Homosexual Adoption – A Failed Experiment. Matthew and Craig Scully-Hicks.

Yes, Gays Are Bullies

“Father” accused of murdering baby daughter a fortnight after adopting her

 Matthew Scully-Hicks is accused of killing his adopted daughter CREDIT: WALES NEWS SERVICE

fitness instructor who gave up his job to look after his adopted daughter, murdered her while his “husband” was at work, a court has heard.

Medical tests found that Elsie suffered bleeding on both sides of the brain, had several broken ribs, a fractured left femur and a fractured skull.

Matthew Scully-Hicks, 31, killed 18-month-old…

View original post 694 more words

Advertisements
Posted in Political | Leave a comment

Heartless Queer Couple Steal Cancer Sufferer’s Savings

Yes, Gays Are Bullies

Oh those lovable “gay” people, aren’t they just so delightful – in their own opinion? Always primping and posing expecting admiration when the fact is they’re really thoroughly selfish and disgusting. Wait for them to find a way of blaming this on homophobia!

Homosexual couple stole 80-year-old cancer sufferer’s £6,000 life savings

A HEARTLESS gay couple stole a terminally ill pensioner’s life savings and blew it on weekends away, luxury spas and buying a pair of French bulldogs.

Aaron Ryan and Nathan RobertsFAC

Aaron Ryan and Nathan Roberts stole £6,100 of a pensioner’s life savings

Aaron Ryan took advantage of frail Doreen Kelday, 80, after being employed to help care for the horses at her remote family farm.

Out of kindness, Mrs Kelday and daughter Paula Croft, 49, allowed Ryan, 32, to move into the annexe on…

View original post 421 more words

Posted in Political | Leave a comment

What are we being asked to decide

The cold war between supporters and opponents of homosexual marriage in Australia is heating up and becoming more aggressive. When we remove the slogans used by homosexual marriage supporters and ignore the shaming words they use against their opponents what we are being asked to decide is quite clear. The Australian people are being asked to decide if homosexual sex acts are a human right and should be protected by society and the state.

What we should be asking is this: is homosexuality it a sexual condition that afflicts a very small minority of the human race and if so, what do we need to do about it. I believe that society would be better served if in depth scientific research were to be conducted to try and solve this enigmatic sexual condition. Given that trillions of dollars are being spent on the scientific exploration of outer space, surely money can be spent exploring the most important and complex inner space on the planet – the human brain.

aquarianmist

Posted in Political | Leave a comment

The Confused Politics of Homosexual Marriage

For a number of years supporters of homosexual marriage in Australia have been stating that opinion polls show most Australians are in favour of legalizing these marriages. Yet, at the same time, they have used every means at their disposal to prevent the Australian people from voting on this issue.  This is confusing.

At the last election, the Australian Federal Government promised to hold a plebiscite on this issue. However, supporters of homosexual marriage blocked the proposed plebiscite in the parliament. So to keep its promise, the government has had to resort to a postal survey instead. Homosexual supporters also tried to block this survey but failed. This is also confusing.

The Australian Federal Government has now initiated the postal survey in an effort to resolve this very controversial issue. The Australian people have been asked to answer one question which is “should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?” with a simple yes or no answer. However, because the postal survey is not compulsory what the outcome will be is unknown. But, nevertheless, homosexual marriage supporters are trying to convince people that the result will be a foregone conclusion in their favour. This is as perplexing as it is confusing.

In the lead up to the postal survey, the Federal Government have introduced temporary legislation to prevent people on either side of this issue from being intimidated, threatened or vilified. But, so far, it has been the supporters of homosexual marriage that have been doing this. Also, history tells us, that temporary legislation introduced by governments has a habit of becoming permanent.

Should the yes vote get over the line, a private member’s bill will be put before the Australian Parliament to amend the Marriage Act to include homosexual couples. I have no doubt that such a bill will be successful. But if the result is a no vote what then? Will supporters of homosexual marriage shut up and go home with their tails between their legs. Or will there be demonstrations and riots in the streets of our cities because they refuse to accept the will of the people. Unfortunately, I believe that the latter will be the case.

One of the arguments put forward by homosexual marriage supporters is that heterosexual marriage is “traditional.” However, I believe that neither church nor state invented or created marriage. Human beings are born with the natural instinct to form a long term bond with a member of the opposite sex to produce and rear children together. Children born into these unions are nurtured by both parents to adulthood and form a bond with them. This is natural not traditional.

