Christopher Pearson writes parody!

The Australian fancies itself as a serious newspaper, full of weighty opinion and analysis, as befits an organ that aspires to be the paper of record. But clearly they’re rethinking that policy, because they’ve allowed the usually sententious and portentous Christopher Pearson write a parody piece in lieu of his normal column. At least, I think it must be parody, because I can not see how anyone would ever offer this as a serious argument against gay marriage.

Among the reasons the Greens are so keen on same-sex marriage is that they want to reduce the population and drive down national fertility. Their refusal to discriminate positively in favour of heterosexuality and uphold the distinctive value of normal marriage shows their political project yet again for what it is: a dead end.

That faint rumbling and rattling you can hear is the entire nation rolling around on the floor and laughing. At Pearson, not with him.

Umm…. how about the idea that the Greens might support gay marriage as a matter of justice, and a commitment to equality for all citizens.

It’s not the only bizarre argument Pearson comes up with. He’s got a little bit of dubious evolutionary sociology, in the tired old story about monogamy being something women want but not men, so men need to be forced into it.

Men and women tend to have different needs and priorities when they enter a mature sexual relationship.

Most men are not naturally disposed to be monogamous, for example. One of the purposes of marriage is to bind them to their spouses and children for the long haul and to give the state’s approval to those who enter such a contract and abide by its terms.

Clearly, all those gay men who aren’t allowed to get married will race out and form heterosexual unions instead.

There’s this little beauty.

Another of the purposes of marriage is to affirm that parenthood is a big, and in most cases the primary, contribution a couple can make, both to their own fulfilment and the public good.

It’s your duty to get married, for the public good, you understand. Pearson doesn’t say why it’s okay to require this duty on the one hand, but prevent some people from fulfilling it on the other. For the life of me, I can’t reconcile the two imperatives.

And he’s got some complete non sequiturs.

They are often unapologetically tribal in outlook and their best hopes are often invested in their children.

Most parents on low wages routinely make sacrifices on their kids’ behalf in ways middle-class couples seldom do these days. There is also still something self-sacrificial among many of them on marriage: the notion that it’s hard work much of the time but worth the effort.

That’s right. All you middle class parents are just faffing your way through marriage and parenting, and you have no idea, NO IDEA, I tell you, of the proper way to parent, because if only you did, then you too would oppose gay marriage.

Right….

Along the way he gets in some digs about contraception and abortion, and quotes American bishops (presumably Catholic) as an authority. Frankly, I don’t see how American bishops can be an authority about anything whatsoever to do with sexual morality, and relationships, until they stop protecting the pedophiles in their midst, and the fact that Pearson cites them shows only the bankruptcy of his thinking.

About the only solid point that Pearson makes is that many traditional voters in Labor-held marginal seats don’t like gay marriage, and he applauds Julia Gillard for recognising this. What he has missed however is something reported in his own newspaper. Even though more traditional and working class voters might not support gay marriage, it’s not a vote changer. But that was reported yesterday… perhaps Pearson simply couldn’t keep the thought in his head for long enough.

Click through to read the entire piece, which is amusingly titled: gay marriage demands should be left on shelf

Geddit? Geddit?

Advertisements

8 responses to “Christopher Pearson writes parody!

  1. After I stopped laughing, I read this aloud to my partner, who said, “Wow, he sounds like a giant douchebag. I’m not saying he IS a giant douchebag, but if he keeps writing like that, people might assume he is, and treat him accordingly.”

  2. Another of the purposes of marriage is to affirm that parenthood is a big, and in most cases the primary, contribution a couple can make, both to their own fulfilment and the public good.

    OK, I’m not laughing at that because there’s a damn ugly subtext to that. “Hey, faggots, you contribute absolutely nothing to the public good. Eat shit and die — which you will if you keep molesting children and having anonymous sex in public toilets, as you people are wont to do.”

    Of course, the delicious irony is that (as people like Andrew Sullivan have been pointing out for decades) if you really believe marriage is a civilizing influence on the animal penis brains, and increases social cohesion and public utility, shouldn’t you be encouraging homosexuals to enter into socially-sanctioned formal pair bonds?

    Or would that require taking your own chain of reasoning seriously?

    I’d also like Mr. Pearson to tell my foster brother and his infertile wife (both ex-police officers, now school teachers) that their 25 year marriage is somehow less worthwhile because they can’t have children of their own. I’ll bring the popcorn, because it would be one hell of a show.

  3. Surprising though it may be, I have to conclude from this that Christopher Pearson does not believe in heterosexuals. Or at least not in heterosexual men. Gay relationships, to him, are so self-evidently, inherently better, that unless we force people to fall in love with an opposite sex partner none of them will do it.

    It’s such a tragic, self-imprisoning state of mind that I’d almost feel sorry for him were he not such a giant douchebag.

  4. Argh! Tags fail. Sorry.

    [Fixed!]

  5. My thoughts were running along the same lines as Craig’s – using Pearson’s own logic, does he also heap disapproval on heterosexual couples who can’t have children or perhaps choose not to have children? What a total plonker.
    Good job of trashing his arguments, BTW.

  6. Fish in a barrel, Carol. But still fun to do.

  7. What I think you do not realise, Deborah, is that some people might genuinely hold views such as you ridicule.

    Even though Pearson’s article be absurd in the eyes of many, it does need accepting that he might actually believe what he is saying.

    Many people believe all kinds of strange things! It makes the world a more interesting place than one where the only allowed belief is Groupthink.

  8. This article left me somewhat bewildered.

    How does Pearson arrive at the conclusion that allowing same-sex marriage is a greenie plot to drive down fertility? I mean, my obviously limited understanding of the birds and the bees is that unless a healthy sperm and ovum meet up, it’s kind of irrelevant who is or isn’t married to whom.

    Oh yes, and my wife with her severe polycystic ovaries who also happens to be a surgeon held in very high regard by the numerous patients she has allowed to walk and move again without any pain, would like to have a “one on one” chat with Pearson about his theory that you’re not really contributing to society if you’re childless. Would love to be a fly on the wall in that conversation!

    He is a strange and very troubled boy indeed.