Wednesday, 8 February 2012

'Gay marriage is the path to polygamy' - Katter Party

Katter's Australian Party that has three candidates standing in the Cairns region, today announced that civil unions were a "back door way to legalising gay marriage," and will "expand gay marriage definitions so that polygamy is accepted."

The statement is at odds with Katter's Cairns and Barron River candidates, Darren Hunt and
Brendan Fitzgerald.


Just when you were waiting for today's crazy and dumb media release, out comes a statement from Katter's Australian Party, that looks like it was written in the 1920's.

They have vowed to repeal the Civil unions law, Queensland Leader of the party Aidan McLindon said today.

"Civil unions were a back door way to legalising gay marriage," McLindon says. “Katter’s Australian Party believes marriage is between a man and a woman."

Indeed it is. However a Civil Union, or Civil Partnership, as the new Queensland Law is called, it an entirely different matter.

“We will proudly stand by our core values and principles. LNP voters are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage and they need to understand that the LNP Leader supports gay marriage," Aidan McLindon said.

LNP have said that they will not repeal civil unions which highlights, once again, they are no longer a socially conservative party, McLindon says.

“Lobby groups are already pushing to expand gay marriage definitions so that polygamy is accepted. Civil unions are the first step on this path."

Carl Katter, Bob Katter's brother, mocks the cry.

"Here come the crazies," Carl Katter said today. "They will try anything to scare people, a sign they are truly desperate."

It really shows you how warped McLindon and Katter's mind is.

However Katter's Cairns candidate, former policeman Darren Hunt, appears at odds with the Party's barbaric attitudes, and says such attitudes can be changed from within.

"The party I'm with has a policy that we do not support gay marriage, which I know some consider discrimination, but for me it is based on what has traditionally constituted a marriage as opposed to any anti-gay sentiment or religious fervour," Darren Hunt told CairnsBlog.

"I do not support anti-gay comments, actions or discrimination and have continued to say so publicly."

Hunt, who was a LGBTI Police liaison officer, says he was regularly ridiculed, and "given heaps and had sexuality questioned" in the role of sticking up for the gay community.

"In a macho, homophobic environment I can assure you it was regularly," Hunt says. "I found victims were often fearful of going to police for fear of being ridiculed or blamed when they were the victim. It took a long time for them to trust me and know I would follow through."

"I regularly attended local LGBTI clubs on and off duty to maintain contacts and build the trust," Darren Hunt says.

"I was even called up to help out with issues at the Kuranda [gay] resort, which wasn't even in my police area, because the owners/managers as well as guests were being unfairly treated."

"As with the police example, on these type of issues the best way to bring about change is from enlightened people from within to influence a change in ways of thinking," Darren Hunt says.

Katter Party's Barron River candidate, Brendan Fitzgerald, is equally bemused by his leader's statement today.

"I was of the understanding that the Civil Partnership Bill 2011 meant Civil Union was available to anyone, not just LGBT people," Brendan Fitzgerald said. "It couldn't possibly be expected to repeal a law that would disadvantage heterosexual people wishing a civil union over a marriage."

"If they try and change that, it becomes discrimination. [It's] not one of our finest moments, but Darren and I believe these things can change from within," Brendan Fitzgerald says.

Cairns Regional Council candidate Leigh Dall'Osto was also dismissive of the announcement.

"Obviously Aidan's brain to mouth filter is broken," Dall'Osto said. "Apparently the Katter members have a stipulation in their membership agreement which states they are not bound by any party policy if their electorate disagrees with it and can vote according to local views whenever they choose."

This Thursday evening, a "Pink Vote" forum will be held at the De Jarlais hall, at the Cairns Showgrounds, with a large number of Mayoral, Council and State candidates participating.

Kevin Scott, a health promotion officer with Healthy Communities, says that LGBT people in Cairns are making a visible and vital contribution to the life and economy of the region, and deserve their voices to be heard.

"We have asked all speakers to address issues raised in the Equality in Health paper, which asks candidates to address areas of concern to us," Kevin Scott says.
  • Pink Vote forum, De Jarlais hall
    Cairns Showground, corner Severin Street and Mulgrave Road
    Thursday 9th February, 5:30pm.

10 comments:

PB said...

Looking a bit like Katter's mob are already suffering the divisions that come with trying to play to the peanut gallery.

Jeremy said...

Well if you want see where gay 'unions' will lead just look at the headlines today regarding the gay pair from Cairns who have had 'their' 6 yo son taken from them via an FBI investigation into their sordid relationship to known child molesters. Total depravity.

Terry Vance said...

Political candidates and members of political parties are fully entitled to have differing views from that of their party "leaders." This is a democracy after all.
As for Jeremy above pointing out that a gay couple in Cairns were involved in a child porno ring or whatever, well there are sickos everywhere mate. Some of the worst have been members of the Church.

Blair Martin said...

Dear me, Jeremy....presumed innocent until proven guilty a concept that's passed you by, has it?

As for your assertion about that case, shall we detail the string of heterosexual married couples who prostituted their children out so they could maintain their lifestyle? Shall we show you the case after case of children "taken" away because of neglect and abuse at the hands of their heterosexual parents?

Do we then say that heterosexual marriage, partnerships and unions are "bad" for children based on this litany of evidence and should be banned?

No, we don't. And the same should go for same gender couples raising children. Their good work should be protected from the ugly assignations delivered by sadly intolerant and misinformed people like you, Jeremy.

Jeremy said...

Homosexual relationships are innately dysfunctional, but moreover are biological incapable of producing children, so pointing out the wrongs of some heterosexual marriages and holding that as a legitimate case for gay marriage is ultimately just rhetoric. But it’s more than that isn’t it, it’s indicative of a wider out-right attack on traditional marriage values perpetrated by powerful and well funded gay advocates/lobbies.

