Why We Can’t Afford to Lose the Fight for Family

The fight for family began long before the wheels were put in motion to perpetrate the final blow. The degendering of marriage tears down the final bastion for children that guaranteed their chance at a family with both a biological mum and a biological dad. This bastion grants them their full identity, the most primal bond and unreplicable protection.

Rainbow activists have fought long and hard to commandeer buzz words like “love” and “equality”.

But claims that it’s “all about equality” simply don’t ring true.

Bill Shorten promised:"By 2025 … 50 per cent of Labor’s representatives will be women." Why is it so important to have equal representation in parliament... but not in marriage and family?

Well over half of Aussies want a national vote on whether or not to remove the gender diversity requirement from the Marriage Act. So why doesn't the Labor Party (and a handful of LNP dissenters) want Aussies to have their say? Why are they fighting against gender diversity in marriage?

And apparently all love is NOT equal to Rainbow activists who banned Jews from participating in a Gay Pride March in Chicago.

According to the Daily Mail: "The activists were told that the march was an explicitly 'anti-Zionist' event and that the Jewish Pride flag was inconsistent with the 'pro-Palestinian' message it sought to convey."

So, since it’s not actually about “equality for all” at all, what’s really driving this radical agenda?

"The battle for mankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their roles as the proselytisers of a new faith...“These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilising the classroom instead of the pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of educational level - pre-school, day care or large state university."

“The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."

You might think this was written by Roz Ward, co-founder of the infamous “Safe Schools” program which teaches radical gender theory to Australian children, but these words were penned by John J. Dunphy in an article entitled “A Religion for a New Age” in The Humanist January/February edition circa 1983.

The Left’s battle plan has been hidden in plain sight for decades.

“The Left needs to destroy the family unit to succeed in the long-term. Over the last few years, we have seen numerous attempts to make the meaning of the word family whatever anyone wants it to be, to strip it of any collective meaning. The Left needs to attack and to destroy the family as the basic building block of society in order to progress its goals.” Michael Ayling – The Spectator.

Michael’s solution is simple: “Without parents constantly undermining them, the Left would possess a whole generation in toto. Give me a child until the age of seven and I will give you the man, goes the Jesuit motto. The Left knows this and will do anything to obtain your children’s minds. In a rare slip, Gillian Triggs’ lamentation that she cannot control what is said across the kitchen table is the quintessential manifestation of that."

"The Left wants your children and, knowing the indelible significance of the word family in our shared culture, they seek to own the idea of the family, by redefining it out of existence."

"Without the protective influence of the family, we are left with ‘all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.' Guess who said that?”

Spoiler alert: it was Benito Mussolini. And we all know how that turned out.


Like what we're doing here? Please make a secure online donation:



Please note, you don't need to have a PayPal account in order to use PayPal payment gateway to make a donation via credit card.
Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

15 Responses

  1. Trying to beat Nick for the first response …

    I remember as a teenager, thinking the world would be better if children were raised by the state for the common good.

    But now I know better .
    Man does not know were he puts his next step.

    There is a higher authority than the state.

  2. Ash

    “The Giver” comes to mind when thinking of the social police state we seem to be veering towards and even supporting. Freedoms diminish as governments start to invade into people’s lives and the family is one such blow that is sure to affect the whole society profoundly.

  3. I don’t doubt for a moment that there are extremists on both sides of this debate.My guess is that few if any AMF supporters would support the death penalty for homosexual activity, and possibly still only a few would support recriminalising homosexual activity.I certainly hope so.

    But the issue of state involvement is not black and white.Certainly in Australia we expect the government to ‘support’ families.

    Interestingly in a major study published about a year ago some of the most ‘progressive’ countries in Europe wee identified as being most supportive of the natural family. Denmark scored most highly, and it is worth noting that though Denmark legalised SSM only in 2012 it was the first country in the world to introduce registered partnerships for same sex couples, back in 1989.

    See https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/new-report-shows-countries-best-family/ and follow the link for more details on the Index.

    I found this a really thought provoking study and was surprised by the results

    LifeSite News also reviewed the report and suggested some possible caveats. that are worth noting.
    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u.s.-canada-reeceive-low-rating-among-countries-in-pro-family-study

    • Ash

      Margaret, your comment on ‘guessing’ that AMF supporters support death to homosexuals is inciting and misguided. Where have you seen that anyone commenting here (not the vitriol that occurs on more popular social media) wishes to even vilify homosexual people? The concept of AMF is simple, in black and white, and the principle that I personally go by is love the sinner, not the sin. So please, don’t profess to know what’s in other people’s heads unless you want a stern backlash.

      On the matter of state involvement in marriage, there is an obvious need to keep society going through natural heterosexual marriage. The birth rate of Australians is barely enough to support any growth, so the hey-day of immigration, which my parents were a part of in the 1970s, sought out to solve that problem. I vividly remember Peter Costello getting on national TV encouraging Aussies to have more babies – one for mum, one for dad, and one for the country.

