I’ve responded to every point laid out in the Greens’ radical vision for the future, and in some cases provided commentary on their tactics. The things they advocate may seem “insane” to you if this is the first exposure you’ve had to a battle in the ongoing culture wars. I urge you, though, not to dismiss them as the “Loony Left” any more. They represent the new standard. Their values are now the establishment’s values. To question this dogma in the public sphere can destroy your life. There are countless examples but the most prominent is the recent firing of James Damore by Google and the consequent smear campaign by establishment media.
To Dick Di Natale: good luck putting out the dumpster fire your “organisers” have started. You’re going to need it.
> My responses are formatted like this below every point made by Simon Copland and Joel Digman.
BEYOND MARRIAGE EQUALITY
Just one step in a long road
By Simon Copland
Marriage equality campaigns have gained huge support, and while you’d be forgiven for thinking the issue is the ‘final frontier’ of legal discrimination against LGBTIQ people, the reality is that trans*, gay, lesbian, bi, intersex, asexual and queer people face a range of different and varied forms of discrimination every day that have nothing to do with whether they’re single, partnered, married or widowed.
>Can you say, Slippery Slope? Let me rephrase his verbose sentence to the form most applicable to the topic at hand: ” the reality is that [ever-expanding list of victim groups] face [undefined] discrimination that has nothing to do with whether they’re married.”
LGBTIQ people continue to face discrimination in all aspects of life.
For example, young queer people in particular face ongoing pressure and discrimination, with the group facing significant mental health problems.
>So queer means non-LGBT, rather another altogether different group of individuals? Like this?
This is particularly true for trans* people, who face workplace discrimination (leading to higher unemployment rates than the rest of society), violence on the streets and in turn extremely high suicide rates.
>Who’d have thought believing you were “born in the wrong body” was mentally taxing?
Meanwhile, a recent Senate Inquiry has exposed that intersex people still face unnecessary and forced medical treatments, with doctors pursuing treatments to ‘correct’ their gender. The advocacy group, Organisation Intersex International told the committee that every single one of its members had experienced some form of coerced medical intervention.
>Here I can agree. Minors cannot consent to medical procedures. Which is the same reason I oppose gender reassignment in ANY form for minors, especially puberty-blocking hormone therapy.
Finally religious groups are able to discriminate against LGBTIQ people, denying people the rights to jobs and students the right to enter their schools.
>Wrong. They can’t. Every individual has equal legal status under the law. BAKE THE CAKE BIGOT!
Recent experience has also found Government funded school chaplains preaching highly homophobic material at schools.
>Wow. Chaplains preach? And the sermons perhaps disagree with same-sex relationships? I’m shocked. Do Islamic schools do this?? If this is a widespread problem, we really need to vet who we’re letting into this country.
It seems rather obvious to me that the stories of the trans* person who is bashed on the street, or the intersex person who has faced forced sterilisation, or the young gay or lesbian person who is considering suicide are just as important as the stories of those lesbian and gay people who are able to form stable enough relationships in order for them to get married.
>”Stories” should not matter. Facts should. On this point, though, Copland is correct. Unfortunately. Emotional appeals and constant self-victimisation are the most powerful tools LGBT activists use to guilt people into surrendering social and political capital, all while claiming the moral high-ground.
Yet these stories have taken a backseat as the marriage equality campaign appeals to mainstream society — and theoretically conservative politicians — in a way that ‘less palatable’ bodies and stories don’t.
>What you’re saying is we’re not focusing on the real fringe outliers ENOUGH?
It’s been a frustrating situation for campaigners for teen mental health improvements and deeper awareness of non-traditional gender identities and relationship configurations.
>You mean it’s been difficult to indoctrinate children to accept the abnormal as normal?
It is true that marriage has become an extremely important symbol and its passage would be seen by many as a significant milestone in indicating the willingness of the state to treat gay and lesbian people equally.
>The state already does. We’ve covered this.
Yet, unfortunately it is little more than a symbol. In Australia marriage equality actually has few practical impacts.
>Proving my point.
State-based de-facto legislation gives same-sex couples practically all of the same rights as their married straight counterparts.
>Again, proving my point.
So you’d have to hope that when marriage is passed, we could turn together as a movement to creating real life changes for LGBTIQ people.
>Translation: drive debate, activism, permissible discourse, and public policy even further left.
Unfortunately evidence suggests achieving this symbolic gain does not automatically mean progress in other areas.
