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.


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.


Posted in Political | Leave a comment

Down to Earth With a Bump

I have not posted anything on this site for more than twelve months. This is because my wife and I decided to take a break and travel overseas to visit family and friends in Singapore and Hong Kong. On our return to Australia, we then enjoyed a ten-day holiday in Port Macquarie, NSW.

By the time we returned to our home in Canberra, the 2015 Christmas period was almost upon us so I had to get myself motivated and catch up with all my neglected garden chores. A couple of days before Christmas, I was trimming the hedge in my back garden when I had a fall and fractured a bone in my upper left arm. I have never in my life experienced such a high level of pain. When the ambulance arrived the paramedics worked their magic on me and I do not remember very much after that and woke up in hospital the next morning.

A CT scan showed that the fracture was so serious that surgery had to be performed to affix a metal plate to the bone using seven screws. This meant my left arm needed to be immobilized for six weeks followed by an expected recovery period of six to twelve months. This was quite problematic for me because I am left hand dominant; so you can imagine how difficult it was for me to perform even the most basic tasks for myself, such as bathing, shaving, dressing and of course eating with my useless and uncooperative right hand/arm.

During my recovery in hospital I developed cardiac problems. Suddenly, my heart rate skyrocketed: this brought the cardiac emergency team to my bedside where all sorts of drugs were pumped into my body to slow my heart beat down to normal. It appears that my heart’s natural rhythm went haywire. This was quite a scary experience and I was kept in hospital for the rest of the Christmas period. After several ambulance trips to hospital over the next few months, I was eventually fitted with a heart pacemaker to prevent my heart from beating too slow and also prescribed medication to prevent it from beating too fast.

Prior to my fall and my cardiac problems, I was invincible: these sort of mishaps always happened to the other fellow not to me. Discovering I was mortal was quite a shock and now, ten months into my recovery, I am still struggling to come to terms with the limitations my medical problems have imposed upon my life. These experiences certainly brought me down to earth with quite a bump. And, being mortal has taken the fun out of my life because my family keep trying to wrap me up in cotton wool so I do not do anything stupid like trying to leap tall buildings in a single bound.


Posted in Political | Leave a comment

European Court Ruling on Gay Marriage

Re-blogged from

This article is a win for common sense.


European court: Gay marriage is not a human right
By Stefano Gennarini J.D.

The highest human rights court in Europe shattered hopes that it would judicially impose same-sex marriage when it told a male to female transsexual and his wife that a civil union should be good enough for them.
European human rights law does not require countries to “grant access to marriage to same-sex couples,” according to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in a case that tests the remote boundaries of possibility in law and fact.
The parties to the litigation and supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledge the result was predictable. Nevertheless the judgment has a devastating effect on gay rights in Europe, dashing hopes that same-sex “marriage” can become a reality there. The facts of the case are distinctive.
Heli Hämäläinen of Finland had a sex change operation in 2009 to appear anatomically as a woman, despite having fathered a child with his wife of over 10 years in 2002. Before the operation, he tried to change his legal identity from male to female without success.
He sued before the European court when he was told that it would not be possible so long as he remained married, because Finland does not allow persons of the same sex to marry each other. Hämäläinen and his spouse insist that their religious beliefs prevent them from seeking a divorce and that civil unions do not give them the same benefits as marriage in Finnish law.
The European court was unequivocal. It not only said that European human rights law does not contemplate same-sex marriage, it said that civil unions are good enough for same-sex couples.
The court confirmed that the protection of the traditional institution of marriage is a valid state interest—implicitly endorsing the view that relations between persons of the same sex are not identical to marriage between a man and a woman, and may be treated differently in law.
The judgment says that European human rights law recognizes the “fundamental right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family” and “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.” It explains how no European consensus on same-sex marriages exists, as only 10 of the 47 countries bound by the treaty allow such designations.
The ruling is a particularly hard blow to gay rights in Finland, where a parliamentary committee rejected same-sex marriage before it could be brought to a vote last month for the second time since 2012. Finland is the only Scandinavian country that does not allow same-sex marriage.
Around the world gay activists have been told that same-sex marriage is not a human right.
The Italian Constitutional Court was faced with almost identical facts only last month. That court also said that civil unions would be adequate to protect the interests of the same-sex couple in that case.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to say that marriage between persons of the same sex is a right under the U.S. Constitution or international law last year. In a case involving a law that prohibited the U.S. federal government from recognizing marriages between persons of the same sex, the Court ruled that individual states may decide whether or not to allow individuals of the same sex to marry each other.

