I’ve often thought that in politics, the signature of honesty is not lack of dishonesty – an impossibility in party politics – but a certain discomfort with the the lies you have to tell. I’m giving Joe the benefit of the doubt on this one. And good on you Penny for your dignity in the midst of indignity.
I found “Kin Hell, By George Monbiot” interesting. I haven’t studied this topic so I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the claims, but interesting nonetheless.
Indeed. The look of great pain on Hockey’s face revealed much about his humanity. As Dennis Altman has said on The Conversation site today:
Hockey’s discomfort also illustrates why marriage equality must be a conscience vote when it comes before the Parliament later this year. The level of personal investment in this issue means that to force parliamentarians to vote one way or another would be an act of egregious brutishness.
The whole premise of the question, which Joe did not contradict, was that Joe is not in favour of gay marriage because you believe children need a mother and a father. How are the two related? Gays and straights can have children now without being married. This just reinforces my view that Joe has a below average IQ.
Opposition to gay marriage seems like a real “just because”. But I think we have to accept that a generally conservative electorate will take some time to finish moving on it and politicians are followers before they are leaders.
Isn’t the electorate well and truly in favour but held back (sigh) by a couple of marginal Bible Belt electorates in Western Sydney?
IIRC, about 80% of people are in favour. Maybe you can correct me here, but I note that the majority of people in the US are now supportive.
In fact, if there was bipartisan support for this, it just wouldn’t be a political issue it all. Funny little bit of game theory there! But instead poor old Joe has to go and say something he doesn’t believe to a country that doesn’t agree with his stated position. For what? Product differentiation?
*at all
I haven’t seen the figures, but my sense is that pollies need a real push on social change. It’s not just the libs.
It certainly isn’t ‘just the libs’!! Julia’s red-hot support for gay marriage is well documented.
And just for the record has anyone asked Rudd for his view? I’d love to get that on the record, especially if he managed to work Shorten and Arbib into the answer with some real PJK-style venom :)
The polls and parliamentary submissions uniformly come in at ~65% public support for gay marriage.
Chris, yes they can both adopt children.
However it is only gays where one ‘partner’ has to be unfaithful to actually have a child. There is only one parent. The other can do bugger all.
not like heterosexuals eh!
Joe was uncomfortable but not because he was not telling the truth. It might just be the topic!
You ok there homer?
You supporting Sloppy Joe?
You are against same sex marriage because gays aren’t heterosexual?
Yes FXH I am supporting Joe.
I am not a trendy
Given that it’s not clear that Joe is supporting Joe, I’m sure he appreciates your sentiment, or maybe not.
I can’t see how you can say that.
It looks pretty clear what he is saying and why he is saying it.
Actually, it’s conjecture, unless you have some claim to the truth that the rest of us don’t (which I’m fairly certain is not the case).
Dan,
the video is pretty easy to look at and listen to.
You are claiming Joe is saying something he doesn’t believe in.
You claim it shows this. I cannot see that.
Well the whole basis of Nick’s premise is conjecture
Well, if there’s a conscience vote we’ll see.