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.

Views: 2493

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Beverly, I understand that 300 same gender couples took advantage of the Qld Governements 'equality' legislation. Caeser married his horse.   

SMH poll on marriage, closed early to prevent embarrassment

When the SMH released a poll on June 19 with the heading 'Gay marriage debate brought forward' AFA members were surprised when, as the numbers increased for protecting current marriage law, the poll closed 2-3 hours earlier than planned!  This of course conveniently allowed the published 'result' to be marginally in favour of redefining marriage.

Perhaps, the reported concerns over new board members for Fairfax media should be redirected to the apparent bias within the current editorial or administrative ranks that appears ready to suppress Australia's dislike for meddling with marriage laws.   You could complain here.

 

http://www.family.org.au/index.php

I have no time for polls at all. The minority groups say when pushing this or that 'burning issue', that over 50% or 60% of those polled agree with whatever they are pushing.

 

Sorry I just don't buy it.

If you ask 20 people do you agree with same sex marriage in inner Sydney say around Paddington you may get 7 you might get 10.....but ask that same question of a thousand people over a demographic of a few thousand kilometers, including country areas and see what you come up with.

 

Just like the carbon dioxide tax...and the Combet quote about 'most of the people understand and want a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme". Who did they ask that one, 10 or 20 bankers in inner Sydney or perhaps some Green yummy mummies sipping latte's in Marrickville and Balmain, wives of said bankers?

 

They do this because they want the general public to feel they are out of step with the majority. They're not, it's manipulation by minority groups.

Sure does James but that's what they want everyone to accept.

james darby said:

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.

Now ain't this the truth:

 

Rae, Good point about pseudoscientific polls being used to manipulate public opinion. Polls taken in gay bars are about as scientific as the global warming scam.

Rae Billett said:

it's manipulation by minority groups.

The ingrained fake belief of "euality" instilled into all school leavers, places the regimented into a mindset devoid of  the capacity to observe truth, reason and logic and also to unable to accept the knowledge  of the experienced and wise. I did write a paper about this and am happy to repost it here if anyone wants to see it. It is about three pages.

"There was a lot of moosh written in the last two decades about the "blank slate", the idea that since each child is theoretically equal under the eyes of the law, each must, by extension be equal in all things and that such a possibility could not obtain unless each child was, from birth, equally capable - environmental influences aside - of succeeding in all things.

This is a magnificent and majestic theory and would be borne by all -  save those who had ever had, observed, or seriously thought about children."

 

- recent post on a popular website.

And this is why we have a lot of lazy, self interested younger people who expect everything to be provided to them. I find the 30 somethings the worst. And you know I really am getting to the stage where I don't trust them.  

 

Have you every been spoken to in a paternalistic manner by a 30 something in a shop, a pharmacy, an office or anywhere really, where they tell you what they think you should know and do...  I could slap them. They have no idea what you have been or done but they know about everything... 
 
Malcolm Fenton said:

"There was a lot of moosh written in the last two decades about the "blank slate", the idea that since each child is theoretically equal under the eyes of the law, each must, by extension be equal in all things and that such a possibility could not obtain unless each child was, from birth, equally capable - environmental influences aside - of succeeding in all things.

This is a magnificent and majestic theory and would be borne by all -  save those who had ever had, observed, or seriously thought about children."

 

- recent post on a popular website.

My take on "Equality" is within this paper I originally wrote a long time ago. The serious problem that parents face in attempting to prepare their children to find a future spouse and develope the capacity to provide for self and spouse to carry on the genes is highlighted in this paper.

 

WORDS BEST DELETED

 

Governments never create wealth, Governments consume wealth. A Governments hangs a man then pays a tax collector, a school teacher, a policeman and a member of the thought police (media) to each grab a leg of a stool and slide it under the hanging(ed) man and as the tourniquet is loosened the Government says "We have given you incentive to keep living. You can start breathing again, you can keep producing, you can keep working and employing and you must be grateful for the incentive we have given you.”

 The school leaver sub consciously has a belief that manifests itself  consciously-

 IN  “EQUALITY”:

Not that all are equal in opportunity and that they all are equal before God. The youth feel, think, 'know' that their profound equality means that the knowledge and experience of the wise is already theirs. There is no opening for incoming information: no quest for knowledge (Q4K). As the child is equal the knowledge of (from) another is unwelcome and begrudged. Information is received with a wry face, with a grimace, with folded arms and a snarl and a sneer. The smile and sense of gratitude is absent. The desire for apprenticeship and the quest for knowledge is replaced with the false concept of "I know".