Posted in Political | 2 Comments


I believe left-wing (neo Liberal) social engineers are trying to bring in a new social order by breaking down the fabric and bedrock of western civilization; the cooperative heterosexual monogamous biological family unit. To understand the reasons why the social engineers are focusing on the destruction of the family unit, it is necessary to know how important these units are to civilization. To understand this, one needs to take a brief layman’s look at the evolution and development of modern human beings.

The Evolution of Human Beings

The biblical story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is a wonderful story but that is all it is, a story because it has little basis in fact. This is because human development from hairy ape to naked ape was not a rapid process but one that happened in several stages over about six million years. The final stage of human evolution was the appearance of the homo group about two million years ago; with modern humans appearing about 200,000 years ago.

There is no doubt that modern humans are a descendant of the primate group, the great apes that live in the rain forests of Africa because we share about 99% of genetic material with chimpanzees. History also tells us that we also share the same aggressive territorial behavior of chimpanzees.

What environmental and/or climactic changes triggered the evolution of the naked ape branch of the great ape family cannot be clearly stated. But what we can state is that when early man stood erect and left the African rain forests, they walked into an extremely hostile environment. Fortunately, these early humans took with them the primates instinct to live in co-operative communal groups to increase their chances of survival.

While the great apes practice a diversity of mating systems (Monogamy, Polygyny, Polyandry and Promiscuity), at some stage during their evolution and development, early humans became exclusively monogamous. In other words, one male formed a long-term sexual bond with one female. There are a number of possible reasons for this evolutionary change.
A – The long-term monogamous sexual bonds removed the need for a dominant male to fight (and possibly kill) other males for the right to copulate with the group’s females. Not a good survival strategy.
B – A lone hunter would find it impossible to provide for a harem of females and their young. A lone hunter also had a 50/50 chance of becoming the prey of a larger predator.
C – As cooperative family units coexisting together, the males would be able to go hunting as a party to increase their chances of a successful hunt. The ‘kill’ would then be shared and eaten by the whole group as a communal activity.
D – Like the young of the great apes, human young are completely helpless at birth and take years to reach maturity. With both parents sharing the responsibility for rearing their young, the chances of them surviving to reach maturity were greatly increased.
E – To strengthen these long-term monogamous sexual bonds, early females evolved the ability to engage in copulation for pleasure as well as for procreation. This evolutionary change enabled a female to satisfy the sexual needs of her mate which, in turn, removed the need for her mate to stray. This is what separates human beings from most other mammals on Planet Earth.
F – These cooperative groups of monogamous biological family units made it possible for early humans to live together as a group in relative peace and harmony so they could thrive, grow and develop.

At that stage of human development, there would have been very little in the way of spoken or written language so there was no religious ideology to tell them that they were fornicating, living in sin and their children were illegitimate bastards. Nor was there any political ideology to tell them that their heterosexuality was not normal but a ‘sexual orientation.’ Imagine that, totally natural and guilt free monogamous heterosexual sex for procreation, pleasure and for long-term bonding. Today we call this LOVE and MARRIAGE. How lucky they were. Simply because over, thousands of years, these monogamous long-term sexual bonds between a man and a woman have been ritualised and formalised, does not mean that they are religious or government institutions.

Because of the lack of spoken or written language, it is not known whether or not any of these early humans were homosexual. Nor am I aware of any instance of cave or wall paintings depicting homosexual behaviour. So how homosexuals (if any) were treated by early humans we will probably never know.

But I do not believe they would have received favourable treatment because of their inability to form a long-term sexual bond and to copulate with a female thereby increasing the number of cooperative monogamous biological family units within the group to ensure its growth and survival.

These cooperative groups of monogamous biological family units were so successful because they provided the fabric that held the group together and became the bedrock upon which civilizations were built. These cooperative arrangements also enabled small individual groups (tribes) to amalgamate and become the super groups (tribes) that we know today as nations and made human beings the most dominant creature on the planet.

The Twentieth Century

During the twentieth century, the monogamous biological family unit came under extreme pressure. This was a century of mass murder on a scale never before experienced in human history. The major armed conflicts of the twentieth century deprived hundreds of thousands of children of one (usually the father) of their biological parents: thousands more children lost both parents and were orphaned.

