Today, we'll be looking at "Australia's Evil Government". Now before we start we'll play a little game.
What do you think makes our government evil? Is it:
a) Our involvement in the War on Terror.
b) The transition from a more conservative government to a more liberal one.
c) Gay people.
If you didn't answer c. then you clearly haven't picked up anything from the last three parts of this series.
Of course it's gay people. It's always gay people and this is no exception:
Australia has made it number one priority throughout the last 30 years of the 20th century to make it ok to be a fag. The last law to make it legal to be a fag was passed in 1997. Not only do they say it’s not illegal to be a fag, let’s add on top of that a law to recognize those unnatural relationships.Let us start with the obvious. Their basis for the determination of "natural" is based on the beloved verse from Deuteronomy. That is it. Never mind that quite a few animals display homosexual behaviour nope.
Tasmania’s The Relationship Act was passed in 2003 stating: A relationships register for significant relationships & caring relationships (same sex couples or heterosexual de facto couples). These “relationships” provide for certain legal benefits such as property division, will, hospital visits, etc.
Because we all know that the Bible is far more knowledgeable then anything that science has come up with...
Their second paragraph I assume is supposed to make people think "those damn Australians, I hope God sends them all to hell" or something like that (WANTED: Fundamentalist Christian to tell me what I am supposed to think here.) . However, all the law states, based on just that paragraph is that homosexual couples are able to get de facto status. Oh dear, gay people have the same rights as a group that this church would hate anyway based on what they think of about sex.
Quite a few places in the world already have such laws. There would be quite a few homosexual couples that would be quite happy to have such a status, in the same way that there are heterosexual couples that are quite happy with that status. But apparently that is endorsing some vague form of sin.
I guess it doesn't help when groups like Evangelicals Concerned Inc. exist that have their own, possibly better interpretation of the Bible which I only know of but can't actually prove to you right now.
When I can I will provide the evidence.
But let us continue
If you think those laws are bad enough…wait for this next part. That’s right ladies and gentleman; let us take a look behind the scenes at certain people who have taken over the Australian Government. These are the best and brightest out-of-the-closet fags and dykes in good old Australia!
Michael Kirby – Justice of the High Court of Australia
Shayne Mallard – City Council
Bob Brown – Senator, First open fag member of the Australian Parliament
Penny Wong – Senator
Andrew Barr – Legislative Assembly
Penelope Gail Sharpe – Legislative Council
John Hyde – Legislative Assembly
Louise Pratt – Legislative Council
Giz Watson – Legislative Council
Gary Singer – Deputy Lord Mayor
Thang Ngo – City Council
Very detailed there isn't it? It's also out of date.
Let's just fill in a few gaps here first, and explain some things for those who don't know much about Australian politics:
Shayne Mallard is a councillor for the City of Sydney.
Gary Singer was a Deputy Lord Mayor, of Melbourne.
Thang Ngo was a councillor of Fairfield in NSW.
Michael Kirby was until recently a HCA justice.
Senator Bob Brown is currently a Greens Senator for Tasmania.
Senator Penny Wong is a senator and also the Climate Change and Water Minister. She is also the first Asian born person and the first openly gay person to be a member of a Federal Cabinet. Incidentally she is also represents South Australia in the Senate, a state which has the fewest rights for homosexuals.
Andrew Barr is a member of the ACT Legislative Assembly, and a member of the ACT Cabinet. He is the first openly gay person to be elected to the ACT Legislative Assembly.
Penelope Gail Sharpe (who clearly prefers to be called Penny) is a member of the NSW Legislative Council.
John Hyde is a member of the WA Legislative Assembly. He is not to be confused with the WA Senator with the same name. He is the first openly gay man to be elected to WA Parliament.
Louise Pratt is now a member of the Senate, she was a member of the WA legislative council.
Giz Watson is a member of the WA Legislative Coucil.
Now based on what I have found, all (with the possible exception of Thang Ngo, I couldn't find anything on him) of these people are openly gay. But wow. Look how well they have infiltrated and "taken over" the Australian government. I guess Bob Brown, Penny Wong and Louise Pratt must be some unstoppable gay Labor-Greens power bloc in the Senate right?
Actually they make up less then 4% of the Senate. There are 76 members of the Senate so they have the potential to be outvoted by 73 other people.
So what we see here is some good old fashioned scaremongering. Except that it is crappy scaremongering. Because based on this 100% of the House of Representatives isn't homosexual. Really good work there huh?
October 10, 2008 – After four days and nights, Australia decides to decriminalize abortion in the state of Victoria. Parliament had such a tough decision to make…should we defy God or shouldn’t we? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament had a tough time with this one; as a matter of fact, they had a “marathon sitting week.” Don’t worry - in the end they decided to spit in God’s face (shocker, I know) with a vote of 23-17! Shame on you Australia; you think you’re smarter than God about the matters of the womb. Think again. Your final destruction is nigh at hand. PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD!
What we see here is really nothing more then a temper tantrum from a four year old.
That is really all it is. Here we see the member of the WBC who wrote this complaining that they didn't get things "their way" even though they have no actual right to demand any change in Australia whatsoever.
But on to some bad science:
According to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission in Australia, there is need for a third gender. Not only can you mark female and male on official documents, you can mark "intersex" if you are transgender. WTF, mate?!? Here's a thought…how about if you just be thankful for what your God gave you. You can defy God and spit in His face all you want, but guess what? You can't change your chromosomes. Go ahead and mutilate yourselves and call your gender "intersex" it doesn't change the fact that you were either born with two X chromosomes or an X and a Y chromosome…you silly unthankful brutes!
People are either born with two X chromosomes or an X and a Y. Well yes, most of the time.
Women with Turner Syndrome don't fit in the XX/XY definition of male and female because they are XO. Yes, they don't have a second chromosome. They are women, but they don't fall into the classification given by the WBC.
Then there is XX male syndrome. This is where the sex chromosomes have a partial crossover during meiosis. They look like men. They may have the chromosomes of a woman but they look like a man.
It raises an interesting question here. Would a group like the Westboro Baptist Church call an XX male who is homosexual an abomination even though under the XX/XY system he is a woman?
The same line of reasoning would follow for a woman with Swyer syndrome only in this case it's a person who looks like a woman but has XY sex chromosomes.
Then we can talk about more abiguous ones like Klinefelter's Syndrome. This is an anomily where you get a man who is XXY.
What I am getting at here is that things are never as simple as you want it to be. I don't actually know the official stance of transgender people, I would have assumed that you would let them tick a "transgender" box, because there actually are intersex people in this world.
But I'm going to conclude with the bible verse they mention in the article. It is just before the tantrum:
Job 12:17 He leadeth counsellors away spoiled, and maketh the judges fools.
I'm actually confused here. I wonder if they mean "He" as "God" as the passage mentions or do they mean "he" as in "Satan" who only appears at the start of the book. I'm sorry to say that based on the context of the page either is technically a valid interpretation.
I do, however, get the funny feeling that this verse was only chosen because it mentions both councillors and judges.