Gratitude for instruction and direction is non-existent. Incessant "I know" said by automatic response finally silencing the instructor into a state of bewilderment.

 "I know" means "shut-up" therefore "shut-up" means "I know".

 Without WcDonalds none of to-days’ youth would have training in smiling. That’s why I spell it with a W instead of a M.

 IN “WE”:

 Distressfully the only common time when the school leaver says 'I' is when they say "I know".

They say "How much do we get paid?" “What hours do we have to work?"

 "What do we say on the phone?"  "What is the dress code for us?"

The universal adoption of the word "we" instead of the word "I" promotes the belief of negated responsibility. Instead of being able to expect and accept responsibility for anything to-days' youth think and feel and act out their 'programming'.

"It's not our responsibility to make money, it is the boss's". "People go into business to serve the public". "You only learn from your mistakes". "The customer is always right." "What's best for other staff is best for us all". "It's not our fault".

 

 IN “SORRY”

The word 'sorry' continues to expand in the vocab. of the youth. Whenever spoken to by an elder the youth's common response is "Sorry?” Sort of replacing the word "pardon” I say 'sort of' because it's not really what is being meant. When they say "Sorry" what is really being said is:-

 "I want you to say it again. When things are said twice there is time to work out an answer".

Or "I did not bother to listen to you when you spoke to me so say it again Sam."

 Or "Please speak more clearly as I did not hear you"

"Sorry" is not only used as the means to obtain a repeating of a question or instruction.

"Sorry" is also used as a permanent acceptance of individual irresponsibility.

Or to put the previous sentence in another way 'Sorry" is used as a permanent excuse for a mistake that the person saying it intends to keep making over and over again.

"Sorry" has replaced truth. The youth have little personal truth left from gross overuse of the word "sorry'. They say "Sorry" when they bump you instead of "I've bumped you may I assist?"

 Or "I will make sure that does not happen again." Because "Sorry" is so ingrained in the vocabulary the capacity to create from situations and circumstance is denied. Instead of hearing and responding and creating in given situations and circumstances and exercising the capacity to converse and so gain knowledge the communication skill is stunted and so the youth tends to react to situations and circumstances and gains nothing. Creating from a circumstance or situation cannot be contemplated by a collectivised youth.

"Sorry" has demonstrated itself to be a similar inhibitor to personal development as the alteration to the method of teaching hand writing did.

 Children are taught printing and 'modified cursive' instead 'running writing' to slow their writing. Writing techniques have slowed the capacity of the youth to transfer thought onto paper to so disrupt the developing thought process. Slow the capacity to transfer thought onto paper and the thought process is stunted. Give a child a way out of any kind of truth or responsibility and a way a producing unemployables is determined.

 "Sorry" then compounds the belief system of the verbaliser of the word into that of an apologist. The "sorry" saying person programs themselves to believe that they are not a great and marvelous creation. They have no capacity to count their blessings or observe the attributes. The sorry person even starts to diminish their natural attributes. The tall ones think "I'm tall, that's unfair, and I will stoop." The smart ones think "I'm bright I won't study as much as study will put me too far ahead".

And then comes "But"

IN "BUT"

 

 "We agree with you but” …. "No, we agree with you"….. "But we agree with you" .. “Yes you are right but.” .. "That can be done but” A most common sentence said by a school leaver in a job interview is "But maths was not something that was easy". Or "I’m (they sometimes use the word "I" when they really have to decry themselves) was not any good at maths."

Not understanding basic mathematics is desirable if the plan is to remove logic and truth as a thought process’

 ‘But’ is a negative thought multiplier.

 Using the word 'But' repeatedly and by automatic response programs the verbaliser of this word "But" into a negative mode of communication. When "I agree but" is said what the sub-conscious registers is "I don't agree and I will lie and say I do." or “I do agree and I will convince my subconscious that I do not by saying ‘but’.

 If a plan is afoot to deny Shakespeare's advice "And above all else my son to thine own self be true" then advancing use of the word "But" has to be part of the self abuse of self lying.

"But I was just trying to say that that is your opinion and you are entitled to it but I have my opinion and I'm entitled to it so let’s agree to differ sorry"

 Is another very common statement made by the school teacher's product. As truth and logic have to be denied in order to "Justify" an incorrect premise and to acknowledge the right of people to hold an incorrect view, at another's expense 'jus' became a word.