In the United States for example same-sex couples can now marry in 37 states, with national equality due any time soon. Despite this, discrimination against LGBTIQ people is still rampant.
>That’s a Guardian article by notorious man-hating radical feminist Jessica Valenti containing anecdotes, not evidence of “rampant” discrimination.
Trans* people still face discrimination and violence, queer kids are still committing suicide, and conservative Governments are still moving to discriminate in any way they can. The same can be found all around the world.
> Citation needed.
How do we avoid the same challenges? We know that the only thing that will result in real progress for LGBTIQ people are concerted campaigns on these issues — ones that open up a more progressive debate about gender and sexuality rather than trying to confine us to being “normal”.
>Translation: In order to shove progressivism down the Australian public’s throat, we will continue to position the “abnormal” tiny minority as “normal”. Told you so.
For one thing, we need to shift a chunk of our energy and resources into these issues — committing strategy and planning now and ensuring we work heavily on these campaigns if and when marriage equality passes.
>No rest for the wicked.
Queer people continue to die on our streets and we simply cannot ignore that any longer.
>HAHAHAHAHAHA…sorry I’m not laughing at dying queers I’m laughing at you….CITATION NEEDED!!! “Die in our streets”…LMAO.
There are areas where the marriage equality campaign can provide the important momentum we need for these issues.
>The beginning of the Slippery Slope (which doesn’t exist, BIGOT!)
Marriage equality campaigns have built a lot of goodwill in recent years and we need to capitalise on that for future success. Yet at the same time we need to look at our messaging around marriage to see how it impacts the broader LGTBIQ community.
>Translation: We can bring more people under the umbrella and weaponise their identities (which we’ll make up).
Campaigners have unfortunately been accused at times of pushing other issues under the bus in order to succeed on this one front. Short-term success is sometimes put ahead of long-term gain. This needs to change, with us in particular looking at marriage as part of a broader campaign for LGBTIQ rights — one that requires a strong progressive debate about sexuality and gender identification.
>Translation: Forget about marriage. This is all about forcing the public to accept any and every sexual identity and behaviour.
Marriage has become an extremely important issue for LGBTIQ people.
>Except it’s not, as we just explained.
Yet it is just one step on a very very very long road. We should be thinking a lot more about the other issues facing our community — issues that cannot be ignored any longer.
>Translation: by “issues that cannot be ignored any longer” we mean “issues we can use to continue painting conservatives as bigots for the next three decades”.
Simon Copland is a member of the editorial board for Green Agenda.
It has energised the community
By Joel Dignam
On 22 October 2013, the ACT Legislative Assembly passed an act legalising same-sex marriage in the ACT. Promptly, 46 same-sex couples lodged papers to get married. The legal definition of marriage had expanded by a little bit, and same-sex couples came that little bit closer to full equality, in the eyes of both the law and society.
>Copland already admitted marriage really doesn’t do much more than current legislation, but a) 46 couples in the entire ACT is nothing to brag about and b) your desire to change society itself will never be fulfilled. Ever. That’s why anarcho-communists all around the world are turning to violence.
Eight weeks later, the High Court overturned the laws, meanwhile making it clear that the Federal Government can legislate for marriage equality.
>Against the wishes of the polis. But you don’t care about that, do you?
And indeed, we’ve never been closer federally to such legislation. However, just when success seems to be within our grasp in Australia, queer campaigners are beginning to question the validity of same-sex marriage as a campaign focus. “Are we fighting for the right thing?” we ask ourselves, “and — when this campaign is won — what then?”
>Answer: no you’re not and then you’ll move onto expanding the LGBT umbrella and further weaponising “alternative” identities.
I’m interested in the strategic thinking going on around this question, and the underlying assumptions about how change happens. Myself, I think there are many important issues facing queer people today.
>”…many important issues…”. Notice how Dignam remains vague any time he invokes LGBT special interests? He keeps them nebulous, undefined to appeal to the broadest possible audience of his heterogenous “movement” until such time as he needs to drive a political wedge or solicit donations. Then they will become very specific issues, i.e. HIV, mental health, etc etc
Marriage discrimination is just one of these. But if we are to think in terms of our ultimate objective as queer campaigners, then we should recognise that ‘equal love’ is a critical step.
>See how they’re already plotting to expand the front? This is obvious to anyone but they will still publicly deny any greater ambition than mere “equal love”.
This question is complicated because the queer movement is heterogeneous. Some queer people don’t give a rats about getting married.
>Nice to see them admit this.
Some same-sex attracted people don’t identify as queer, or as part of a movement.
