask yourself if you are the designated person to draw any line affecting the lives of others. If your answer is no, then let people be who they are.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-09-19 12:22

      @ chikunga - Morality is not as clear cut as you would like to think. There is the issue of whether or not the activity causes unwanted harm which is not reasonably expected to result from the activity should the agreed controls fail. As long as there is mutual awareness of the risks and no coersion / deception is at play and the activity is intended for mutual enjoyment and not some kind of suicide pact then it should be legally allowed. Your example of people drinking blood from eachother's veins may seem like a helpful analogy in favour of your argument but there are means by which people could, and probably actually do, engage in such an activity in a controlled, mutually consenting manner and who are we to dictate that this practice must be outlawed. Your argument would also be in favour of the outlawing of skydiving, motocross, paragliding and other high-risk activities because those who are untrained and unaware of the risks could easily find themselves in deep trouble.

      piet.strydom - 2012-09-19 16:59

      I think every man should be allowed to have a new wife every 10 years.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-09-20 08:22

      @ Piet - Are you talking polygamy or simply leaving the current wife for a new one?

      piet.strydom - 2012-09-21 10:52

      @Bob - Whichever I want, actually. According to your logic in any case. There is no objective morality, just what each person wants to do.... "Consenting adults"

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-09-21 16:25

      @ Piet - 'can' does not automatically imply 'should' or 'must' Your point is a fallacious straw man. You invent some exaggerated, distorted misinterpretation of the 'consenting adults' concept, then you attempt to portray it as 'my logic'. You'll have to try harder than that.

      piet.strydom - 2012-09-24 13:31

      @Bob - My comment shows the logical conclusion of "relative morality" or "sophistic truth". Everybody wants to make up his own rules, and then expect everybody else to fall in with their version. You either have people making up their own minds, or you have a absolute, external standard. There is no gray area in between.

  • carina.welman - 2012-09-19 11:23

    Another sad day for a country's people who just wants equal rights. Why do a couple of over fed politicians get the right to decide on behalf of a whole country? They just want to be able to marry. Sick bastard, glad you resigned. People like him should not be in power. Let's hope for Aus's sake he does not get elected next year.

      chikunga - 2012-09-19 11:47

      "on behalf of the whole country". They overwhelmingly voted against gay marriages

      phoenix.px.5 - 2012-09-19 12:07

      But fortunately not in South Africa where gay people have been getting married legaly since 2006. What gets me though; is that of all the people who should understand what it is like to be oppressed, black people should understand and be more empathetic towards gay people. But no, you learnt nothing from apartheid did you?

  • jacqui.daanevanrensburg - 2012-09-19 11:45

    Just another down under primitive.

  • oompie69 - 2012-09-19 11:52

    The phsyical aspect of same-gender sex will always remain contentious but is always either ignored or down-played.This is the crux of the matter not the legal implications at all.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-09-19 12:33

      Clearly the legal implications are the biggest hurdle. Most countries which still outlaw same-sex marriage do not outlaw same-sex intercourse.

  • oompie69 - 2012-09-19 12:00

    I rest my case.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-09-19 12:34

      You didn't make one.

  • ludlowdj - 2012-09-19 12:16

    The loudest objectors were busy pushing their sheep under the table as the screamed in outrage - 2012-09-19 14:17

      Ludlowdj - hahaha I must admit that was funny.

      SarcasticAgnostic - 2012-09-19 14:25

      There is nothing funny about raping a sheep. - 2012-09-19 14:44

      SarcasticHeathen - I know, its just the way he said it, satire.

  • debra.bekker - 2012-09-19 16:01

    Oh ffs!! What a moron!!