*IN "JUS"*

 "Jus" comes from 'just' after coming from 'justify'. Positive use of the word 'just' is if the verbaliser wants to say 'recently'. In which case it is best to say

 "I recently washed the car".

"Just or “jus" has entered to vocab as a means of expressing the apologetic view of oneself that has become acceptable behaviour amongst the new. "I jus need a job" "I jus washed the car" "I jus said sorry"

 "Jus" has found a way to give excuse to personal failure. Provides no help for the future "But I jus(t) tried to help sorry." “I'm  just a cleaner” “Jus(t)” is best deleted from the vocab and the deletion of this terrible word will help restore self-esteem to the individual as an expanding vocab will deny that humans are as collectivised as ants.

Other words, expressions, I have not written about here are “How are you?” “May I ask...?” “everyone” “Huh” “Probably” “Try” “Maybe” “OK” “Basically” “No worries” “No problem” “Are you interested?” “You know what I mean” (without a ‘?’ mark)

 James Darby (written originally by me in 1980 as part of my Office Training Manual and sent to Malcolm Turnbull as a letter when Turnbull became Leader of the Opposition with a request that Turnbull give it to his Shadow Education Minister)

The Madrid Declaration

Assembled in Madrid, Spain, this 27th Day of May, 2012, we delegates to The World Congress of Families VI reaffirm the truth that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state” (Article 16, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights). This natural family is inscribed in human nature and centers on the voluntary union of a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage. The institution of marriage foremost provides love and joy to the couple and is also aimed for the procreation and rearing of children. The marital union also offers security for them in times of trouble, the foundation for a society that balances order and liberty, and the binding of generations.

 

Alas, in our time, assaults on the natural family are growing in number and intensity. Ideologies of statism, atomistic individualism, and sexual revolution challenge the very essences of marriage and family. Recent legal and public policy changes have corrupted the meaning and dignity of marriage, devalued parenting, encouraged easy divorce and births outside of marriage, confused sexual identities, promoted promiscuity, created conditions that increased child abuse, isolated the elderly, and fostered depopulation. These changes were particularity acute in Europe in the last decades and, more specifically, in the nation of Spain during the years 2004-2011, when a radical government actually worked to subvert the natural family.

 

In response, The World Congress of Families VI endorses a set of principles to create a cultural and political environment that is compatible with life, liberty, and hope for the future:

  • We affirm that the natural family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society.
  • We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, propagating children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations.
  • We affirm that the natural family is a fixed aspect of the created order, one ingrained in human nature. The natural family cannot change into some new shape; nor can it be re-defined by eager social engineers.
  • We affirm that the natural family is the ideal, optimal, true family system. While we acknowledge varied living situations, all other “family forms” are incomplete or are mere fabrications of the state.
  • We affirm the marital union of a man and a woman to be the authentic sexual bond, the only one open to the natural and responsible creation of new life.
  • We affirm the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death; each newly conceived person holds rights to live, to grow, to be born, and to share a home with its natural parents bound by marriage. Abortion, euthanasia and all forms of manipulating human beings in their embryonic or fetal state are therefore attacks on human life.
  • We affirm that the natural family is prior to the state and that legitimate governments exist to shelter and encourage the natural family.
  • We affirm that the world is abundant in resources. The breakdown of the natural family and moral and political failure, not human “overpopulation”, account for poverty, starvation, and environmental decay.
  • We affirm that human aging and depopulation are the true demographic dangers facing the earth in this new century. Our societies need more people, not fewer.
  • We affirm that the natural family is the main source of social and economic prosperity and the main pillar on which to achieve the overcoming of the current world economic crisis.
  • We affirm that women and men are equal in dignity and innate human rights, but different in function. Even if sometimes thwarted by events beyond the individual’s control (or sometimes given up for a religious vocation), the calling of each boy is to become husband and father; the calling of each girl is to become wife and mother. Culture, law, and policy should take these differences into account.
  • We affirm that the complementarity of the sexes is a source of strength. Men and women exhibit profound biological and psychological differences. When united in marriage, though, the whole becomes greater then the sum of the parts.
  • We affirm the parents’ right to educate their children for their good with no interference from the state.
  • We affirm that every human being is entitled to religious freedom and that the political community must respect the freedom to profess one’s faith, to hand it on, and to raise one’s children in it.
  • We affirm the “family wage” ideal of “equal pay for equal family responsibility.” Compensation for work, taxation, and social insurance plans should reinforce natural family bonds.
  • We affirm the necessary role of private property in land, dwelling, and productive capital as the foundation of familial independence and the guarantor of democracy. In a just and good society, all families will hold real property.
  • And we affirm that lasting solutions to human problems, including the current economic crisis, rise out of families and small communities. They cannot be imposed by bureaucratic and judicial fiat. Nor can they be coerced by outside force.