I believe marriage laws simply reflect and protect this natural pair bonding of human males and females who wish to create their own biological family units. I also believe that the only traditional thing about marriage is the wedding ceremony be it religious or civil (state). For most people, this is the only input the church and state have in their marriages.

Supporters of homosexual marriage claim that legalization of homosexual marriage will not sent western civilization down a slippery slope to self destruction. I have to agree with this because I feel that western civilization began its descent down a slippery slope during the first half of the 20th century.

The major armed conflicts of the 20th century destroyed biological family units on a massive scale. Wives and mothers became widows and children were deprived of one or both biological parents. To fill the shortage of men caused by war, women entered the workforce en masse. Employers rewarded these hardworking women by paying them less than they would a man for doing the same job.

Single parenting became widespread and today is actively encouraged. We now have families where siblings have the same mother but different biological fathers. Some of these children will never know who their biological father is or his family history.

The end of World War Two in 1945 saw the start of the cold war between east and west. People had to cope with the genuine fear that, at any moment, they could be vaporized by a nuclear bomb.

Anti-establishment and anti-social groups began to appear and grow. This was also the dawn of the sexually promiscuous society with its unwanted pregnancies and back street abortions. These illegal abortions eventually created the lucrative ‘Planned Parenting’ abortion industry where children are sucked out of the womb and their organs harvested and sold.

The 1970’s saw the introduction of no fault divorce (walk in walk out marriage). Once again, children are deprived of the full time care of one (usually the father) of their biological parents.

The destruction of so many cooperative biological family units over the last hundred years has had a lasting negative effect on human social structure and society.  I was born in January 1941 and have lived through the social changes briefly outlined above. In my humble opinion, these social changes are the reason why we now live in a fragmented, volatile and drug fueled violent society.

Any further attacks on the natural biological family unit will not improve western civilization but take us further down the slippery slope to destruction.

As a final comment, I cannot shake the uneasy feeling that homosexuals are being used as unwitting dupes in a push to increase the separation of men from women and children from parents. This will further weaken the natural biological family unit and with it, change the cooperative nature of our society. If this is successful, the way will then be open to create a new world order. Where this will take western society is anybody’s guess.

aquarianmist

Posted in Political | Leave a comment

The World’s Policeman

The  chemical weapons attack in Syria last Friday, was an attack on Syrians, by Syrians on Syrian soil and therefore, was a matter for the United Nations to address not the Americans. By preempting any UN action, Donald Trump has fell into the same trap as his predecessors by taking on the role of World policeman. As long as countries such as America continue to preempt UN actions, the UN will remain a very expensive toothless tiger.

aquarianmist

Posted in Political | Leave a comment

The Great American Political Dummy Spit

The continuous attacks on Donald Trump’s character and integrity has to be one of the biggest dummy spits in American political history. My question to President Trump’s detractors is: how many of the previous 44 American Presidents were without flaws of some sort?

Lets face, it politics is a grubby back-stabbing game of thrones and no place for a Saint. So for goodness sake allow President Trump to get on with the job he was elected to do. Then, if at some point, the President falls on his own sword, that will be the time to cry “I told you so.” Until then shut up and accept the will of the majority of the American people.

aquarianmist

Posted in Political | Leave a comment

The Language of Homosexual Love

After a long break due to illness I feel it is time for me to start blogging again. Once again, the issue I am writing about is homosexual marriage. I am doing so for two reasons. One, homosexual marriage has become a ‘hot’ political issue in Australia where it has not yet been recognized or sanctioned; and two, I think it is incredible how language has been used to change human sexuality, family unit composition and social structure.

It is reasonable to state that human beings are heterosexual by nature and design because we rely on sexual copulation to procreate. Sexual arousal is triggered in the brain, via the sensory organs, when a man and a woman come into close physical and intimate contact. This enables copulation to take place.

It is also reasonable to state that an extremely small proportion of the world-wide human population are sexually attracted to, sexually aroused by and engage in simulated acts of copulation with a person of the same sex. These people are, quite correctly, defined as homosexual.

Over 50 years ago, homosexuals decided that they did not wish to be defined as homosexual anymore. This was probably because, at that time, homosexual sex acts were treated as criminal offences. So they took possession of the rarely used delightful little English word ‘gay’ (meaning carefree and merry) to define themselves.