The aftermath of these twentieth century conflicts left young widows to rear their children alone without the steadying influence, guidance, discipline and income of a father. This brought about single parenting by young widows on a huge scale. These young women had no choice but to re-marry (if any eligible male could be found) or join the work force to support themselves and their children because the ‘widows’ pension,’ where payable, would have been less than enough for these young fatherless families to live on.

All of these unfortunate families would have suffered a high level of trauma due to the loss of the husband and father. Many children who were orphaned suffered further trauma because they were institutionalised and subjected to harsh treatment and sexual abuse at some of the institutions, particularly those associated with religious groups.

In those days, there were no social support services to council or treat those widows and children to help them overcome the trauma suffered by the tragedy of armed conflicts. These young widows and children were, as far I am concerned, the forgotten casualties of war.

Nor were there any child care facilities to look after these hapless children so they were left on their own on a daily basis. That is, the mother left for work before the children left for school and did not return home until after the children returned home from school. This was the era of ‘latch key’ children. They left an empty house in the morning and returned to an empty house in the evening.

Then, in the 1970’s the Family Law Act became law which made a divorce as easy to obtain as a take away meal. Again it is the children who suffered because they were deprived of the full-time care of one (usually the father) of their biological parents. Statistics show that almost 80% of children are traumatized by their parents divorce.

This new law brought about situations in which divorced fathers found it impossible to support themselves and their estranged families. Some simply disappeared, others committed suicide. Some murdered their children in acts of revenge against their ex-wives; while others murdered their ex-wives and children and then committed suicide. Not a very good outcome for a society and civilization that depends upon cooperative monogamous biological family units for survival.

It is my opinion that the rapid increase in drug and alcohol abuse, antisocial behaviour, tribalism, individual and group vandalism and violence and the violent crimes that pervaded the latter half of the twentieth century can be directly linked to the massive and tragic loss of so many cooperative monogamous biological family units.

The Twenty-First Century

The first 14 years of the twenty-first century has seen a full frontal assault by left-wing social engineers on the family unit and family values in order to introduce their new social order. So how are they achieving this goal?

First of all, they have interpreted Article 16 (the right to marry) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights to include homosexuals and lesbians which, in my view was never the intention because same-sex relationships do not constitute a natural and fundamental family group unit. Also, reaffirmed that the natural family is the fundamental unit of society.

Social engineers have also shifted twenty-first century society’s focus from ‘family’ and ‘family values’ to overt sexuality and copulation for pleasure. Women’s fashion reflects this shift to overt sexuality; shorts cannot get any shorter and pants cannot get any tighter. Also, there seems to be a competition among fashion designers to see who can design dresses and gowns that reveal the most naked flesh without actually exposing breast nipples or vaginas. But I am certain that, in the not too distant future, the next step will be taken and female nipples will become cosmetically enhanced fashion accessories.

Twenty first century woman have now been labelled as ‘sexual beings.’ My question is, when were women (like men) not sexual beings? As a species, we have always been ‘sexual beings.’ I think these two words are simply a euphemism for ‘promiscuous behavior’ in both males and females. Women in particular are now being actively encouraged to be promiscuous. They are fed a daily dose of bed hopping via the newspapers, glossy women’s magazines, television shows and movies. Promiscuous behavior has, in my opinion, increased violence against women. When a woman dumps one bed mate for another, in some cases, the dumped bed mate cannot cope with or accept rejection so he takes revenge on his former bed mate and sometimes, on the woman’s new bedmate as well, often with tragic consequences.

Women today are also being actively encouraged to be ‘single mothers.’ There are two types of single mothers; those who ‘stay at home’ and those who work. Single mothers who stay at home are often labelled ‘parasites’ because many of them are totally reliant on welfare payments to survive. But at least they try to rear their children. The down side of this is some single mothers have children with different men; the more children they have the greater the welfare benefit. This creates situations where siblings have different fathers and don’t know who their father is: nor, in some cases, does the mother.

Working single mothers rely on child care workers and pre-school teachers to look after their child while they work. Some of these women simply do not have the time to toilet train their child let alone form a maternal bond. These responsibilities are given to child care workers and pre-school teachers.

Promiscuous behaviour has also filtered down to teen and pre-teen girls who engage in ‘hook ups’. A hook up starts with a cell phone dating application and involves sending sexy pictures, sometimes including the genitals. Don’t these teenagers have any self-respect, self-discipline or sense of common decency? Research suggests that the girls get the short end of the stick during these brief sexual encounters because very few girls achieve an orgasm. And, when a girl gains a reputation for ‘sleeping around’ (being promiscuous), she cannot find a regular boyfriend because no one wants to have a relationship with a girl who has had sex with so many different boys during ‘hook ups’.