  • colin.wheat.3 - 2012-09-20 00:03

    The biological (natural) purpose of sex is reproduction - producing children. It leads to the continuation of the species. Relationships supporting such reproduction (heterosexual relationships) are thus extremely important to society. Easily considered very normal indeed. The legal definition of Marriage reflects this, and also helps define the framework within which children are nurtured to maturity - called family. Same sex unions, relationships, and related associations are also fully legal, and also are afforded all the same rights and financial benefits by government and society. Such sexual unions do not however produce children, and so to that extent are irrelevant. So far as heterosexual unions are very normal as a biological fact, other types of unions including homosexual ones are not. Bestiality of course is another activity that must equally be understood as other than normal in this context. The majority of Australians understand these simple facts, and believe that the legal Marriage definition should stand as is, representing the specific meaning of the term - targeting male-female unions that will possibly produce children. What the gay minority choose to do in privacy is their own concern and their own decision. They'll live with the consequences, it's their right. What they need to understand, is that no matter how loudly they shout, other people also have the right to choose and believe as they wish. Demanding otherwise is just rude and obnoxious.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-09-20 08:47

      Firstly Colin, it's fallacious to simply lump bestiality and gay marriage into the 'not normal' basket. You are equivocating a mutual, consenting relationship with a sexual paraphilia involving the rape and/or sexual abuse of animals, who cannot give informed consent. By making the same narrow-minded comparison as the senator, you are effectively declaring your wish for same sex marriage to be criminalized, or are you in fact suggesting bestiality should be legalized? You also neglect to consider that same sex couples can adopt children who may otherwise not flourish, or even make it past a few years old, should they remain in 'the system', offering them a good chance at a happy, productive life they would otherwise not have enjoyed, because their heterosexual parent/s abandoned them for whatever reason.

      colin.wheat.3 - 2012-09-20 15:59

      Bob.Cee123 - Where science and biology based reproduction is considered "natural" and natural is considered "normal", obviously all other (non-heterosexual) unions are something other than that. That's no comparison of homosexuality and bestiality. Simple point of science and logic. I'm certainly not advocating criminalization or legalization. The "gay-rights" minority is however loudly pushing for changes to legal definitions of Marriage. That's a concern, because major ramifications exist for our society from such changes, and they are not being discussed or honestly faced. Quoting prominent gay writer Masha Gessen: ‘It is a lie to say the institution of marriage won’t change (by the addition of same sex couples) … We want to abolish marriage.’ Quoting Labor’s John Murphy: "Effectively, it would make marriage meaningless." Quoting advocate for homosexual marriage former High Court Justice Michael Kirby: "if you can abolish the most important pre-condition of marriage – namely that it requires a person of each sex – why should you be able to retain other pre-conditions, such as limiting it to only two people?" As Senator Cory Bernardi (bravely) attempted to point out, we really need to have a look at where such a path could eventually lead us. Bob.Cee123 - Surely you're not serious - you have a problem with animal abuse, while at the same time taking a supporting stance for an attack on Children's human rights to an upbringing by their biological mother and father?

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-09-20 17:13

      Paragraph 1 - Reproduction, or the potential to reproduce is not what this is all about. If it was, your logic would then also classify heterosexual married couples who choose not to have children yet are perfectly fertile, as 'not-normal' along with homosexuals and bestialsts. Hey, the couple have the potential to contribute to the human race, yet chose not to. In your eyes this seems to be as bad as a billionaire choosing not to pay tax, simply because he is opposed to it. Paragraph 2 - Please list these 'major ramifications' and explain the effect they will have on heterosexual married couples. Quote 1 - So, Masha Gessen says she wants to do something and now the dastardly pink plot to overthrow the world and gay everybody up has been revealed. Quote 2 - Qualify John Murphy's statement. He said it, but did he back it up? I refer back to Paragraph 2. Quote 3 - Fallacious slippery slope argument. Next it's dog's, cats, fish, inanimate objects, words, elements, yada yada yada...... Re Cory Bernardi - He made a bigoted, erroneous comparison and it rightfully cost him his job. No bravery involved Re yours and my last paragraphs (Homosexual couples adopting children) - You have woefully misinterpreted me, wilfully it seems, to imply that I indicated that children should be somehow forcibly removed from their parents and placed with gay couples. This is the only way you could accuse me of supporting an attack on childrens rights to an upbringing by their biological parents.

