Conflating the issues
THE EDITORIAL in The DA on September 15 was a strangely misleading and partisan attempt to confuse the issues in the same-sex marriage plebiscite.
It describes the proposed plebiscite as “political sleight of hand” and a “Trojan horse” when the idea has been around and well-known for at least a year. There is nothing hidden about it.
The article continues by stating a greatly inflated financial cost to the community, by considering the PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis as the yardstick.
This document was widely and effectively debunked and discredited by many eminent and senior economists and financial commentators at the time, and has since disappeared from consideration.
The current stated costs are far smaller and, together with the proposed funding for both sides of the debate, will only cost $12 per elector. This is a very small price for every elector being able to register their opinion on a fundamental issue in our society.
The emotional conflations of suicides, “false and belittling commentary”, vilification, a “campaign of vitriol”, and “vocal bigotry”, are simply inflammatory rhetorical devices.
There is as much of this sort of verbiage from the same-sex partisans, especially against the churches and their followers.
The claim that “some people are born gay” is wrong.
Science demonstrates clearly that people are born with a sexual reality: male, female, intersex.
This is permanently in their DNA and defines their physical reality. Gender is a human psychological construct which describes their personal attitudes towards sex.
Sex is neither chosen nor fluid, even though gender has been described in this way.
If the editorial line in The DA wishes to promote the proposed changes to our familiar understandings of “marriage”, it will have to confront the realities in all our discussions.
Wrong on all counts
THE EDITORIAL “Plebiscite a dangerous and divisive step” in The DA this week asks for strong comment.
You state that “in a piece of political sleight of hand, PM Malcolm Turnbull has turned what should have been a straightforward conscience vote into an expensive and deeply divisive public vote.” Wrong.
Malcolm Turnbull was elected Prime Minister in part of the basis of a plebiscite on this issue, and as a result he was given the mandate for this plebiscite.
You state “this plebiscite is a Trojan horse, a way for Mr Turnbull to appease the conservative fringes of his party.” Wrong.
He did not appease anyone because he committed himself to the plebiscite prior to his election.
Then you state “but there’s little doubt that the gay community will bill subjected to months of false and belittling commentary.”
This is a presumptuous statement, unnecessarily stirring anti-gay sentiments.
You state: “Expect the upcoming plebiscite debate to be dominated by opinion over fact and provide a platform for vocal bigotry.”
It is presumptuous and wrong to tell people to expect something that is negative.
You then say: “Most people, regardless of their political persuasion, accept love cannot be defined by gender boundaries.” Wrong.
This is just biased thinking. How do you know what most people think?
No one knows what most people think and that’s exactly why we have a plebiscite.
Please write your editorials based on facts, not on presumptuous thoughts or contradictory statements.