The downside of promiscuous behaviour is the rapid spread and increase in sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s) and, of course unwanted pregnancies. It would seem that in the twenty-first century, unwanted pregnancies are easier to fix than STD’s. Simply take a ‘morning after pill’ or if it is too late to do so, go to your local abortion clinic and have the fetus sucked out of the womb and tossed into the incinerator. No one seems care that the unique human being that the fetus would have become has had its one and only chance at life taken away forever, which is a very long time indeed.

I now come to the most farcical and concept ever devised in human history: same-sex marriage. These three words are a euphemism for one man copulating with another man’s anus and one woman copulating with another woman using an artificial penis. Personally, I cannot think of anything more burlesque than same-sex copulation. No matter how many words these people change the meaning of to suit their purposes, they cannot change human biology. That is, humans are heterosexual by nature and by design: a male’s erect penis is inserted into a lubricated female’s vagina and ejaculates and, if the female is ovulating, bingo the miracle of new life.

Our social engineers have tried to get around the biological facts by assigning humans a ‘sexual orientation.’ In my view there is no such entity as a ‘sexual orientation’ in a heterosexual species. But rather, the word ‘orientation’ is a euphemism for words such as: dysfunction, practice, deviation and perversion. Again, the incorrect use of a word cannot change the biological facts.

Social engineers are also working hard to suppress any opposition to the normalization and legitimization of same-sex copulation. The so-called homosexual (Gay) Mafia is running a fear campaign using another invented word ‘homophobia’. What does ‘homophobia actually mean? ‘Homo’ is the short form of homosexual. A ‘phobia’ is ‘an extreme abnormal fear of or aversion to’ or ‘an abnormal intense and irrational fear of a given situation, organism or object.’ In other words, homosexuals are claiming that heterosexuals are the ones with problems not them.

This being so, when a homosexual calls someone homophobic, it is a rather derogatory and insulting term to use. What is a homophobic ‘comment,’ ‘insult’ or ‘slur’? What is homophobic behaviour? It can be anything a homosexual wants it to be. In my view, it is the homosexuals who are ‘homophobic.’ I state this because, first of all they would much rather be identified as ‘gay people’ rather than homosexuals which, to me, indicates that they are very uncomfortable being homosexual. And, when anyone reminds them of what they really are, it upsets their fragile egos so much so they turn vindictive.

If homosexuals wish to be accepted they must first accept themselves for what they really are instead of trying to change society to suit what they believe their sexual practices to be. Once again, using an invented word to silence critics and ruin people’s lives cannot change the biological facts. All that has been achieved is the opening of ‘Pandora’s Box,’ releasing all the sexual perversions that beset modern society.

As stated above, Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is just a story, but a story with a prophetic message: eat of the forbidden fruit and you will bring evil upon yourself. Sodom and Gomorrah may not have existed either but if it is a prophecy, I believe it is about to be fulfilled. Abraham believed his people could co-exist with the Sodomites and the people of Gomorrah but was wrong. Similarly, I doubt very much if, as a society, we can co-exist with modern Sodomites because of the Pandora’s Box effect.

As minority groups, homosexuals and lesbians are overrepresented in the governments of the western world and are becoming more and more aggressive towards citizens who are against the normalization and legitimization of same-sex copulation. Our social engineers are also working very hard to take away our freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of opinion. In other words, keep your opinions to yourself and keep your mouth shut.

This is a clear indication that this issue is not about discrimination, equally or acceptance: it is about gaining the power to build a society to suit their own image of themselves as normal sexual beings.

When a civilization slides down the slippery slope to sexual decadence, social anarchy and chaos, tyranny usually follows. If western society follows this path, we will end up back in the dark ages with no democratic freedoms and will become virtual slaves under the new social order.

This poses the question: are we on the eve of our own destruction?

The Human Family Tree – Smithsonian Museum of Natural History
The Great Apes
The Naked Ape – Desmond Morris – Dell Publications 1967
Homo Erectus – Bill Mehert – 1994
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Holy Bible

Posted in Political | Leave a comment

Concerns for Democracy/ The Push for Same Sex MArraiage

I have resided in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) for over 40 years and have serious concerns about the way the ACT Labor/Green Coalition government tried to impose same sex marriage legislation on the ACT community.

