On Hanson
John Kotsopoulos writes: Re. “Hanson worries gay marriage plebiscite could lead to child marriage” (yesterday). Are we going to see over policy overreach result in another defeat snatched from the jaws of victory in the case of marriage equality? The only flimsy excuse the hard right, the Christian activists and others have against marriage equality seems tobe the use of the word marriage. If the LBGT community want equal legal recognition of same sex unions it can be achieved by providing for their recognition in an expanded Marriage Act that would be renamed the Marriage and Civil Partnerships Act.
Greyhound racing outrage, continued
Keith Binns writes: Re. “On greyhound racing bans” (yesterday). Couldn’t agree more with John Richardson. The inconsistency in what politicians and the media choose to get upset about is a constant source of annoyance. Yes, if greyhounds are being treated cruelly then that is an issue, of course, but I find the outrage about the number culled really weird. What about horse racing? Lots of horses are culled. What about the beef industry? Every single animal is killed. We eat sheep, don’t we? Why choose to get upset about greyhounds and not cows? And when something is really obviously awful, like children in detention being sexually abused, very few people seem to care and certainly not the Premier. Do we really think dogs are more important than children? The Australian value system gets weirder and weirder.
“We eat sheep, don’t we? Why choose to get upset about greyhounds and not cows?”
There is a vast difference between killing animals that don’t live up to our expectations for entertainment and killing animals for food.
Those animals bred for food deserve to be treated with the greatest respect and dispatched in the most humane manner, as they are giving up their lives for our’s. (Which as an aside, is why the whole export of live animals is abhorrent, as despite the industry claiming otherwise, there is scant evidence that the humane slaughter of the exported animals can be gauranteed.)
Animals bred for greyhound or horse racing are bred purely for our “enjoyment” – there is no comparison with breeding for food, and frankly it’s a weak straw man argument to suggest otherwise.
“There is a vast difference…” No there isn’t, they are ALL still dead…the type of animal and what it is used for, is irrelevant!
I agree with Keith.
John Kotsoupolos, the proposition that same-sex marriage could be known by another name (e.g. “civil union” etc.) has been well-aired in this country and elsewhere over many years and has been more or less roundly rejected, even if there are states that have created legislation to give effect to such arrangements – themselves often fallback positions. Not only has it been rejected by the LGBTI community (whenever and however that ‘community’ has been ‘asked’), it has been rejected by the mainstream community. The word ‘marriage’ does not belong only to people who are married and the so-called institution of marriage will never be defined by the people who believe they are members of it. We all, married or not, own marriage. Many, if not most of us, want marriage to be open to all, two at a time. We don’t want two tiers or two names, we just want the bloody parliament to do its job and change the legislation so that anyone who wants to be married can be married, regardless of their gender. If our polity can’t get their shit together, we shouldn’t change the word, we should change politicians.
Hugh…+100%!!