If a Tree was Gay


Earlier this week, Brigadier Jim Wallace, head of the Australian Christian Lobby appeared on morning television to debate with Dr Kerryn Phelps about why churches are opposed to marriage equality.

Jim, now after several blunders, renamed General Wally, said this:

And I find it absolutely amazing that at a time in our history when we’re jumping through hoops to try to make sure that every tree on the planet has its natural environment so that it can flourish that we would be challenging the definition of marriage which creates exactly that environment for a child requiring that its between a man and a woman.

More waffle, and then this

… the reality is here we’re about holding up an aspirational mode in society which government has the right to do to make sure that – to make sure that children can flourish in the same way we are demanding for trees.

So, marriage is to be treated the same as trees?  There’s only one reason we care so much about the trees.  We need them, it’s a selfish act and has nothing to do with the natural order of the world, but it has to do with preservation. Our preservation.  And like marriage, trees come in lots of varieties.  Some of them require fire to germinate, some required bees, some require animals to shit out their seed.  Why some trees are even reproduced by grafting parts of another tree onto them.  If you want to compare trees to marriage, then you need to understand that we don’t want trees to just grow where ever they like, we want to dictate where they grow, how long they grow for, and when they’re ready, cut them down and burn them or build houses out of them.  A bit like christian marriage, the likes of General Wally want you to only have the marriage he prescribes, that only trees (or marriage) that is allowed to flourish is what he wants.  It’s all for purely selfish reasons, because for his faith to continue to exist it needs more people, and he knows that they can’t be grown outside traditional marriage.  It’s not about tree conservation, or marriage conservation, it’s about religion conservation.  Where’s the next generation of fuckwits to come from?

Wally would have us think that the only forest that the world needs are those planted by christian right-wing fuckwits, to be nurtured how they see fit and cut down and burned when they want.  I suggest the likes of General Wally should diversify their crop and plant a few marijuana plants.

This entry was posted in marriage.

12 Responses to If a Tree was Gay

  1. Jim hopes that he will never see
    A gay man married to a tree
    At least that seems to be his call –
    He really makes no sense at all.

  2. doug says:

    we chop trees down

    Does that mean we should do the same to marriage or gay people ?

    I am confused

  3. Pete Darwin says:

    I’d definitely be prepared to donate money towards a “Cannabis for Christians” program, and for anyone who has to suffer them in their day to day lives.

  4. Pingback: Jim Wallace on Sunrise, church’s position on gay marriage « The Caudal Lure

  5. Cat says:

    I think you missed his point… he seemed to be suggesting that we place a greater emphasis on looking after trees, as though they are a higher priority than children.

    and he suggested we take the time to work out what the best environment for trees, but ignore the evidence of the best environment for children.

    Pretty sure it’s a challenge about where we’re prioritising our efforts – literally, there needs to be more research into the impact that our decisions have on children.

    I’m not sure that he intended it to be an analogy.

    • Bruce says:

      He’s not very good at making his point then… the ACL should dump him and get jesus into the role.

    • Bruce says:

      After scratching some furry bits, I’ve given this some more thought. Jim Wallace and the rest of his christian cohorts don’t really give a flying bucket of larks vomit about children. Jim summed it all up in the first words to spill out of his mouth. For him this is about the bible and his thinking that his god ordained marriage as between a man and a woman. He is now trying to force this belief onto the rest of society, and will use whatever he can grasp to push his very narrow barrow.

      He needs to be honest and say only that he thinks god said to his followers that marriage is between a man and a woman. Those of us that outright reject the notion of any supernatural beings should not have to live our lives based on the misguided values of others.

  6. In fact, Cat, there has been research into the effect of being brought up by a same-sex couple. Do you know what they found? There is no difference whatsoever between children brought up by a same-sex couple or a heterosexual couple except that ….. the children tend to be more tolerant of diversity. They also found that children brought up in lesbian households were at significantly less risk of sexual abuse – in fact, they were at virtually no risk. Some good info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

  7. Cat says:

    Thanks Chrys, I’ll have to look into the research.

    Bruce, I think it’s reasonable enough to have more than one reason to have a certain position on something. For example, I prefer not to eat that much chocolate – because I find fruit more satisfying and healthy. I might also decide it’s a good idea to eat less chocolate because of the prevalence of cocoa that is sourced from countries where children and young adults are forced into slave conditions in the farming and trade of cocoa. That’s not an analogy and it’s far from the same point of same sex parenting – it’s just to illustrate that it’s fair to have more than one motivation behind a position.

    I don’t think anyone is suggesting you should have to live your life based on their values. And nor should they. But it is the nature of democracy that everyone should be allowed to contribute to the discussions that shape law and policy.

    It’s not possible for anyone to leave their values out of these contributions. We all have values, regardless of where they come from. This will mean people will continue to disagree. This should lead to reasoned and informed debate – not the silencing of people with views that are different to your own.

  8. Cat says:

    Sorry I could have been more clear when I said:

    “I don’t think anyone is suggesting you should have to live your life based on their values. And nor should they. But it is the nature of democracy that everyone should be allowed to contribute to the discussions that shape law and policy.”

    Just to expand – the law isn’t a code of values. It’s more like a framework for maintaining peace, order and well-being.

    But there are diverse differences in what people see as being the best building blocks for that framework – and that’s what we won’t be able to discuss without bringing our own values into it.

    So values will always play a part in forming the law – but the law can’t control your values.

    People with same-sex attraction can live in same-sex relationships and espouse all the values that their sexuality entails irrespective of the definition of marriage.

  9. Bruce says:

    I don’t expect anyone to follow my values. Do what you like.

    I don’t accept the ‘christian values’ as a default, they are based on a lie of a deity.

    As not everyone accepts christian values, they have no place in influencing law.

    The christian notion that marriage is between one man and one woman is based on a christian value. Christians my use that value in their own organisations. It is inappropriate for that value to be use as a guide stick for those who don’t accept it. The ACL and Wallace do want to force their values on the rest of Australia. That’s just plain wrong.