Gay Marriage Will Lead to Polygamy and Paedophilia

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Meanwhile, a new poll has found that 53 per cent of Christians in Australia believe same sex couples should be allowed to marry, while 41 per cent were opposed.


the gist of the article is that gay marriage is passing in AU
 
This is the kind of comment I really can't get my head around:

Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce said his four daughters would be affected if same sex marriage was allowed.

"We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband and I want that to happen for them.

"I don't want any legislator to take that right away from me."

What the fuck is he talking about?

But yes, it's definitely a matter of when, not if. But I do expect it to get ugly between now and then. A small group of very noisy people (some mentioned in this article) will be very noisy. And they won't be rational about it either. But with 53% of Christians in favour of it before a formal national conversation or debate has even kicked off... it's just a matter of time.
 
Yeah you have to wonder about the sexuality of a supposed straight man who apparently presumes any guy would rather marry a man than a woman given the chance. (While meanwhile, it's apparently inconceivable that any of his daughters could ever want anything beyond the "protection" and "security" of a husband.) Maybe the idea is that homosexuality, male homosexuality anyway, is a kind of psychospiritual immaturity having to do with unwillingness to accept the thankless, grueling, achingly noble task of maintaining a committed relationship with a woman.
 
I am really sorry the other thread got closed.

I thought it was serving well as a catch all thread for "same sex marriage" news. There are stories coming up all the time where a conservative or 'religious' person comes over to the reasonable view point. Along with surveys and polls showing positive movement.

I would rather post in a thread titled, The Conservative Case for Same Sex Marriage, than have this thread with offensive language at the top of page 1 of FYM.


edit to add

ok, now I see it got closed because it went over 1000 posts,
not because someone complained.

perhaps if this thread is going to run another 1000 posts, we can come up with a 'catchy title' that is not offensive.
 
I assume the other thread was closed because it had gotten over 1000 posts, which is standard procedure and not something to be sorry for. But fine, I will split it.
 
This is the kind of comment I really can't get my head around:



What the fuck is he talking about?

But yes, it's definitely a matter of when, not if. But I do expect it to get ugly between now and then. A small group of very noisy people (some mentioned in this article) will be very noisy. And they won't be rational about it either. But with 53% of Christians in favour of it before a formal national conversation or debate has even kicked off... it's just a matter of time.

"If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college" makes more sense. :coocoo:
 
I have not yet gotten the chance to travel to Australia (hopefully in the next year or two), so I would be interested to know, from our Australian posters...

"We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband and I want that to happen for them."

What is it that Australian girls need protection FROM? I mean, is it like Afghanistan out there in Sydney? Or the Wild West of the 1800s frontier?
 
It could be me, I suppose.

Barnaby Joyce - the politician quoted (protecting his daughters from the looming ban on heterosexual marriage, or something) - while I have no idea whether he's religious or not (our politicians don't feel the need to make a point of it), he would otherwise fit a familiar mold, in that he represents a rural area, and umm, 'rural' values, and has a decent history of saying some outstandingly stupid stuff along the way.
 
All it needs is a Bob Katter quote.

And I didn't make the thread to offend anyone :huh:

I liked it when Bob Katter said there were no homosexuals in Queensland or something.

Here is a funny picture of Bob Katter that we all can laugh at.

29oct_BobKatter_800x600_t325.jpg
 
In a lot of ways I hope he doesn't go away because he's by far the most entertaining politician in the country but christ he has some terrible views.
 
Australian politics is so much more entertaining for the presence of Barnaby Joyce and Bob Katter, as long as you don't remind yourself that these men are actually in the federal parliament. It's just a procession of one hilariously braindead quote after another.

I liked it when Bob Katter said there were no homosexuals in Queensland or something.

I believe the quote was that there were no homosexuals in the electorate of Kennedy (his electorate), and if there were, he would walk backwards all the way from Bourke to his home. Something to that effect anyway.

So given all the homosexuals in Kennedy who have come forth to make their existence known (a brave move given how conservative and desolate that area of the Queensland Outback is!), I'm waiting for Katter to come good and start walking backwards from Bourke. I hope when he next appears on Q&A, somebody challenges him to do it.
 
I believe the quote was that there were no homosexuals in the electorate of Kennedy (his electorate), and if there were, he would walk backwards all the way from Bourke to his home. Something to that effect anyway.