      colin.wheat.3 - 2012-09-21 22:54

      A biological thus scientific orientation is not just a valid viewpoint for these issues, it's probably the most relevant and unbiased one possible. It's very relevant because the legal definition of Marriage is about reproduction – it's specifically all about the children. From a biological perspective heterosexual unions are “normal” and other types are not. This places for instance homosexuality & bestiality in very much the same boat. Simple science & very valid appraisal – certainly not bigotry or erroneous. Note that whether any particular heterosexual union couple actually chooses to have children or not is irrelevant – it does not change the union type classification. Senator Cory Bernardi stood up and exercising his right to free speech, defended his personal beliefs, at possible risk to his career and no matter the cost. He believed it was that important. Whether or not we agree with his views and beliefs, in a very Australian way, he deserves our respect and admiration. The way he has been treated however, by those who apparently have issue with his views is frankly disgraceful. Shame homosexual lobby, shame. The “legal definition of Marriage” is the METHOD of law that provides 1) a parental legal RIGHT to bring-up biological offspring, and 2) a parental legal OBLIGATION to do so. As such, the most important and integral component is it's primary requirement of one male gender partner and one female gender party – a husband and wife.

      colin.wheat.3 - 2012-09-21 22:56

      To add same gender couples to the definition is the logical equivalent of removing the requirement for one of each gender. This would render the definition as no longer defining a biologically reproducible couple. That's a big problem with as I pointed out - major ramifications. Now the provided RIGHTS & OBLIGATIONS of married couples can come into question. The effect is to change the legal weight of the definition. If you move it just a little further away from a male-female pair by for instance, making Marriage allow groups, most of the legal power is gone – and as suggested – all but effectively meaningless. The state could then for instance more easily claim the legal right to your children. That's just one aspect to consider. There are many. Bob.Cee123 you'll need to conduct your own research into both the legal aspects of Marriage, and also (surprisingly) the aims and goals of the minority homosexual lobby. I'd assumed you had some idea of what it is that you're supporting. When discussing changes to the legal definition of Marriage – affecting our potential rights to our biological off-spring, a minority group who by definition will NEVER have biological off-spring, are probably NOT the people we should be listening too, and are NOT a group who we should expect would have strong views or be overly vocal on the topic. :) Silence would be golden in this case. Rude obnoxious people are best when quiet, and at worst need be ignored. Such is life.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-09-22 19:20

      Colin, you insist on perpetuating this monochromatic misconception regarding what's normal and what's not. It is you, Colin, who requires some quiet time to think about that. Especially when you support someone who so blatantly misinterprets the definition of consent, in his comment "There are even some creepy people out there... [who] say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?". The naïveté in the above quote, coming from a senator, simply escapes me. Also, who said anything about groups? I was clear enough in my previous post that your slippery slope argument is fallacious. Also, there are laws which allow the state to assume responsibility of your children, and for good reason. Why would such a clause creep into the new definition. That's just like saying that we should ban organ donation because the state could one day change the law to allow them to harvest your organs while you're still alive. Parental rights can survive a divorce, so I think they can survive the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples. Get off the slippery slope, Colin, it's no good for your blood pressure. I just love your smugly arrogant 'silence would be golden' comment, juxtaposed against your support of Cory Bernardi's rights to 'free speech'. Priceless!!!! You, sir, need to research the definition and classification of paraphilias, of which bestiality is one, and homosexuality certainly is not.

      Bob.Cee123 - 2012-09-23 08:59

      @ Colin - and as for your paranoia about widespread disintegration of 'societal mores' upon the slight redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples, checks and balances would obviously be implemented if any justifiable slippery slope argument becomes evident. Until now, all you have offered is a sexist, bigoted, fallacious slippery slope arguments. Does the thought of a gay or lesbian couple adopting and raising a child, fully aware of their parental responsibilities, frighten you so much? Legal minds have faced and solved far bigger challenges than this throughout history, so figuring out a couple of little issues which arise regarding who's responsible for what would be both interesting for the lawyers and beneficial for the children who the same sex couples raise. Your diatribe and its paranoid tone are like someone who, upon hearing about laws implementing requirements to accommodate wheelchairs on buses and trains, resists the new laws because they think all the seats on the buses and trains will subsequently be removed because hey, people on wheelchairs bring their own seat and after all, who cares about those who can stand?

  • pages:
  • 1