Miranda Devine has posted a response to the criticism she has received for her opinion piece; you can read it here.
To be honest, I’m heartily disappointed by her rejoinder.
Firstly, I join Mrs. Devine in condemning any and all personal attacks that have been made upon her and any misrepresentations of her view. Hateful and deceitful comments simply aren’t constructive contributions to the conversation. I fully appreciate how emotionally charged discussions around gay rights, legislative discrimination and the family can be, but a healthy and considered debate needs healthy and considered arguments.
Having said that, I feel Devine is perhaps a tad precious in her umbrage. Her portrayal of critics twisting her argument into statements such as “People in London are rioting because Penny Wong is having a baby” (I believe she’s quoting my video here) and “Miranda Devine’s Lesbian Mums Caused the London Riots” doesn’t quite give us the full picture. Both these instances (the second comes from John Birmingham’s piece on the issue) were, in context, quite plainly jokes. They are examples of comedic hyperbole, used to illustrate the bewildering effect that Devine’s downright illogical article has had on some of its readers.
No, Miranda, I do not genuinely believe that you are arguing the London riots were caused by lesbian mothers. I kinda said that for teh LULZ.
But I do strongly object to your position that the inexcusable actions of young Londoners – some of whom come from “broken homes” and struggle with absentee parents – should be used as evidence that lesbian parenthood is anything less than ideal, or that Senator Wong’s announcement isn’t to be celebrated. You are comparing chalk with cheese. You know that there is a world of difference between a young man raised in a lower socio-economic environment plagued with issues of crime, police brutality and a lack of quality education, who was been abandoned by his biological father, and the child of two loving, stable, competent lesbians in a long-term relationship, such as Senator Wong and Ms. Allouache.
I know you know this because you are clearly an intelligent, educated person with a realistic knowledge of the world in which we live.
But your refusal to acknowledge this fact, along with the wealth of evidence that shows homosexual parents are just as capable as their heterosexual counterparts, results in an obfuscation of fundamental, relevant ideas in the debate.
During your outrage, you write:
On ABC’s Q&A on Monday night came an extraordinary question from an audience member who said: “The criticism of Senator Wong is based on the homophobic idea that a child is entitled to having both a father and a mother.”
So there you have it. It is homophobic to say a child is entitled to a mother and a father.
Yet not one person on the panel could find the courage to knock the assertion on the head.
I wouldn’t necessarily describe the claim that “a child is entitled to a mother and a father” as “homophobic”; I’d probably go with “pointless”. We know that the basic combination of a mother and a father does not necessarily result in a good childhood in and of itself; it is surely being raised by loving, stable and capable parents that assures that. The science quite clearly tells us that the gender and sexual orientation of those parents are irrelevant to that question.
Yes, of course we should have certain expectations of people who decide to have or adopt children: but heterosexuality, or the mandatory presence of a “father” (in the conventional sense), should not be one of those expectations. Otherwise, we baselessly discriminate against thousands of perfectly good couples for naught.
Finally, Miranda, you seem very concerned with the idea of having your voicing of a purportedly “mainstream” opinion being censored:
Jackie Stricker, the partner of Dr Kerryn Phelps, wrote a letter to this newspaper calling for me to receive “urgent counselling” and saying my columns shouldn’t be published. That’s right. Let’s censor unfashionable mainstream opinions.
I’m not sure whether counselling is in order, Miranda, and I’m all for the free expression of ideas. But, like Dr. Phelps and Ms. Stricker, I wish you would be more careful with your public words when discussing matters which will affect the public perception of gay and lesbian people. As I endeavoured to remind you in my video response to your initial article, uninformed, unsupported commentary such as yours contribute to a climate of prejudice towards and misunderstanding about GLBTIQ Australians which can be extremely damaging to the mental health of gay youth, hence our calls for the publication of your column to be reconsidered.
Essentially, Miranda Devine, I’m heartily disappointed that you chose to avoid meeting the legitimate questions of myself, Dr Phelps, Catherine Deveny and John Birmingham in your response, and instead focussed solely on the childish reactions that you no doubt encounter on a regular basis in response to your controversy-courting writing.
This response has left us with burning questions, Miranda Devine. We ask you:
What do you say to the scientific consensus that tells us the children of gay and lesbian people are as well-adjusted and psychologically healthy as the children of straight parents?
How do you explain the number of young people from wealthy backgrounds and “intact”, traditional families who have also been arrested for looting during the UK riots?
What constitutes a “fatherless society”? How many fatherless children are too many?
If you believe that the love Penny Wong and Sophie Allouache will have for their child will “conquer” any difficulties you seem to believe are inherent in same-sex parenting, what makes you think other couples won’t be able to do the same? And, if they can do the same, why shouldn’t that be encouraged and celebrated?
