[censored for your kids' protection]

I had to laugh listening to the "debate". The poor family first girl wants sensorship because she's not parent enough to tell her kids "I'll tell you later". That's a strong theme with this sort of religious thinking: This here thing makes me unhappy so the rest of the world should accomodate me so I don't have to deal with it. Her rather blatantly disruptive attacks, mostly on a priori taken to be dark motives (because the sex industry is by definition bad, or something to that tune, therefore she doesn't have to do anything to remain obviously morally superior however low she stoops), told me she doesn't really have a reason for her policies except that she feels they're right, because change is bad, other people are bad, and obviously everybody is the same so we should protect everybody from the apparently not the same after all other, bad, people. With a nice not with us therefore against us bonus.

So all the sex party has to do to counter it is be entirely reasonable and laid back. The thing is, I bet that the family first plus hangers on crowd will equally count this as a win. "She showed her, huh". Meaning that the message didn't come across, which is a pity. Still, the fact that the sex party is there is good news, and they appear to have a sound strategy to contain the madness.

How the message didn't get accross to the fringe that drives the family first crowd is quite similar how the pastafarian satire doesn't turn people away from creationism. The points are too intelectual, and don't address the needs of the people who adopted the oppressive views in the first place. Who then will accuse any disagreement as "oppressive" themselves, with abandon and conviction. <insert suitable AC/DC song here>

I expect

That the Aussie firewall means that Antipodean readers can't see this article.

@AC

My thought too. I think the FF party has things backward.

Haha, that's not a debate..

The Familiy First woman is not capable of having a debate - she cannot allow someone to finish a sentence. As a matter of fact, she's not someone I would like to marry and have children with - can you imagine not being able to say *anything* without being interrupted?

The Sex Party spokeswoman actually gives a very credible presentation of their stance and provides proper answers. What strikes me most is that the Sex Party rep punts facts, where the FF woman depends on artificial, unproven enforcement statements like "many people" and "most Australians". In other words, ASP hard facts (cough :-) versus FF bullshit. I didn't know either or what they stood for (I don't live in Oz) but on the basis of this "debate" the ASP would have my vote. The FF seems a bit like UK's New Labour in their desire to impose their ideology on others.

Note the reaction of the presenter - she tries hard to remain neutral but you can see she's occasionally losing the fight..