Just Grounds Community

For Like minded people who like to see-

Marriage

The genetic desire of a society is to perpetuate itself so that one's own genes survive and prosper into the forever future. 'Marriage' being the union between man and woman is the principle multiplier of the perpetuation of the society. "Marriage" between same sex couples achieves no purpose for the continuance of the society and can only lead to "equal" rights for same sex "marrieds' to adopt children. Whilst I am aware of children being exposed to same sex relationships being forced upon some children by their bisexual and turned homosexual natural parents no society that wishes to perpetuate itself should entertain a view that same sex couples should have rights to adopt or foster others parentless children. Homosexuals who want the right to marry as man and women have can not expect to be 'equal' unless given the OK to apply to be included in the adoption process. What homosexuals want is to feel normal when there is nothing normal about homosexuality for a society that wants to successfully perpetuate itself.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on June 14, 2012 at 6:07am

James I concure with you about Christian Kerr, I wish we had more journo's like him who are prepared to tell the truth about these so-called leaders, - I too was VERY surprised to see Joan Kirner on the "honours" list.She almost destroyed the State of Victoria but then I guess that is Emily's List coming to the fore.

"Emily's List's started in 1994 when the ALP national conference passed an affirmative action rule requiring that women be preselected in 35 per cent of winnable seats at all elections by 2002.

Among the "progressive" women who drove this change were Julia Gillard, former Victorian premier Joan Kirner, former WA premier Carmen Lawrence, Helen Creed, Candy Broad, Kay Setches, Leonie Morgan, Judy Spence, Meredith Burgmann, Jan Burnswoods, Carolyn Pickles, Sue Mackay and Fran Bladel.

To be "progressive" a woman has to be pro-abortion, pro-diversity (i.e., increased "rights" for same-sex couples) and pro-institutionalised childcare (with no equivalent funding for mothers who care for their own children), and, of course, pro-affirmative action, i.e., discrimination against men until the numbers of women and men in all jobs and at all levels of promotion reach "equity".

This is the real agenda of the "real Julia".

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=4468

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james darby on June 14, 2012 at 11:30am

Hi Jan, Jan Burnswoods named me in Parliament over my activity (DAMM- Don't Amalgamate My Municipality) that brought down Peter Woods (The G Richo. of NSW State politics) the then Mayor of Concord. Jan Burnswoods lied to Parliament about me and never recanted her lies. Can you imagine having anyone of those 'progressives' as your mother in law?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james darby on June 14, 2012 at 11:37am

How does one find out who nominated Joan Kirner for Aussie Honours and on what basis?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on June 14, 2012 at 12:35pm

James, If Singer and Kirner are recipients of QB honours, somebody has defiled that whole concept. I know some wonderful, selfless people who have b een awarded honours and these two seem to have dirtied those honours. Labor mates I suppose.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james darby on June 14, 2012 at 4:26pm

yes Jan, I know my mother Late Esme Darby would hand back her MBE in protest were she alive.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james darby on June 15, 2012 at 2:30pm

The real reason for compulsory employer-pay superannuation: Is to continue to effect the psyche of the employee into an employee mindset instead of an apprentice employer mindset. Very few employees seeing the unfair dismissal laws and compulsory superannuation employer contribution will ever want to become an employer. The enemy of socialism is marriage, family and small business. When a Government causes employees to abandon their desire to learn to treat the business as their own and to adopt an attitude of ‘entitlement’ instead of accelerating a desire to be ‘profitable’ be assured of that Governments intent. The Gillard Government has the intent of destroying Small Business and ensuring the growth of the Woolies and the West Farmers. The Gillard Government will attempt, using borrowings, to buy the votes of the inane to remain in Government. And/or hope that the time they have had destroying Australia will be sufficient to justify the establishment of an AsianAustUnion. The difference between Liberal and Labor is simply the degree of the intent. The Liberals don’t really want Australia to become part of Asia and still hold socialist policies to cut off their own nose.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by peter cvek on June 18, 2012 at 10:10am