Do you honestly believe that “political correctness” is resulting in heterosexuality becoming a source of shame for those in political life? Can you cite one example of a heterosexual person covering up or being forced to apologise for their sexuality?
and
What is your message to the thousands of young Australians who might be struggling with their sexuality and considering their future in our society?
We would all greatly appreciate, and we all eagerly await, your response.
Yours sincerely,
Tom Ballard
I had a mother and a father. The father was abusive. He left. Then I had a fatherless single-parent household. The latter was infinitely preferable to the former.
My lesbian friends are hoping for a baby. They will be good parents because they’re ready for children and willing to make the commitment. Their sexuality doesn’t have anything to do with their ability to raise a child.
My father wasn’t a bad parent BECAUSE he was a man or because he was straight. He was a bad father because he wasn’t ready for kids and couldn’t handle it. Straight or gay, it’s bad parents that cause the worst damage. No matter how many people raise a child or what gender they are, it’s their attitudes and actions that matter the most.
Tom, I too find the debate has turned into a vitriolic to-and-fro, and in my attempt to return the discussion to fact, I have submitted the following comment on Miranda’s article.. We’ll see if it get’s posted…
Keep up the good fight…
——————————————
Miranda….. When I first read your aticle, my immediate reaction was “that doesn’t make any sense” (to put it in a manner polite enough you publish in this forum)… Upon reading this response to the outrage it caused, I felt I must have misread and/or misunderstood the article, so I went back and read it again… I now find myself reafirming my original reaction….
The issue for me, and please, forgive me if I’m wrong, is – What is the link between gay/lesbian couples and the riots in London? Because, if I’m correct, you’ve discovered the link, otherwise, the two issues would not be brought together in the same article.
I agree, that there is an epedemic, in lower socio-economic classes, where children are born out of wedlock (sometimes in it), where the father has little-to-no interaction with the child – but this also happens in the upper socio-economic classes.. Oh, then there’s the fact that these are in heterosexual couples…
I hate vitriol and rhetoric, and I think those that use it are worse than the scum of the earth, and I don’t care which side of the political spectrum they sit on, and I find it disheartening that I find so much of it in the comments below.. I think issues should be debated on fact, and the fact of the matters in this case is as follows:
* children from fatherless families are not the only ones involved in the riots in London
* the fatherless families to which you refer are the result of failed heterosexual relationships
* scientific study (nearly 30 years worth) has proven the resultant children of lesbian parents are on part psychologically/emotionally, and better (in most cases) behaviourally than those from stable heterosexual relationships
* love, affection, and support are the key requirements of raising children, not 1 penis and 1 vagina…
And I’ll finish it off with this…. If it’s the fatherlessness you fear, homosexual male couples should be twice as good at raising a child.. Or is it the one-father-one-mother-lessness you fear??
———————
Here here well said
Enjoyable & to the point read
Big thumbs up!!
Well reasoned and articulated. On ya Tom.
It doesn’t really help her case that her first couple of points were to refute statements such as ‘Lesbians caused the London riots’ when they were, as you say, quite plainly jokes.
Also, I just can’t grasp her logic with regards to a ‘fatherless society’. Surely if so many fathers are pathetic enough to abandon their families, they probably wouldn’t make very competent role models in the first place, Their kids might even be better without.
I particularly like the part where science wins over opinion.
Awesome.
Not once have I seen an equality opponent actually respond to the reasonable rebuttals of their bullshit; if they don’t ignore them completely they, as you say, pick out the hyperbole & ad hominem attacks and present those as the main thrust of the rebuttal. But, hey building and burning strawmen is par for the course for your average (or below average, in Ms Devicious’ case) right wing mouthpiece.
Amen.
IA with this the most,
“Essentially, Miranda Devine, I’m heartily disappointed that you chose to avoid meeting the legitimate questions of myself, Dr Phelps, Catherine Deveny and John Birmingham in your response, and instead focussed solely on the childish reactions that you no doubt encounter on a regular basis in response to your controversy-courting writing.”
It seemed that she neglected the more serious and legitimate questions. Hopefully she answers some of those that were suggested here.
“It seemed that she neglected the more serious and legitimate questions. ”
Indeed. It’s almost as if she’s more interested in playing the victim and trotting out the tired old, “People who disagree with my bigotry are the *real* bigots!” line, than in actually discussing the issues in a civilised, intelligent fashion.
MTE!
I wonder if she’ll ever reply to some of these questions, as she began this whole “debate”, and I’d like to see her be able to support her initial “arguments”.
Well said Tom. I hope she answers. I know you probably aren’t trying to be, but you are a great role model for young people of all sexual orientations,and also a great example of how to have a conversation about an issue on the interwebs and not descend into personal abuse. Very cool.
Hear Hear.
I’d quite like to hear her spluttering answers to those questions myself.
Tom, that was a great read. Very well said!
Thanks for speaking back against this rubbish, Tom. It is really great to hear your voice cut through all the crap to present points logically and carefully (and humorously!).