After Newman's triumph in Queensland he should have the LNP eating out of his hand. And extreme right-wing parties in Queensland have a history of flaring up and petering out rapidly; Katter's mob is no threat to a LNP with eighty (?) per cent of the seats. Methinks this is a beat-up.

"Marriage is about children, including their education and upbringing. "

I missed this bit, but here we go again: after a century or so of conspicuously abusing children at every opportunity, the Catholic Church has suddenly discovered what a wonderful drawcard they are for public support against gay marriage.

Forty or so Victorian men have committed suicide in adulthood after being raped by priests as boys. Why not ask their families just how much the Catholic Church cares for children?

Campbell Newman said before the election that he would lay aside his personal belief on 'gay' marriage and accept the party's decision. Compare this to Gilard who layed aside her personal belief in the carbon tax, advised Rudd to drop it, then stabbed him in the back to usurp leadership, lied to the public and then in did a dirty deal with the Greens. If keeping one's word is not a moral issue then we end up with a farce like we have in Canberra. Hopefully Cambell Newman will keep his word otherwise his integrity is shot.

"And it is a fact of life that authority is diminished once personal principles are abandoned."

But there'd hardly be a voter left in the country who doesn't believe it is a fact of life that personal principles are more or less abandoned once someone becomes a politician or joins a political party.

Still heaps of self-delusion by politicians, I'll grant you.

Not living there, I personally don't give a rat's about Campbell Newman and even less than a rat's about Katter's Australia Party… But if you think your comments are consistent with looking "to this moment for inspiration as we fight for our individual rights, personal freedoms and a fair go for all" then I think some of your personal principles have already abandoned ship.

I couldn't let this go without comment: "…as a practicing Catholic who accepts the teaching of the Church". Be honest, you don't 'accept' it, you 'like' it – even though it is inconsistent with core values of your political party.

Campbell Newman is not the only one faced with a conundrum.

Hi Bernard, as a both a former military person and a KAP strategist you should know full well that your strategy must never be telegraphed.

Campbell Newman’s mandate and the shear size of his majority is one thing, add to that fact that he too is ex-military and it should tell you one thing for absolute certain, and that is he does not have a “conundrum”, you do, especially considering the self harm done by the KAP on this very issue by those abominable adverts.

Of all the issues faced by a military mind, it is the relative weighted value of each challenge that counts. For the Queensland electorates and therefore Campbell Newman, the civil rights issue has a very low RWV by comparison with many more pressing issues.

I strongly suspect that by attempting to escalate this issue to an artificial value, you will do yourself and the KAP more harm than good.

Pick something else very quickly as this one is the march of folly, your all too “visible strategy” suggests that you treat Queensland electorates as too dumb to spot it.

BIG mistake Bernard.

If the reactionary rump of the LNP succeed in overturning the existing legislation regarding civil unions it will confirm once more to the world what has always been suspected about Queensland. The state will be a laughing stock where reactionary prejudice outweighs fundamental human rights and common decency.

I suspect one of the reasons the KAP has (probably) reached its zenith is its inability to understand its opposition. I went searching but couldn't find it again, but I'm sure I read an article this week revealing that the KAP was polling at about 7% - half the 14% cited here. On a downward spiral already? I'd suggest Bob and his friends look to the One Nation Party for some tips on what not to do if they want to continue existing.

As for Newman's "conundrum", I doubt it will rear its head in parliament any time soon. If it does, it might be good strategy for Newman to stand on his principles, be defeated in the party room and show that he is human after all. His style is one of "rewriting the book" on politics. What was bad before may not be so bad now. And, given that there are many whispers that he's the reincarnation of Sir Joh, it might be good to show that he's not a dictator after all.

Newman and Gillard have similar problems. They are both adept in wedging themselves into impossible corners.

The gay marriage issue is vexed and has lots of people who are for and against it. Many people do not think clearly about what such a change means to the social structure that we rely upon for human cohesion. They are carried along by sentiment and such nonsense as, 'It's all about love!'

It's not just about 'lurve' as some would have us believe. It is about changing the structure of our whole society to suit a tiny minority. It's about creating mass confusion. It's about throwing out the rule book and creating a situation where anything goes! This can only result in a situation where no one knows what is right any more.

It's about ignoring all the laws of psychology that show that children, to develop properly, need to have a male and a female role model to copy, to emulate. Nature and nurture it's called.

I would urge everyone, including gays, to think deeply about this issue, about the downside of gay marriage, its implications for the broader community, the affect on children who can't understand what is going on.

How could children make sense of a situation where Mummy has gone and suddenly their father is sleeping with another man in the place where Mummy used to be and he is kissing this other man the way he used to kiss their Mummy?

It is time that emotion was put aside and the gay marriage issue was examined closely and scientifically from the point of view of vulnerable children who need protection and stability rather than becoming pawns in adult games.

http://dangerouscreation.com

@David G" "It is time that emotion was put aside and the gay marriage issue was examined closely and scientifically from the point of view of vulnerable children who need protection and stability rather than becoming pawns in adult games."

Can you please give us details of just how much time and energy you have spent campaigning against the all-too-frequent abuse of children of heterosexual couples, and against the laws which make it easy for heterosexual couples to divorce?

If -- as I suspect -- the answer is 'none whatsoever', then we are entitled to ask: Why are you fulminating now about the possible risk to children from gay marriage, when you've never expressed the slightest concern about children known to be at risk in heterosexual families?

>>Why are you fulminating now about the possible risk to children from gay marriage, when you've never expressed the slightest concern about children known to be at risk in heterosexual families?<<

The same reason all the anti-gay marriage crowd use the "Oh please won't somebody think of the children" argument even though the debate is about gay marriage not gay parenting which is already legal and happening as we speak: because being honest would not be a good look for them. If they were to admit the truth - that they are against gay marriage because they just plain don't like gay people - they would be pilloried. So they have to make do with irrelevant arguments that won't convince anyone capable of critical thinking.

Cheers,

Tony

Jon and Tony, what a wonderful example of creating a strawman argument.

You both contrive to paint me as a person who doesn't argue for the welfare of the children from heterosexual relationships despite the fact that you know absolutely nothing about me.

This is why serious discussion with gays never eventuates. All they can see are their own selfish demands which, in the case of children, usually takes little account of them!

Children become pawns as, all too often, they do in heterosexual relationships.

David, all you have to do is provide some evidence of your long-standing and ongoing concern for children, no matter what type of family they come from. Then we will know your protests are sincere and not just driven by homophobia.

But as I pointed out elsewhere, it's amusing to see the Catholic Church suddenly discovering 'the children' as a bargaining point against gay marriage, when they've been happily facilitating the abuse of children for centuries.

Surely YOU wouldn't be guilty of such breathtaking hypocrisy.

Jon, all you need to do is to click on the 'temple' icon at the bottom of my comment and read a few of my latest posts. That should satisfy you regarding my bona fides.

"Jon, all you need to do is to click on the 'temple' icon at the bottom of my comment and read a few of my latest posts. That should satisfy you regarding my bona fides."

David, I see one comment to the effect that children should be protected from their parents' religion, which is true, of course. But I don't see you objecting to fathers bringing up children alone -- of which there are far more cases than there are gay male couples wanting to have children -- or to liberalised no-fault heterosexual divorces depriving children of a 'proper' upbringing with two parents of different genders. Since there are probably a hundred heterosexual divorces and a dozen cases of motherless families for every one case of gay parents, one would expect you to be proportionally far more worked up about them. After all, it's all about 'the children' and their 'role models', isn't it?

Have I missed something?

Yes, Jon!

What?