      Then there’s the experience of other countries that has negative societal effect of embracing the LGBT agends: http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-activists-after-your-children-191093/
      And elsewhere: http://www.family.org.au/marriage/Who_Will_Be_Prosecuted.pdf

      • Ash, I think that you misread what Margaret said. She guesses that practically no AMF supporter would support the death penalty for homosexuality.

        • Ash

          David, I appreciate that’s what Margaret had said, but it insinuates that there are AMF supporters who do. That is quite judgemental and in saying it displays ignorance. If she had said “I’m not sure who would support death penalty or incrimination” or nothing at all there would not be the controversy. But saying it in the first place has a reason, to make a statement. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it is there in black and white that I don’t think it’s appropriate to say.

        • Wow…
          Thank you David for actually reading what I wrote.

          Coming back after some time off line with computer problems I can honestly say i was deeply shocked by Ash’s suggestion.

          Granted I have seen quoted with approval on this blog some writings from the USA that have also been used by supporters of the death penalty for homosexual activity .
          Scott Lively’s work comes to mind but I fully accept his assurance that he himself does not in any way support the harsh laws proposed in countries such as Uganda. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/29/uganda-death-sentence-gay-sex

          However I have to say that on Facebook in particular calls for recriminalising homosexual activity in Australia are becoming far more frequent.

          I very much value Ash’s reasoned contributions both here and on the Facebook page (not AMF ) in question and had hoped perhaps he might offer a perspective on the study i quoted.

          It is very sad if we have reached a stage in the debate where too many of us are jumping at shadows.

  4. Nick and others, please read this article and respond to those questions, PLEASE.
    http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-please-leftists-explain-how-this-transgender-madness-empowers-women/

    • Good article in that link there, Teofil.
      Quote: “A mustachioed boy who “identifies as a girl” heroically won gold in the 100 meter dash and 200 meter dash for the Connecticut high school girl’s state championships … The boy, “Andraya,” gloated that he’s happy to have won but he “kind of expected it.” Gee, I wonder why?”. End quote.
      His chosen name “Andraya” seems to be a play an the word androgynous.
      androgynous
      adjective
      1. being both male and female; hermaphroditic.
      2. having both masculine and feminine characteristics.
      3. having an ambiguous sexual identity.
      4. neither clearly masculine nor clearly feminine in appearance:
      the androgynous look of many rock stars.
      5. Botany. having staminate and pistillate flowers in the same inflorescence.

      It looks like we’re going to have to create a new classification of people in sport, marriage, bathrooms, and in general society.
      Male, Female, and now Androgynous.

      • p.s.
        Instead of the divisive terms of heterosexual and lgbtqi, a simpler classification would be mfa.
        Male, Female, Ambiguous/Androgynous.

        • Ash

          Margaret, why should you feel shocked I would point out the disapproval of those who wish death or jail upon homosexuals by myself and those who contribute here on the AMF? Granted, I cannot speak on anyone else’s behalf, but I don’t feel it is at all fair for you to suggest there are people here that would want gays and lesbians dead. Citing studies and articles that refer to such people should garner no interest to me because that is just losing the plot. We are here to defend marriage, not to fight sin with sin. I am busy enough with my own schedule and family life to be concerned about daft extremism.

          Mikel, the gender categories are male and female. There is no need to create another gender for genetic abnormalities that are compatible with life such as Klinefelter’s or Turner’s sundrome. They are unfortunate aberrations from male and female that confer their own problems and need everyone’s support. But creating a new gender to ‘accommodate’ them is both unnecessary and unhelpful.

          • I agree there are only two sexes. Yet there is this new category of people that are a combination of both. There are males and females, and indeterminate.
            LGBTQI is a divisive term that excludes heterosexuals.
            There are heterosexuals (basic biology), and there are non heterosexuals (reasons unknown).

            This seems to be the way our particular society is heading.
            Hence my suggestion of male and female, and ambiguous/androgynous, or perhaps indeterminate or unknown or better still ‘subjective identity’.

            If this keeps going we’ll have to have three separate categories: male sports, female sports, and androgynous sports.
            As with everything else that used to be male and female only.

  5. Ash the longer comment i submitted an hour or so ago appears not to have been posted.

    In brief I agree with you that there are ‘daft extremists’.However I do not agree that we can afford to ignore them, because they are damaging our cause and have probably lost us the chance of a plebiscite.

    i also believe our cause is being damaged by distorted reporting of stories from overseas and in some cases by the use of fake news stories even when they have been identified as such.

    I am happy to document these assertions.

  6. Ash

    Margaret, I regret posting here and saying what I had said as it appears to be too divisive and I have been too personal. My final remark will be that I count it all joy when a stand is taken to defend marriage the way it is naturally intended, as it is with sex. I pay little attention to the empty negativity slung in its way, and only wish to raise awareness in fairness and justice, in truth and in love. And I end with an apology and a farewell, with all the best for the future of Australian marriage, the fundamental family unit.

  7. Thanks Ash.Your own contributions to the debate, both here and elsewhere, are a great example of how to defend traditional marriage in a positive, well informed and respectful way.

Leave a comment