Can Parliament sit again?

If so (advice from anyone who actually knows the rules would be helpful), it should. I assume this would require an election date later than 14 September but I don’t see a problem with that. A

In general terms, the democratic process would be improved by a chance to see the aspirants to the Prime Ministership present their case to the Parliament. The public is entitled to ask for a decent look at the new improved Kevin Rudd, and also for Abbott to present a positive alternative, rather than coasting to victory on the basis of negative views about the incumbent, as was his plan until yesterday.

More specifically, there are a number of issues where Rudd ought to put forward legislation.

One of the most important is equal marriage. Abbott is fudging on the question of a free vote, and Rudd ought to force him to take a stand. He should say that the vote will be either free on both sides, or party-line on both sides. Since the majority of Labor members voted for equal marriage last time, a party-line measure would mean equal marriage passing both houses.

A number of the other suggestions I’ve made, such as increasing Job Search Allowance would need legislation. That would be much better than having them as campaign promises, since it would put the onus on Abbott to endorse them or commit to repeal.

62 thoughts on “Can Parliament sit again?

  1. @Ken Fabian
    no, rudd can obviously rely on Katter/Wilkie/Greens/Slipper/Thomson which is enough to maintain confidence. If the libs could get a no confidence motion up they’d have done it last thursday

  2. Hi All,

    Further to my at posts; 4, 11, 27 & 42

    Allowing gay marriages to have marriage equality on par with normal marriages could be problematic, especially when children are involved.

    There is an elephant in the room in this debate that needs to be considered and that is; should gay couples be allowed to have kids?

    “An Australian man has been sentenced to 40 years in prison in the United States for trafficking his adopted son to a global paedophile network….

    Police say the man and his gay partner travelled the world with the child, allowing at least eight men in several different countries, including Australia, the US, Germany and France to molest the boy when he was aged between just two and six years old.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-29/man-jailed-trafficking-adopted-son-paedophile-ring/4789730

    As there are millions more childless heterosexual couples wanting to adopt children than there are children to adopt, should we even be considering changing the marriage laws to make it easier for gay couples to adopt?

    Kind regards,

    phoenix

  3. @phoenix
    This could conceivably be an issue on a planet where opposite-sex couples never abuse or exploit their children (adopted or biological). On this planet, there’s no evidence that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to abuse or exploit children.

  4. @ Phoenix:

    Wow. For somebody who apparently isn’t a troll you do a terribly good impression of one.

    There is no evidence that men who are sexually attracted to other men are any more likely to sexually abuse children than men who are sexually attracted to women. A significant proportion of child molesters have no interest in adult sexual relationships of any type.

    The American Psychological Association states it flatly: “Heterosexual and gay men are equally likely to sexually abuse children. A perception that most perpetrators are gay men is a myth and harmful stereotype.”

    Here is an overview of the relevant literature by a UC Davis psychology professor (a resource you could easily have found yourself, if you were interested in informing yourself rather than posing offensive rhetorical questions): http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html.

  5. Hi J-D & Luke,

    I am not trolling; maybe my life experiences give me a greater insight into this issue and put me closer to it, than would normally be the case. So I need to speak up for and to the silent majority.

    No one is saying “opposite-sex couples never abuse or exploit their children” in fact they do more, because as a proportion of the population, they number more.

    “On this planet, there’s no evidence that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to abuse or exploit children.”

    “Three kinds of scientific evidence point to the proportion of homosexual molestation: 1) survey reports of molestation in the general population, 2) surveys of those caught and convicted of molestation, and 3) what homosexuals themselves have reported. These three lines of evidence suggest that the 1%-to-3% of adults who practice homosexuality (3) account for between a fifth and a third of all child molestation.”

    The disturbing fact is that if about 2% of the population is gay and if (that) 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as socially and personally troubling as child molestation, something must be desperately wrong with that 2%. Not every homosexual is a child molester. But enough gays do molest children so that the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual.

    http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/child-molestation-and-homosexuality-2/

    Considering gay marriage is not prevalent in society yet and priests have not been allowed to marry, there seems to be a pattern of abuse emerging that supplements the above evidence:

    “My adoptive dad abused me for years but social workers ignored my complaints because he’s gay”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300779/My-adoptive-dad-abused-years-social-workers-ignored-complaints-hes-gay.html

    “Lombard, who is gay, is accused of inviting an undercover officer to have sex with his adopted 5-year-old son”
    http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5466526/

    http://www.rpvnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/gay-adoption-horror-duke

    “They took turns raping me’: New claims of child sex abuse revealed as gay couple accused of molesting two of their 9 adopted children withdraw guilty plea and decide to go to trial “

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305125/Gay-couple-accused-molesting-9-adopted-children-withdraw-guilty-plea-decide-trial-fight-allegations.html

    “at least eight men in several different countries, including Australia, the US, Germany and France to molest the boy when he was aged between just two and six years old.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-29/man-jailed-trafficking-adopted-son-paedophile-ring/4789730

    “The twins were videoed naked by Faunch, a third boy was involved in sexual activities with both men, and a fourth was touched by Faunch.
    Their victims included a 14-year-old boy with Asperger’s syndrome, who had a mental age of seven and was forced by Wathey to watch explicit gay pornography.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1522158/Gay-couple-jailed-for-abusing-their-foster-children.html

    As a reaction to this increase in abuse, India and Russia have recently banned adoption and surrogacy to gay couples.

    http://rt.com/politics/foreign-couples-sex-same-863/

    http://world.time.com/2013/02/15/why-people-are-angry-about-indias-new-surrogacy-laws/

    Regurgitated Krudd should call for a conscience vote on gay marriage and its adoption/ surrogacy implications. MPs need to way up gay rights verses children’s rights.