So given all the homosexuals in Kennedy who have come forth to make their existence known (a brave move given how conservative and desolate that area of the Queensland Outback is!), I'm waiting for Katter to come good and start walking backwards from Bourke. I hope when he next appears on Q&A, somebody challenges him to do it.

Ah yes, that was it. If he was ever challenged to do so, you'd see his face do that scrunching thing that he loves to do when he's been painted into a corner.
 
Ah yes, that was it. If he was ever challenged to do so, you'd see his face do that scrunching thing that he loves to do when he's been painted into a corner.

Yep, then he'll try to reply and somehow end up protesting about how bad farmers have it because of banana imports from China due to the carbon tax being implemented by gays and neither Labour nor Liberal understand the country.
 
We all like to laugh and/or cringe at certain people from certain areas of certain states of a certain country and their certain views on politics/race/sexuality/culture/the world/everything, but large chunks of Queensland would easily, easily shock even them.
 
I've heard QLD's bad for that (parts of it anyway) but I would think it's like that country-wide?

I have to stop bringing up gay marriage/gays having kids/refugees & asylum seeking with people, because so many people have ignorant views and I don't particularly like heated debates with people I know.
 
It sounds like this might be more about differences in cultural expectations of decorum in public speech than differences in presence of certain political views, necessarily? I've read some of Katter's statements on various issues before; someone that coarsely spoken would never last at the national level in US politics. But frankly, look at some of the stuff Michele Bachmann says about homosexuality for example--it might not be quite as cartoonishly crass as the "walking backwards" thing, that's not really the American style, but to me it's just as disturbing.
 
I must admit, I'm surprised people never mention the fact that Katter was a minister in the Queensland state parliament under Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Other people have had their careers tarnished for much more minor associations with Joh.

It sounds like this might be more about differences in cultural expectations of decorum in public speech than differences in presence of certain political views, necessarily? I've read some of Katter's statements on various issues before; someone that coarsely spoken would never last at the national level in US politics. But frankly, look at some of the stuff Michele Bachmann says about homosexuality for example--it might not be quite as cartoonishly crass as the "walking backwards" thing, that's not really the American style, but to me it's just as disturbing.

I would agree with this. I think often the big difference is the role of religion; in US politics, it is acceptable (and even expected) that you tie your political views to religious justification, while in Australia, that is generally political suicide. That's not to say it isn't invoked, e.g. see the expressions of Catholicism by some MPs in the parliamentary debate over RU-486, but any politician who does so has to walk a fine line and they often try to express their religious conviction as a manifestation of "traditional Aussie values" (rather than the reverse of traditional values being derived from religious conviction). So you end up with this case of discriminatory opinions such as Katter's on homosexuality that appear to have no justification to dress them up or make them more palatable; they are naked bigotry, expressed shamelessly. I'm not sure if that's more honest or more disturbing.

As for the crass style of expression, I think that Katter, and to a lesser extent Barnaby Joyce, would not be half as popular - especially not amongst their constituents - if they weren't such "straight talkers". They may be a cartoonish joke for the rest of Australia, but for their constituents, they are exactly the desired kind of person: hard-hitting, take-no-prisoners, the-city-is-against-us, speak-before-you-think, other-similar-hyphenated-phrases. They talk in colloquialisms and make gaffes. In an era when people are campaigning against the "fake Julia", Katter and Joyce are exactly the kind of men those voters want - and Katter in particular is obviously far too simple for it to be an act. He's the real deal.

Incidentally, I think Joyce has gone and blown whatever moderate left and centrist support he had, on the basis of his past willingness to cross the floor. When the Coalition was in power, this was a man viewed favourably by the centre-left as somebody who could potentially come across to the other side for the big causes (especially opposition to privatisation). Now he's painting himself very firmly into Katter's corner.
 
Not sure that Katter is one of those who would be prepared to man the barricades to the bitter end on the issue. Homophobic, certainly, but more to the point: I think he simply does not give a shit about such issues. Industry, agriculture and big infrastructure (specifically in the north): those are his hobby horses.

It's no secret he served as a minister under Joh: much as I loathe that era, I'm not sure this in itself is evidence of corruption. Mike Ahern, Joh's ultimate successor, was likewise a long serving minister. As was Bill Gunn, the deputy premier who started the clock on the downfall of the whole house of cards.
 
Back
Top Bottom