However, in the late 1960’s, western countries began decriminalizing homosexual sex acts ‘between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.’ But, to this day, homosexuals still doggedly cling on to the word gay to define themselves and promote gay pride rather than homosexual pride: a bit of a conundrum is it not.

During the 1970s, psychiatrists and psychologists in the USA suggested that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem and introduced the concept of ‘sexual identities’ and ‘sexual orientations.’ I do not profess to know the basis or the rationale behind this concept, but what it seems to do is place simulated acts of homosexual copulation on an equal footing with natural heterosexual copulation.
In other words, it is now considered perfectly normal and natural for two people of the same sex to engage in acts of simulated copulation with one another.

I have to assume that this is the basis on which some western countries have recognized and sanctioned homosexual marriage. Having done so, centuries old common use language needed to be changed to remove heterosexual ‘bias’ and foster the illusion of ‘marriage equality.’

Biological family unit was changed to traditional family unit; biological mother was changed to birth mother; heterosexual marriage was changed to traditional marriage and the words husband and wife were replaced with the word partner. Homosexual marriage is defined as gay or same sex marriage which once again, doggedly avoids using the word homosexual: another conundrum is it not.

Psychiatrists and psychologists can introduce concepts; politicians can enact legislation; judges can make rulings and language can be changed; but no one can change the inalienable fact that the primary function of sexual copulation is procreation.

Because homosexuals cannot procreate through simulated acts of copulation, they rely on adoption, sperm donation and surrogates to bring children into their relationships. In effect, this deliberately deprives children of one or both biological parents, half or all of their biological extended family relatives and their family history as well.

Biological relatives and family histories are important because they provide continuity and a sense of belonging. They also give us a sense of family and an identity of who we are and how we became who we are. Being deprived of these biological family connections is not a good outcome for children.

Let us not forget that the children of heterosexual (now traditional) marriages took a hit in the 1970’s when no fault divorce was introduced. No matter how well-meaning this legislation was supposed to be, children are always traumatized and suffer when their biological parents separate and divorce. What sort of trauma and suffering will children who are brought into homosexual marriages have to cope with when these marriages fail?

Modern political ideologies need to be reminded that it was groups of cooperative biological family units that enabled human beings to settle, form communities and build civilizations. In other words, the naturally evolved biological family unit of man, woman and children has been the anchor and the strength and stay of human social structure from the very beginning when early humans stood upright and walked out of the rainforests.

As human communities grew in size and complexity, the importance of the biological family unit to human social structure was recognized, formalized (by marriage) and given the protection of church and state. This protection is reflected in Clause 3 to Article 16 of the United Nations Human Rights Charter, published in 1948, which states “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and state.” The question is: are homosexual couples a natural and fundamental (family) group unit for a heterosexual species?

As an aside, there are probably more heterosexual couples living together in long-term relationships who are not married than there are homosexuals who wish to do so. Are these couples being disadvantaged or discriminated against in any way because they are not married: of course not. Yet another conundrum surrounding the issue of and the need for, homosexual marriage. And, what about bisexuals, are they now being discriminated against because they cannot marry the man and woman of their choice?

Homosexuals use the words homophobia and bigot to define people who are opposed to homosexual marriage.

Homo means man; phobia means an abnormal intense and irrational fear or an aversion to something; in this case homosexuality. So, how does a person suffering with homophobia react in the presence of a homosexual? Do they break out in a cold sweat? Do they shiver in fright or do they run screaming to the nearest closet and hide cowering in fear? The point I am making here is that homophobia is an invented condition that in no way reflects the beliefs and social opinions of homosexual marriage dissenters.

The only people who ‘may’ suffer from such a condition are people who were sexually molested by a homosexual pedophile when they were children. Yet, all these victims are asking for is the perpetrators who ruined their lives be made accountable for their crimes. I don’t think this can be construed as homophobia either.

A bigot is defined as ‘a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own.’ In this case, the ‘idea’ is homosexual marriage. It is not homosexual marriage dissenters who are creating a hue and cry, organizing the lynch mobs and destroying people’s reputations and livelihoods: homosexuals are the ones doing that. So who are the bigots?

Homosexuals need to be reminded that, in a democracy, people have the right to hold their beliefs and express their opinions on social change without fear of persecution. I have exercised my right to do so by writing this post.

aquarianmist

Posted in Political | Leave a comment