The ACT Chief Minister has stated on more than one occasion that most people in the ACT are in favour of same sex marriages. But we, the people, have never been asked whether or not we support this controversial legislation. Before the last ACT election, the outgoing Labor/Green Coalition had the ideal opportunity to hold a referendum on this issue in conjunction with that election. This would have resolved this issue one way or the other. So why did the Chief Minister not use that opportunity?

As a minority government, I do not believe the Labor/Green coalition was given a mandate by the people of the ACT to introduce same sex marriage legislation but they went ahead with the legislation anyway. Fortunately for the people of the ACT, the legislation was annulled by the High Court of Australia because the ACT Assembly has no authority to overrule Australian Federal Marriage Legislation.

On the day in September last year, when the Labor/Green Coalition unconstitutionally passed same sex marriage legislation by a majority of one (Green) vote, Minister Andrew Barr stated, and I quote “It marks an important step in our journey to become the most LGBTI city in Australia” unquote. Such a statement from a minister of the crown is incredible. Minister Barr has sworn to represent all the people of the ACT not just a minority group of sexually challenged people. The minister’s statement indicates that there may be a government agenda to flood the ACT with LGBTI people.

I have serious concerns about what an influx LGBTI people will have on the ACT community. I do not believe for one moment that by doing so, the ACT will become a better place to live. Nor do I believe that we will enjoy a more peaceful and harmonious community. I believe the community that an influx of LGBTI people will create will be divisive, volatile and more violent than it already is.

Also, NSW Health figures show a 24% jump in HIV infections for 2012; with 81% of the infections being acquired through homosexual sex. How will the ACT health system cope with an influx of possible HIV infected homosexuals?

However, it would appear that such an agenda is in progress with the introduction of “sexual orientations” into the ACT. I was astonished and offended to note that, on my latest medical health plan; I have been assigned a “sexual orientation.” I am offended because my heterosexuality is not an “orientation” it is biologically normal and natural. Nor was I consulted about this addition to my medical records.

Is this ACT Government policy? It would appear to be so because Minister Simon Corbell is now pushing for a third “sexual gender category” for the ACT. This Minister also intends to introduce legislation allowing sexually challenged people to change the sex on their birth certificates solely on the medical advice provided without the need to undertake sex reassignment surgery. This means that a person with fully functioning male sex organs, who dresses as a woman, may use public facilities designated for women simply because his birth certificate states he is female.

I am certain that the introduction of “sexual categories” and “sexual orientations” into the ACT will, in the longer term, divide and separate communities far worse than religious or cultural sectarianism ever did because it is being forced upon us undemocratically.

And, what about the human rights of children who will have the misfortune to be brought up in an unnatural sexual environment? Surely, children have the right to live with and be brought up by their biological parents whenever and wherever possible. If same sex marriage laws are enacted in Australia we will have a situation where children will be brought into this world to be, deliberately and with aforethought, deprived of one or both biological parents simply to become accessories for a group of sexually challenged people who believe that they are normal sexual beings.

Why have sexually challenged people been convinced that they are being discriminated against because they cannot “marry” a person of the same sex? The truth is sexually challenged people make a conscious decision not to marry a person of the opposite sex but instead, “choose” to cohabit and copulate with members of the same sex so, where is the discrimination?

The social engineers behind this controversial legislation are relying totally on indoctrination and propaganda to get their message across; that is, the use of meaningless words, phrases and slogans. I am sure that the politicians who support same sex marriage legislation are aware that the first casualties of propaganda are facts and truth.

Today more and more heterosexuals are living as our ancestors lived; that is co-habiting and raising their children without having a religious or civil marriage ceremony. Are these people being discriminated against or disadvantaged by the lack of a marriage certificate: of course not. Such a certificate is simply a tool used by government for population census and taxation purposes.

Also, under the provisions of Clause 3 to Article 16 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these natural and fundamental family group units are entitled to protection by society and the state. The key word here is natural; that is, mum, dad and the kid’s. I do not believe that Article 16 was ever intended to include same sex partners because when the UN Declaration was promulgated in the late 1940’s, homosexual sex acts where criminal offences in most western countries.

It is an indisputable fact that human beings, like most other mammals on Planet Earth are biologically heterosexual by nature and design. It is also an indisputable fact that there is no genetic or biological requirement for one man to engage in sexual activity with another man or a woman to engage in sexual activity with another woman. Being consensual does not change the facts.