 

When the birds and bees do it you can call it normal or natural. Until then same sex arrangements are a Human Kind invention and therefore needs a name of its own the same as with every other human creation. Obviously marriage is not that name. The man, woman, children arrangement is a physical irrefutable fact of life. Not some theoretical idea up for discussion. The thing, is no amount of brilliant logic, sympathetic understanding, religious quotations, psychological clap trap or emotion outbursts one way or the other can or will ever change that.  It is not even worthy of discussion because it is just opinion against opinion. It’s valid to argue about entitlements if you like but that is not part of this naming point.

Same sex relationships are simply what they are. Same sex relationships. Invent a name if you like but they can never be anything else but what they are.

Just as married relationships are married relationships and when you say that name people know what you mean. The dictionary is very clear on this point. Start calling same sex relationships marriage and you immediately introduce confusion because then you have to ask, like what kind of “marriage”? A totally unnecessary complication just to pander to a minority with a problem.  A problem finding a name for their arrangement that is.

They would only not be welcome here if they came along pushing their arrangement against the majority and trying the get acceptance from the real marriage people or to try to make converts. If they came in to enter into the discussions and could make a contribution to a discussion I see no reason why they wouldn’t be able to do that.  

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Honest Government, Fair Rights to property and compensation, Australia and our people strong and proud, reinstatement of values and respect

Members

Forum

ODDS AND ENDS AND OTHER THINGS 864 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in General. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 18 minutes ago.

EDUCATION 455 Replies

Started by james darby in Politics. Last reply by Russell Scott 24 minutes ago.

MIGRANTS, ASYLUM-SEEKERS, AND SOCIAL SERVICE BENEFITS (cont.) 1863 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 1 hour ago.

Playground, Juke Box and Notepad 941 Replies

Started by Geoff Hutchesson in Entertainment, Books, Movies, Music. Last reply by Barbara lee 1 hour ago.

THE ILLUSION OF THE LEFT - RIGHT PARADIGM 30 Replies

Started by Norm Finkelstein in General. Last reply by Barbara lee 5 hours ago.

Islamia Anyone? 532 Replies

Started by Bob Stewart in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 6 hours ago.

MENTORING IN THE WORKPLACE AND BEYOND 100 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Education. Last reply by Barbara lee 8 hours ago.

IS AUSTRALIA ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC INVASION ? 1243 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Politics. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 17 hours ago.

UNITED NATIONS AGENDA 21 17 Replies

Started by greg rauchle in Activism. Last reply by Geoff Hutchesson 19 hours ago.

Barb's veggie flower Receipe photo chatt Patch 588 Replies

Started by Barbara lee in Entertainment, Books, Movies, Music. Last reply by Barbara lee 20 hours ago.

GREENPEACE USE SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER MEANS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY: NOW I AM OUTRAGED! 935 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright 21 hours ago.

DAIRY FARMING ISSUES 48 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Ian Davies yesterday.

UNIONS = Relevance or Tactical Manipulation ?? 13 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in Politics. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright yesterday.

Focus People- The Head of this monster (AWU puppet Govt) 117 Replies

Started by Rob Moore in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule yesterday.

PM and the ALP = Past - Current - Future = 2013 338 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in General. Last reply by Alyn Roule yesterday.

Vegetable Growing + EU + Monsanto etc + Seeds = FUTURE of FOOD 3 Replies

Started by Alyn Roule in Agriculture. Last reply by Alyn Roule yesterday.

LEADERSHIP FOLLOWING THE NEXT FEDERAL ELECTION 173 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Politics. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright on Monday.

TASMANIA AT THE CROSSROADS? 227 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in General. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright on Sunday.

HOMELESSNESS: THE FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS 54 Replies

Started by Dr Caroline Wright in Activism. Last reply by Dr Caroline Wright on Sunday.

Blog Posts

Restore Australia petition

Posted by kate wade on April 12, 2013 at 9:12pm — 4 Comments

THE SHEEPLE OF HUMANITY

Posted by Colin Uebergang on March 2, 2013 at 4:36am — 1 Comment

© 2013   Created by Rob Moore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service