"Tim's Gay" - The Problem with the Sattler and Gillard Exchange

Let me start by declaring my biases:

I think Howard Sattler is a complete moron (I would love to insert a string of expletives to decorate my description of his character, but I think it would detract from the simplicity of the sheer facts), who loves trying to get a reaction from people by peddling his biggotted dark ages views on 6PR. I think its very sad that he has an audience, as it indicates that there are more people who share his ridiculous views.

I think Julia Gillard is an intelligent and articulate woman. I think she has been treated atrociously as a woman, as a Prime Minister, and as a human being, since she has was appointed, then re-elected PM. 

I am a liberally minded voter i.e. not conservative, though that does not mean I necessarily support her or her political party in all their policies and actions. As an atheist, I whole heartedly disagree with her current stance against same sex marriage, as I see any policy against anyone consenting adult being able to choose what relationships they are in, and how they wish to have that recognised, or their right to legally recognised unions should be the same as any other person- as discriminatory; pandering to the conservatives and the churches. 

I was also highly underwhelmed by the proposal to redirect asylum seekers who arrive by boat to Malaysia, not quite as appalled as I am by the "turn back the boats" farce being proposed by the other side but... hang on... getting right off track- that's a rant for another day.

Sattler, in his radio show, which has now been suspended from airing (for the sake of society- axe him permanently, please!), has chosen to revisit "Myths rumours and lies" about the Prime Minister in an interview with her. The whole interview can be seen here (although I warn you that your IQ may be depleted by osmosis in proximity to this lower pressure zone by even having listened to his utter drivel):  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-13/prime-minister-questioned-whether-partner-is-gay/4752998

I could go into the whole conversation, how inflammatory it is to bring up any myths about  Ms Gillard to her face, regardless of the nature of them, and his clear intent to try and get a negative reaction or embarrass her, how well she did at staying calm etc, but that's not my point today. 

What I think everyone is missing,  is why saying "Tim's a hairdresser, therefore he's gay" should be insulting at all. From the Prime Minister's perspective, there is the insinuation that her relationship is ingenuine, but that's a very superficial suggestion. What Sattler is suggesting (or echoing the suggestion of) is that being gay is somehow a bad thing. 

It is reiterating the immature, bigotted notion that "you're gay" is an insult, and that there is something inherently "wrong"with approximately 10% of the world's population who primarily prefer same sex partners which they should feel embarrassed about or ashamed of.

In a way I thank Sattler for showing people his true self, and how these views are still alive and well to the point where they are thought by some to be entertaining radio. By showing us all how hateful and absurd these views are, we can have the conversation openly about how preposterous small minded zealots like Sattler are, and how vulgar we find it when people like him spread their prejudices. 

Things that shit me #12- Doctors for the Family

In the news this week, a group who call themselves "Doctors for the Family" have been noted to be campaigning against gay marriage.

http://www.doctors4family.com.au/

The listed aim of the site is: "highlight the health aspects of marriage and family and ensure a healthy future for our children".

This site, and every release which has come out quoting them has been incredibly anti gay. I consider them a hate-group. Aside from the basics, like having absolutely no credible evidence other than "I'm a doctor and I say so" and other such self-aggrandising crap (which only really evidences their over-inflated senses of self-importance, nothing more), let's have a think about their position.

The website lists its leader as the recently vocal Dr Lachlan Dunjey- a Perth GP and a right-to-life campaigner who has run as a Senate candidate for the Christian Democratic Party in multiple elections.

As a GP, Dr Dunjey is well qualified to diagnose the difference between laryngitis and tonsilitis, to prescribe medication for high blood pressure, and to write referals to specialists for more complex conditions. He is neither a psychologist, capable of assessing in depth psychological outcomes. Neither is he a sociologist who studies the patterns of people interacting in society in a way which would enable him to determine the long term trends and outcomes of peoples varying social circumstances, such as performance in school, psychological or emotional wellbeing, happiness, future income, etc. even if he were, to extrapolate someone's income, overall health etc as a measure of having had any circumstance other than hetero biological parents is absurd.

What about adopted children? Those raised by their grandparents, extended family or a single parent? Or even my own situation- being raised by my biological, heterosexual parents who remained married to each other for the duration of my childhood, yet managed to fuck me up substantially? Clearly, according to Dr Dunjey, an abusive-biological-and-marital-relationship-containing-two-traditional-genders must be better than sexuality or gender diverse parents who love and care for their children.

Dr Kerryn Phelps, former Australian Medical Association president, was quoted on www.abc.net.au/news as so beautifully describing his position as "extraordinary" and having a "breathtaking lack of reason".

Dr Kuruvilla George, of Victoria's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, has also signed a petition supporting the Doctors for the Family anti-gay-marriage campaign. Seemed somewhat more than slightly incongruous to me- Human Rights activist AND massively right wing bigoted hate campaigner...hmmm. The Victorian Attorney-General has defended his right to lobby against gay marriage, and this may be the case- he does have a right to voice an opinion.

It's the flawed logic (aside from the human element of treating people as equals blah blah) that's bugging me- how is gay marriage in any way directly related to someone's parenting worth? If gay marriage is his objection, then why extend this to parenting? Is he also insinuating that unwed parents in a long term stable union with a biological chil are also unfit parents? Somehow, the signing on the dotted line of a legal marriage contract and perhaps supplementing this activity by placing a circular band of alloyed metals around a digit must impass some power, deeming said individuals capable of great and powerful thing, my preciousssss?

Anyhow, my ranting begins to descend into ever-decreasing circles, but I think my point has been made, so I'll leave it here: A child needs love and support, it does not matter what combination of genitals the parents have.

Religious intolerance and homophobia

I was quite saddened at work the other day to hear a colleague discussing how she had "addressed" the issue of her 9 yr old son witnessing two men kissing in the street some weeks ago.

She had explained that while "we don't agree with what they do, and their choices, it doesn't mean they're bad people". My first question was regarding the "their choices" part- I asked "did you also explain that a lot of Australians (and indeed other countries) do not believe it is a choice at all, but how they are born, and part of a range of normal human existence?"

Her response "yes, well there is that, but it's not what our church teaches".

Me- "and you realise it's not what all churches believe or teach."

There is such an incredbile shame in any culture, religious or geographical, which encourages prejudice and indoctrinates youth to carry that discrimination in their hearts and minds. I would argue that an equally valid approach for such an institution to take would be teaching from the perspective that "God made us all in his image, a variety to express all the things he couldn't encapsulate in one being, but beautiful and loved equally.". Even the simple "what do you think?" would encourage free thinking individuals to come to their own conclusions, which if your ideology is the "correct" one, they will most probably align with.

What is it that they fear? Is it that they think everyone not marched into an orderly conformist queue, without which all will decide to go out and root someone of their own gender? Believe me, despite being athiest and experimenting some in my university days and early 20s, the lack of a religious based institution or the fear of "God's wrath" did not make me magically choose to be a lesbian- indeed I turned out 95% straight. Why 95%? I subscribe to the Kinseyan school of thought that everyone exists on a plane from 100% hetero to 100% homo- sexual and not bisexual as a 50-50%, but every distribution in between.

The world has enough fear and hatred already to put bounds on what love can comprise, and yes I do mean love, not lust, not an "i luv u" between teenage friends, passion or fleeting enamourment.