It is hard to decide which is worse: Bernardi's book or this equally ignorant apologia.

OLO claims to publish a variety of viewpoints, but it is remarkable how much space is given to ill-informed bigotry. There is at least some antidote in the comments section and Candide's suggestion is spot-on.

It newer occurs to people like Bernardi and Muehlenberg that insofar as the sociological data show that certain categories of families and their children are disadvantaged relative to other categories that the authors approve of, it is at least in part due to the effects of government policies and social attitudes.

Those attitudes and policies, when based upon the bigoted ignorance of people like Bernardi and Muehlenberg, unsurprisingly result in social disadvantage. In sociological circles it is referred to as the self-fulfilling prophecy.

As DavidL intimates, the danger in Bernardi's approach (with Muehlenberg's support) is their likely "solutions" to what they perceive as the "problem". We would have a long and fruitless wait to hear either of them argue for policies based on true equality rather than the bigoted definitions of what is and is not an "appropriate" lifestyle.

Three cheers for Cori Bernardi. He is one of the very few conservatives left in Australian politics. He knows what he thinks, and says what he thinks. He also speaks for a large block of the electorate, which is a big change from the rest of the gutless wonders in the Coalition.

Nobody has to agree with him if they don’t want to; but to treat him like two-headed monster, as the ‘progressives’ do, is pure hysterics and hate.

There are certainly occasions when abortion is appropriate, and politicians should keep their noses out of it. But, having said that politicians should keep their noses out of what people do with their own bodies, I have to agree with Bernadi that females who use abortion when they should be using contraception are wrong; they are also stupid tramps.

I’ll read the book, and I doubt that I’ll find it “very, very funny” as CANDIDE did the reviews. She probably will not read the book itself, but rather, will use a little bit of knowledge to snipe at others, thereby laying herself open to laughs at here own ‘funny’, peculiar and one-eyed views.

It is clear to me that humans are in a race to catch up with the advanced evolution of the Bonobos. If you don't know anything about them, then just Goggle it up.

Yeah, those naughty monkeys are into every form of perversion known to mankind and then some. Mothers mate with sons, males enjoy dubious sexual pleasure in smelly, germ-filled places with other males, females carryout mutual masturbation, etc, etc.

Of course, they're not silly enough to want to change the free and easy routines and codes (or lack of them) of their little tribes. No, Let it all hang out, is their motto. If it turns you on, get into it is their rationale.

Fortunately, not many species are aping the promiscuous Bonobos. Only we humans it seems.

Perhaps we'll end up living in trees again although, with nukes and immorality, it's unlikely!

James O'Neill as usual your post is meaningless, as you continue to use catch phrases, which are not defined.

If you want your post to have any meaning, try defining "true equality" to start with. Do you mean an equal income to all regardless of effort, or do you mean income only related to the effort expended in acquiring such income.

It does appear you are recommending communism, but catch phrases may be leading me astray in interpreting your meaning. Surely you would not be promoting such a proven failure.

Such other phrases as "bigoted ignorance" do tend to put your post in the "rant" by a ratbag category. If I have misinterpreted your meaning do try to clarify.

Hooray for James ONeill say I.
And of course Hasbeen in his usual style attempts to reduce everything to back-and-white binary exclusions.

My own experience has been that a self-righteous woman can readily weasel her way through the existing rules, alienating the children almost completely from their father.

Several secular friends have volunteered the opinion that Family Law is skewed against the integrity of the father-mother-children family.

My experience in situations where adults make homosexual choices (an identical-twins meta-study completed last year demonstrates that there is no genetic factor in such choices at all, so born-that-way is a myth) has been that at best, any children involved are confused; zero of that experience has included observation of balanced, healthy, emotionally stable development of children.

Some (not all) single-parent families do a creditable job of raising a child (or children), however the results have always been second-best. Where practical, a family including two complementary adults is the obvious way to go.

A parent who is so full of themselves that other people cannot be genuinely significant to them (that is, beyond being pawns in their life-game) is a threat to the well-being of those in their proximity, and there is no realistic provision within existing Family Law for dealing with such situations.

That Mr Bernardi is willing to stand up and state what to any impartial observer is blindingly obvious (despite opposition even from within his own political party) is a credit to his character.