... The sad fact that the difference gap between Liberal and Labor is swiftly eroding brings me to the following.. A true story.. As proprietors of a General Store in a small Gippsland hamlet some four years or so ago, my wife and I would cater for an organized " bike run" which was held annually.. Our little hamlet was a formal watering stop on the bike run, and it was a day we, naturally, looked forward to every year due to the business stimulus it created for us.. Now on this particular occassion there was four of us serving customers; my wife and myself, and two female staff members... A number of the riders had suffered falls on the journey, and one tall and stately man of close to 60 years of age, came in with bleeding to his hand asking for assistance... Whilst in the throes of serving a packed shop, I instinctively instructed one of our female assistants, Jan, to get the first aid box out and see to the wound.. No sooner had Jan responded with an equally instinctive affirmative, than a loud voice yelling out " discrimination!" rang out through the shop for all to hear, directed at myself.. The protagonist, a fiesty vixen of the civil service bent, had planted both her palms on the counter infront of me ( whilst I was serving others) and glared venomously into my eyes.. The injured man, who was obviously well acquainted with the woman, with a great degree of shamefacedness intervened and tactfully directed her away from the scene, and thanked us all for tending to his wounds, thereby averting what could have been an embarrassing, if not ugly, scene for all, for the woman was about to file a complaint against me to the anti-discrimination board for issuing a directive to my own "female" staff, and for not tending to the wounds myself... All were soon back on their bikes, and Jan and I both looked at each other in disbelief at what could have happened... Had her colleague not intervened, and had she succeeded, our business would have been closed down or at the leased fined beyond our ability to pay.. The simple reality in Australia is that we have a de facto tyranny; a " silent tyranny" which is perpetrated through draconian and unnatural and unjust anti discrimination laws by our illegal star chamber courts, and enforced against anyone who wants to remain a reasoning, discerning, human being... Neither side of the political spectrum are willing to repeal these horrific tyrannical anti discrimination laws, which spell " hari kari" to freedom in Australia, and beyond...

Peter Cvek

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Malcolm Fenton on June 18, 2012 at 3:08pm

Thanks for that Peter. I came across a far worse incident than that just recently relating to the teaching profession. As I am very sure it will be censored from this discussion I will send it to you directly. Ditto anyone else who is not afraid to see how quickly things are deteriorating.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jan Courtney on June 19, 2012 at 2:13pm

We should all take responsibility to protect natural marriage so that children can be raised by their mum and dad. In this way, the right of children to know their brothers, sisters, grandparents and family medical history is also protected.

A 2010 Galaxy poll found 86 per cent of Australians believed that, wherever possible, children should be raised by their biological mother and father.

Further, the latest Galaxy poll shows that 63 per cent of Australians are opposed to having same-sex, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual issues taught to children in kindergartens and schools, as called for by the Australian Education Union.

Following the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Ontario (Canada), Massachusetts (USA) and Holland, these issues were forced into schools

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on June 20, 2012 at 7:22am

Big government's social re-engineering campaign is gaining speed.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rae Billett on June 20, 2012 at 9:36am

I am sick of this whole gay 'marriage' so called 'discussion'. The gay movement and the Greens want to normalise these unions by marriage to normalise themselves. And the Government are using it AS A DIVERSION! Where and who did they ask about gay marriage and what were the questions. Ask the right questions, get the right result....and thus it has always been.

But, in this 'discussion' they hardly ever mention the long term repercussions on the children from these associations. They also never mention that homosexual associations between gay men are not given to monogamy, in fact quite the opposite, they change partners often. So I can only imagine that the lesbian side is at the bottom of this. Two brides?

I will say it again I don't want my grandchildren thinking this is normal from an age when they have no idea about sexual matters and I cannot bear the thought of small children from those associations being bullied about having no real mother or no real father, just two of each.....tell me that's normal!

I do not believe gay partnerships should be allowed to undergo IVF just to fulfil some fantasy of a so called 'love' association or 'soul mate' ideation. That does not last in many real life monogamous marriages and it won't last in these either. That will upset many, but I don't believe singles should have IVF either.

IVF should not be available to any other than heterosexual couples. There's a politically incorrect statement. But you know I don't give a fig, there are enough bad partnerships for kids to cope with now.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by james darby on June 20, 2012 at 10:52am

Hi Rae, sort of puts new meaning into childrens' play of "Mothers and Fathers". You also say "IVF should not be available to any other than heterosexual couples." This statement is correct, and very worth fighting for. So many wothwhile marrieds who have applied to adopt are rejected on a variety of reasons such as age difference and age and yet homosexual apologists and propergandists seek a system that place defensless children into the lifestyle of homosexuals.