>Not some. Most.
Some gay people may be privileged such that marriage is the only barrier between them and the mainstream — while others are struggling with questions of gender identity, or against barriers of race, class, or gender.
>Privilege theory is just reheated class conflict theory, the same Marxist intellectual cancer responsible for 100,000,000 deaths (excluding the bodies dropping in Venezuela right now). But suggest this to a progressive and they’ll retort with accusations of paranoia about “Reds under the bed”. When they do that, they’re either being extremely deceitful communists (like Safe Schools architect Roz Ward) or they’re too dumb to even cognise forces greater than they are and the role they play therein.
It doesn’t make sense to say that something as diverse and ineffable as the queer movement should focus on anything, let alone marriage equality.
>”Ineffable”. Don’t go outside, Dignam, your tickets will fall off. The queer movement is crystal clear in its motives and methods. It’s just that the majority of useful idiots are too stupid to know they’re being used.
Given this, it’s possible the noisy pursuit of marriage equality reflects power imbalances within queerdom.
Maybe a powerful cis-gendered minority is happy to dominate and further this dialogue only until they achieve their aims, meanwhile neglecting the many other issues and injustices.
>Cis-gendered = 99.97% of the population. I’d say that’s reason enough to “dominate the dialogue”.
Nonetheless, I feel that ending marriage discrimination will be a good thing for all these diverse groups in the queer movement.
>”I feel”. Everything comes down to feelings for the left. It’s how they manipulate both their proponents and opponents.
Doyen of organizing, Marshall Ganz, argues that campaigns are “the process through which your constituency organises itself to create the power they need to achieve their goals.”
>STUDY THIS MAN IF YOU WANT TO DEFEAT THE LEFT AND THEIR FILTHY TACTICS: Marshall Ganz. And remember, Obama was a humble community organiser. Do not underestimate these people in their lust for power.
The point of a campaign is less to solve everything, and more to build power to continue to achieve victories.
>See what I mean?
Legalising same-sex marriage won’t only reduce discrimination — it will give queer organisers a stronger platform to create further change — “As we accomplish each objective, we generate new resources that can be applied to achieve the subsequent greater objective.”
>”…the subsequent greater objective” means the revolution for complete leftist control. For too long, Principled Conservatives™️ have been willing and happy to lose with dignity, but when it comes to the left “the issue is never the issue: the issue is always the revolution”.
For this to be the case, tactical considerations come in to play. Some tactics may accomplish an objective without building power within a constituency. Certainly, queer campaigners should not win their rights by meekly trudging into the tent of patriarchal marriage, their tails between their legs.
>”Civilised debate” is only demanded of the opposition while an “any means necessary” approach is endorsed for their own.
Rather, the same-sex marriage campaign can be about dismantling the walls of the tent, expanding it to be open to more of us, and continuing to liberalise this cultural institution which has already changed so much to accommodate progressing ideas around race, class, and what happens in Vegas.
>See? It’s not about LGBTs”coming into” marriage. It’s about the total annihilation of the very idea of marriage.
So the question isn’t whether same-sex marriage is the most important issue. The question is: how can we work together to turn the resources we have into the power we need to address the challenges facing the queer community?
>Dignam does not define “challenges facing the queer community”. His LGBTQIA audience just get to do whatever he tells them to do and only he, as an organiser, will be granted any real political power. Power to be used for the “next greater challenge”, of course.
Thus far, the equal marriage campaign has energised a wave of campaigners -—queer and allies — working towards a society in which your sexuality doesn’t determine your marriage rights, your odds of experiencing mental illness, or whether your parents accept you for who you are. If — when — this campaign is won, we won’t be at the mountaintop. There’ll be trials ahead. There will be more tragedies like Leelah Alcorn’s suicide.
>Dignam creates a powerful visual experience then invokes a suicide. It’s hypnotic. Remember how important stories are? He leaves the reader feeling responsible for other people killing themselves if they don’t agree with him. It’s a very cunning rhetorical device. Don’t fall for it. Notice he also implies being LGBTQIA isn’t the source of any mental illness, rather it’s society that needs to change to reduce “odds” of experiencing mental illness.
But the success of this campaign towards equality will make us stronger and better able to keep fighting. We’ll have even more to be proud of.
>He finishes off with a “vision of hope” and the promise of greater fulfilment – both extremely powerful emotional triggers.
Joel Dignam is an ACT Greens member and the office manager for the ACT Greens.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C. S. Lewis