You only have to look at the state of Massachusetts where marriage licences, instead of reading Husband and Wife, read “Party A” and “Party B”. And there's a lot more happening in that state regards this issue besides that.

Blair, I’m sure you’re a nice person and you argue your case well, but we’ll never agree on this issue I’m afraid.

Blair Martin said...

Jeremy:
Clearly you won't agree with me, because you are trapped in this erroneous belief that homosexual relationships are dysfunctional. Would you care to state your sources to back up that claim?

Homosexual relationships are not "biological incapable of producing children" as you claim. Only humans with damaged, diseased or aged reproductive systems are biologically incapable. Homosexual couples have and do biologically reproduce, therefore your argument is spurious and bunk.

You defame the people of Massachusetts by saying "And there's a lot more happening in that state regards this issue besides that." For instance? Would you care to share your information? Or is it more hearsay and frenetic supposition based on nothing?

(And what is wrong with a bureaucratic document being particular and non-biased? It's not a work of literature, Jeremy. Documents and the information they contain for the use of compiling data have no "feelings".)

However, for me, it is your statement "...it’s indicative of a wider out-right attack on traditional marriage values perpetrated by powerful and well funded gay advocates/lobbies." that should rightly attract maximum ridicule. Please explain where you have read a "gay" advocate say that by EXTENDING the right of marriage to all consenting, not married adults is ATTACKING traditional marriage values? The advocates for civil rights and inclusion, Jeremy, are asking for a strengthening of marriage not a dilution. If you wish to harp on at anyone for attacking "traditional" marriage - go after people like Newt "three times married, twice divorced" Gingrich or Kim "74 days married" Kardashian.

And a final point, just what is "traditional" marriage? At what point in history are you taking? Biblical? Then "traditional" can also mean polygamy as well as taking mistresses and the possession of slaves as concubines. Twelfth century perhaps? Where the lord of the manor had the say over whether his serfs could marry or not. Nineteenth century? Where a couple of opposite races were forbidden to marry, not to mention couples of opposite Christian religions who were ostracized for marrying outside their own cults... sorry... religions.

Thank you for thinking I am "nice". However, nice is not a nice word. To me it is like "interesting". I'm afraid I cannot return the compliment, though I appreciate the opportunity to debate someone who is so totally outside my own belief system. That to me is "fascinating".

Jeremy said...

Homosexual advocates are often openly hostile to the bible and I’m not surprised that you have launched an ad hominem attack on Christianity referring to it as a ‘cult’. I'm afraid you’re the one that is trapped - in a state of disobedience, post-modernism and secularism. I suggest you read Romans 1 and see what St Paul has to say about same-sex union, but being antagonistic to the gospel I’m sure you won’t.

Your statement about homosexuals producing children is an oxymoron if I’ve ever seen one. You find it fascinating to debate someone outside your own belief system. I’m fascinated by your statement here. Can you please point out how this happens!?

I’ve defamed the people of Massachusetts, really. You want sources. Just to name a few here and here

Bureaucratic document? You’re talking about marriage certificates here I take it? If it’s just a document, then why are gay advocates so hell bent on changing it?

You rabble on with this post-modern nonsense of “what is traditional marriage”. Your core belief is that reality is judged through the lens of popular-secular zeitgeist and there is no objective truth. Your perception of slavery is way off and a very bad argument; slaves were treated very well by their masters. It was a relationship that would closely resemble a modern day employer/employee.

You seem to be holding up past examples of polygamy, slavery and what not to defend a change of law.

The Pauline epistles call for monogamy between and man a woman. The Lex Antonia De Civivate of 212 AD required monogamy for all citizens of the Roman Empire except Jews. That’s 1800-2000 years of monogamous unions. Modern day studies have found polygamous relationships wanting 'where eonomic problems, poor relations with the husband, and competition and jealousy between the co-wives and among the co-wives'' children. Children had a variety of behavioural problems, and below average academic achievement.
here
and here

Australian law is based on the Judeo-Christian tradition, polygamy is clearly and rightly a concept that is at odds with the traditional concept of what marriage is.

Given that you’re the one advocating for a change of law to include homosexual unions, the burden of proof rests with you. Point to the evidence to suggest that it’s in the best interest of children and society at large and then clarify how it’s meant to strengthen the concept of marriage.

A 2004 Swedish study with data taken from the 1990’s found gay ‘couples’ were 1.5 times as likely to divorce and ‘lesbian couples were three times as likely (200 percent more likely) to divorce as opposite-sex married couples’. (see here

In the period between 1990 and 2000 when both Sweden and Norway introduced same-sex partnerships out of wedlock births increased 10% (see here

Brought about by the encroachments of homosexual propaganda and the gradual social degeneration that comes from that – I quote “Again and again, voices from across the political spectrum argued that gay marriage signifies the demotion or abolition of marriage as the socially preferred setting for parenthood. It should come as no surprise when Dutch parents act accordingly.” Source: see here

PB said...

Thanks Jeremy for that verbose display of American Family Association talking points. Pastor Wildmon would be proud. I knew there'd be a bible in their somewhere when this discussion began.

slightly angered Christian said...

I don't know why people think gay marriage will lead to polygamy any more than heterosexual marriage does.

Groups which tend to be more 'supportive' of polygamy also tend to be less 'supportive' of gay marriage.

slightly angered Christian said...

I don't know why people think gay marriage will lead to polygamy any more than heterosexual marriage does.

Groups which tend to be more 'supportive' of polygamy also tend to be less 'supportive' of gay marriage.