Notes: Friday, November 19, 2010

1. Latest on so-called gay marriage in Australia

There's so much that I'll mainly just post links:

Articles:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/early-conference-to-end-forced-consensus-20101118-17zf2.html?skin=text-only
('Gay-marriage'-related motion passed the Federal Lower House 73-72--quite an achievement, given how difficult it tends to be for catamites to pass motions.)
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/conscience-vote-pms-best-option-20101118-17z7m.html?skin=text-only
("According to an Essential Research poll out this week, ... 53 per cent said people of the same sex should be allowed to marry. This included 57 per cent of Labor voters. Coalition supporters were equally divided (45 per cent each way); Greens overwhelmingly in favour (80 per cent).")
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/same-sex-unions-not-a-vote-changer/story-e6frg6nf-1225955971708
("Labor strategists dismissed suggestions the issue would damage the party's support among blue-collar workers, saying it was not a vote-changer. Citing the lack of reaction to recent NSW legislation allowing gay couples to adopt, a senior Labor source said: "People may not support it, but it will not be a vote-changer. And a lot of people in the front bar would say fair enough to gay marriage."")
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/its-the-vibe-is-not-a-valid-argument-against-gay-rights/
("Around 25% of lesbian couples in Australia are currently raising children and many more are now planning families together." No source is provided for that figure, however.

One other thing about that last article: Dr. Phelps writes that

Over 60% of Australians support marriage equality. Not some watered-down euphemism like “civil union”, but marriage equality.

I've been thinking that isn't the fact that a marriage involves an husband and a wife, whereas a 'gay marriage' obviously can't, a good enough reason for dismissing the pro-'gay-marriage' insistence on marriage rather than a mere 'civil union' (not that I support 'civil unions', however--I can't see how a 'union' founded on sodomy can be regarded as 'civil')? They don't insist on calling one 'spouse' an husband and the other a wife, so why do they insist on calling their relationship a marriage?)

Editorials:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/allow-a-free-vote-on-gay-marriage-20101118-17z7d.html?skin=text-only
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/dont-get-hung-up-on-the-politics-of-same-sex-union/story-e6frg71x-1225955924810

Letters:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/lineage-has-no-relevance-other-than-to-snobs-20101118-17z7b.html?skin=text-only
(The first letter at the following web-page has apparently had its first sentence cut off; that sentence, judging by the main Letters page, is "WHAT a gutless position the Prime Minister has taken on same-sex marriage.")
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gillard-fails-test-of-leadership-on-gay-marriage/story-fn558imw-1225955928584

2. "White Britons a minority by '66"

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3234028/Oxford-professor-issues-shock-population-warning-for-Great-Britain-by-2066.html#ixzz15bAcxfjK
(Brought to my attention by this AQ thread.)

3. "Terra" on, among other things, the activities, or lack thereof, of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference

http://australiaincognita.blogspot.com/2010/11/bishops-jump-to-right-and-blogosphere.html

4. "Maurice Pinay" on, among other things, the 'Noahide' movement

The following web-page contains many useful links:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2010/11/remnants-conspicuous-blind-spot.html

Reginaldvs Cantvar

Feast of St. Elizabeth of Hungary, Widow, and of St. Pontianus, Pope, Martyr, A.D. 2010