    Kind regards,

    phoenix

  6. @phoenix

    I provided you with a link explaining the consensus view among psychologists and documenting the peer-reviewed research that is the basis for that view. In turn you present work by the Family Research Institute, a right-wing Christian think tank committed to “restor[ing] a world where…homosexuality is not taught and accepted, but instead is discouraged and rejected at every level”.

    The think tank is run by a psychologist, Paul Cameron, who has been expelled by the American Psychological Association over ethics breaches, and been publicly criticised by three other professional bodies for misrepresenting research. Here is what the American Sociological Association’s Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology had to say about his work: “It does not take great analytical abilities to suspect from even a cursory review of Cameron’s writings that his claims have almost nothing to do with social science and that social science is used only to cover over another agenda. Very little of his work could find support from even a bad misreading of genuine social science investigation on the subject and some sociologists, such as Alan Bell, have been ‘appalled’ at the abuse of their work.”

    Of course, the link I provided you with carefully dissects the Family Research Institute’s work, and I can’t help but wonder whether that is how you came across it. The link does a far more thorough job demonstrating why the Family Research Institute’s work is nonsense than I could in a blog comment, and since you either have chosen to ignore it, or cannot understand it, I see no point in me trying to convince you.

    However, I will briefly explain, for the benefit of anyone else reading this exchange, why the Family Research Institute’s work is erroneous. It is true that the percentage of child sex abuse that is committed by men against boys rather than girls exceeds the percentage of the male population that identifies as homosexual. However, the vast majority of child sex abuse is committed by (a) men who are completely or predominantly heterosexual with respect to their adult sexual relationships, or (b) have no interest in adult sexual relationships. Only a small percentage of child sex abuse is committed by (c) men who are homosexual with respect to their adult sexual relationships. When you compare groups (a) and (c), and the percentages of heterosexual and homosexual men in society, it becomes clear that homosexual men are no more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men. It follows logically that screening out men on the basis that they engage in homosexual relationships with other men does nothing to prevent child sex abuse.

    Phoenix, let me make a further point. You are deluded in thinking that you are speaking for a silent majority. You are speaking for a minority who oppose gay rights (see my comment at 46), a minority which includes a significant component, including the organisation you use to try to buttress your case, who propagate or believe nonsense about gay men wanting to use paedophilia in order to convert children to homosexuality, the lunacy of which should be obvious to any thinking person. In relying on the work of Cameron, who believes that homosexuality should be criminalised, you’ve moved a long way from the position you adopted earlier, that “[i]f gay people want to live together as a couple with equal rights the same as a heterosexual couple, I do not have a problem with that”.

    And that’s it from me. I don’t believe it is fruitful to continue the discussion any further.

  7. Do you have a spam issue on this blog; I also am a
    blogger, and I was wondering your situation; many of us have created some nice procedures and we are looking to exchange
    techniques with other folks, why not shoot me an e-mail if interested.

  8. Hi Luke,

    Yes, we have said all that needs to be said on this issue so I will end our conversation on this note.

    I do not agree with a lot of the views of Paul Cameron. For example I agree with equal rights for gays and he wants to revert back to the 1970’s, when homosexuality was illegal. But when statistics are involved, I let the figures speak for themselves.

    That being said, I hold the rights of the innocent, people who cannot fend for themselves and children over and above the rights of gays and or anyone else in the community (gay or not) for that matter.

    The only problem I can see with deeming homosexual relationships as truly equal to heterosexual ones, is when children are wanted to be equated into the relationship.

    You agree with Paul Cameron as you have stated “It is true that the percentage of child sex abuse that is committed by men against boys rather than girls exceeds the percentage of the male population that identifies as homosexual”. i.e “that the 1%-to-3% of adults who practice homosexuality account for between a fifth and a third of all child molestation.”

    According to Paul Cameron’s figures that you do not dispute, the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual. By allowing homosexuals to become foster-parents or adopt children; increases the risk of molestation to those children by the same degree.

    I am not against equal rights for homosexuals, but as stated above, the safety and rights of children surpass the rights of the gay community and as such, a gay marriage can never be totally equal with a heterosexual one; as this would expose children to an increased risk of molestation if gay couples are also allowed to become foster-parents or adopt children.

    Gays should be allowed to marry, but extra safeguards would need to be legislated in the event they wanted to become foster-parents, adopt or have surrogate children.

    Kind regards,

    phoenix

  9. @phoenix
    Since all you have said in response to Luke is to repeat information which is a distortion of the truth, in ways that Luke has already explained, I will only add that the technical error in your argument is the fallacy of equivocation, which reduces the merit of your case to nil.

  10. I haven’t been following this thread, but it’s time to close it off. Nothing more please.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s