Search

Western Australia's Acts Amendment (Lesbian and Gay Law Reform) Bill 2001 delivered a measure of legal equality in such areas as property transfer, superannuation, inheritance and discrimination, and more controversially, adoption, lesbian access to IVF, lowering the age of consent for sex between men from 21 to 16, and incorporating information on homosexuality into high school sex education classes. This paper examines the use of various moral principles within parliamentary speeches supporting or opposing the legislation, and the extent to which they were treated by members as beyond question, or 'rhetorically self-sufficient'. The resources of 'equality', 'human rights', 'democracy', 'the interests of the majority' and 'the interests of children' were given a kind of beyondquestion, self-sufficient status, but their use was able to be undermined in a number of ways, relating to members' management of what the Bill was 'about', and the flexibility of these social constructs. It is argued that rather than pitting one set of resources against another, members on both sides of the debate faced a rhetorical pressure to adopt and mobilize all of the same self-sufficient moral resources, due to the flexible, constructed and non-hierarchical, yet often rhetorically self-sufficient nature of common-sense moral principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the strategic processes associated with responding to group criticism. In Experiment 1, Australians received criticism of their country from either an in-group or an out-group member. When participants believed their evaluations of the criticisms were private, they reported being more defensive when criticized by an outgroup relative to an in-group member. However, this intergroup sensitivity effect disappeared on some measures when participants were led to believe their evaluations of the criticisms could be seen by an in-group audience. In Experiment 2, which focused on participants' identity as social science students, the attenuation of the intergroup sensitivity effect emerged only when the in-group audience was relatively high-status. Furthermore, in both experiments, increased reports of defensiveness in public only occurred in response to an in-group critic and not to an out-group critic. Theoretical and practical implications for intergroup and intragroup communication are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]