In yet another case of Trial by media, Cory Bernardi was hounded for his speech because he mentioned Bestiality in the same speech as Gay marriage. Let me just state what Mr Bernardi actually said: “The next step [after gay marriage] is having three people that love each other enter into a permanent union endorsed by society, or four people,” said Bernardi, a member of the Liberal Party. “There are even some creepy people out there, who say that it’s okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?”
This is not an analogy on Gay marriage, it is actually a logical argument about where we draw the line. He made it clear their were sick people out there that say bestiality is ok.
There is also a little matter of, and please don’t attack the messenger here, Corey Bernardi living in/representing South Australia. A story as recent as 05 July 2012, where two women who have confessed to bestiality committed the crime out of sexual naivety, a forensic psychologist says.
In the Adelaide District Court , evidence was submitted about their activity in the two months leading to her November 2009 arrest for having sex with a dog.
A Female, 53, her husband, 51, and another woman, 58, have pleaded guilty to one count each of bestiality.
This made the news regularly in South Australia, so for Mr Bernardi to have thought of this on the spur of the moment was as a result of a current case in his home state. Not necessarily to do with any similarity between Gay Marriage and Bestiality.
In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers’ Dearest Pet: On Bestiality’, Singer (former Greens Party state founder and senate candidate) argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. This position is countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children.
Commenting on Singer’s article “Heavy Petting,”. in which he argues that zoo sexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animal rights group PETA, argued that, “If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it’s great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn’t exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong.”
Singer believes that although sex between species is not normal or natural, it does not constitute a transgression of our status as human beings, because human beings are animals or, more specifically, “we are great apes”.
According to philosopher Helga Kuhse, Singer is “almost certainly the best-known and most widely read of all contemporary philosophers”. Michael Specter wrote that Singer is among the most influential of contemporary philosophers
On 11 June 2012, Singer was named an Companion of the Order of Australia for “eminent service to philosophy and bioethics as a leader of public debate and communicator of ideas in the areas of global poverty, animal welfare and the human condition.”
However, this week, this month and this year Corey Bernardi was unjustly booted from his position as Shadow Parliamentary Secretary due to a comment that was not as offensive and not as shocking as Peter Singer’s comments on Bestiality. In fact Mr Bernardi heard former opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull, had described Senator Bernardi’s comments as “hysterical”, “alarmist” and “offensive”, in what can be only another opportunity to embarrass Mr Abbott.
The truth is it is not Mr Bernardi’s speech that is hysterical, alarmist or offensive, it is the reaction of people like Mr Turnbull that have another agenda in embarrassing the Opposition Leader. This has only shown the truth behind the lack of calibre of Malcolm Turnbull.
And the Federal Government rewarded Mr Singer for his comments condoning Bestiality in certain circumstances by making him a Companion of the Order of Australia.
I feel it is time Tony Abbott used the aggression that he is accused of having to put Malcolm Turnbull into the back benches and to reinstate Corey Bernardi as he had in fact not said anything wrong.
wombatwal or Malcolm Turnbull or whoever you are, the only hysterics are from the people looking to restrict freedom of speech. We all know Mr Bernardi does not support gay marriage, but he is stating a change to what is currently accepted as marriage would leave it open to attacks from other groups as well. Only the sickest or most Creepy of minds could then tie this into an attack on Gay marriage instead.
wombatwal I made that sarcastic comparison after your use of hysterical. Not because I thought you were him.
The LNP have nothing to do with this, they don’t exist in most states and the Coalition is made up of the Liberal and the National, not the LNP.
Countering the Gay marriage bill is simple, marriage is between a woman and a man it is that simple and the vote went the same way a referendum would go.
If this was about marriage between 2 women and a man, the same argument would have been used, he would have said the same except the swap between the 2 groups. this was never an attack on Gay Marriage, this was about protecting the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. To change it for any one group, would mean you would be forced to accept other groups also.
That is another issue and one that has been addressed , however What Bernardi said was “The next step [after gay marriage] is having three people that love each other enter into a permanent union endorsed by society, or four people,” said Bernardi, a member of the Liberal Party. “There are even some creepy people out there, who say that it’s okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?”
It was in two parts he said the next step was Polyamory. He then said People marrying animals will that be a future step. No matter how people spin this it is not comparing this to Gay marriage. Of course he could have said adult marrying a child and would have got a bigger reaction. Although this is in fact happening already in some cultures. This is really just an anthill and yet certain groups want to make a mountain out of it to help them have their views thrust on us all. Of course you are entitled to believe what you want, however get the facts straight before you accuse someone of something they just did not say. The argument is not juvenile it is in fact relevant, as I am sure the first push should Gay marriage get through will be for Polyamoral relationships will want the right to marry also, if you allow 2 men or 2 women to marry, how can you stop 2 men and a woman, 3 men, 3 women and 1 man and so on, they would have just as valid a right to get married, and this will open the flood gates to many more fringe groups as marriage will have no real meaning after that. It would be the saddest day of all as you will see 2 men and a woman get married have a child, and the child grows up with it being right for this style of relationship. The slope is a lot more slippery than you may think.
I won’t go over the first part of the reply as it is just another circuit we would run. However, You also said
“To change it for any one group, would mean you would be forced to accept other groups also.”
I can’t agree, how do you rationalise this. There are standards and laws in this country that forbid, polygamy, bestiality, marrying children, and any other configuration of marriage that you would like to manufacture.
One of these is also a standard and law that forbid same sex marriageso how can you justify that allowing same sex marriage will NOT then lead to the marriage of 3 people, 4 people, or even a Commune or bestiality. Be sensible, there is no difference between same sex marriage and a polygamous marriage, as they are both currently banned and if 2 men or 2 women are allowed to marry then any combination of animals would have to be allowed.