As there are no genetic or biological reasons for same sex copulation there can be no legitimate or valid legal reasons to enact legislation and enshrines in marriage, one man wedding, bedding and copulating with another man. The same applies for women.

From the very beginning, human beings have been forming long term sexual bonds with members of the opposite sex the way nature intended. These long term sexual bonds between a man and a woman are what modern marriage is based on. Simply because these long term sexual bonds have been ritualised and formalised by religious sects and ruling regimes does not change the facts or the truth relating to human biology.

Society will be better served by conducting in-depth research into this human phenomenon to determine the cause of perverted sexual relationships. It could then be determined why the sexual arousal” triggers” of sexually challenged people are malfunctioning. I state “malfunctioning” because it is not biologically normal or natural to form long term sexual bonds between members of the same sex.

Proper research would determine if homosexuality is caused by genetic errors or by a chemical imbalance within the brain (the human being’s largest sex organ). It could also be determined if is it caused by underlying dysfunctional psycho-social problems: in other words, is it a sexual/mental health problem. The result of proper research would, I believe, go a long way in solving the problems associated with homosexuality.

I will finish my comments by quoting from the introductory paragraph of an article entitled “Poisonous Ideas” written by Global Analyst J.R. Nyquist, which was published on 18 June 2010.

“Suppose you were tasked with bringing down a civilization, and your only weapon was language. Could you accomplish your goal? Quite clearly, the answer is yes. To defeat a civilization language suffices if it can be used to divide man from woman, parent from child, the owners of businesses from the employees, the state from the citizens and God from the church………”

I believe this is exactly what is happening in western society today and will be instrumental in bringing down our civilization.

I now ask that any Australians who read this post (whether for or against same sex marriage) to access Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot’s web site, click on “Contact your PM” and request that the Federal Parliament hold a national referendum on this issue rather than the conscience vote that same sex marriage supporters are lobbying for. By doing so, this issue will then be resolved in a democratic manner by the people of Australia not through back door lobbying by sexually challenged people.


Posted in Political | Leave a comment

Politicically Motivated Sex Propaganda

I am writing this post in response to comments made by snowylocks that my use of the word ‘propaganda’ is pejorative.

A pejorative is a word or phrase that expresses contempt or has disparaging connotations. Two words that spring to my mind that fit this definition are ‘homophobic’ and ‘heterosexist.’ These two words were coined by the homosexual propaganda machine to describe anyone who disagrees with what homosexuals want; homosexual marriage. These two words are also derogatory because they are used to disparage, belittle and offend people by intimating that there is something wrong with them because they disagree with homosexual marriage. In my opinion, ‘homophobia’ and’ heterosexism’ exist only in the minds of homosexuals.

Propaganda is a form of communication that presents facts selectively and in so doing so possibly lies by omission or uses loaded messages. The desired result of propaganda is to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented in an effort to change public attitudes about a particular subject which, in this case, is homosexual marriage. The first casualties of propaganda are facts and truth.

In propaganda, words can also be distorted by incorrect use to elicit a particular response and can become accepted jargon and even accepted into everyday language. Here are some examples: change the true meaning of ‘gay’ and use it to replace the word ‘homosexual’, replace the word sodomy with the words ‘anal intercourse’,  replace ‘homosexual relationships’ with ‘gay marriages’ or ‘same sex marriages’.

Into this mix, meaningless phrases such as ‘equal love’ and ‘marriage equality’ have been added. These phrases are being used to make us believe that, somehow, homosexuals are being discriminated against. In my opinion, homosexuals are being self-discriminating by choosing not to marry a person of the opposite sex. Homosexuals complain that they cannot help being what they are because they had no choice.

WE ALL HAVE CHOICES. Necrophiliacs can choose not to have sex with dead people. Pedophiles can choose not to have sex with little boys or little girls. Parents or siblings can choose not to engage in incestuous sex. People can choose not to have sex with animals. People can choose not to rape. People can choose not to engage in sexual bondage, voyeurism or any other type of sexual fetish in their quest for sexual self gratification. So why are homosexuals any different? After all, no one forces one man to stick his dick up another man’s ass.

Giving homosexuals preferential treatment has set a dangerous precedent. Already, the North American Man-Boy Love Association are campaigning for the sexual age of consent to be reduced or abolished to remove the fear of going to prison if they are caught having sex with under age boys. What, I wonder, will be next?

When is this lunacy going to end? What is it doing to western culture? Is this the beginning of the end for our civilization?

If the Messiah is coming, it had better be soon.


Posted in Political | 11 Comments