Children Targeted by Rainbow Agenda

In Northern Ireland, the watchdog has spent almost £90,000 in legal costs supporting a man in his discrimination case against Asher’s Bakery. They refused to decorate a cake with a pro-gay slogan and an image of Ernie and Bert. Sesame Street has confirmed that Ernie and Berth are not gay. So why are SSM advocates sexualising beloved children’s characters?

If there’s one thing Safe Schools has taught us, it’s that sexualising children is all part of the same Rainbow agenda.

Roz Ward is co-creator of the Safe Schools Program and her mission is clear: “Marxism offers both the hope and the strategy needed to create a world where human sexuality, gender and how we relate to our bodies can blossom in extraordinarily new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today, because Marxism has a theory of social change.”

The highly sexualised ‘Safe Schools Program’ is Roz’s Marxist Manifesto laid bare.

At the 2015 Marxism Conference she declared; “to smooth the operation of capitalism, the ruling class has benefited, and continues to benefit, from oppressing our bodies, our relationships, sexuality and gender identities alongside sexism, homophobia and transphobia.

“Both serve to break the spirits of ordinary people, to consume our thoughts, to make us accept the status quo and for us to keep living or aspiring to live, or feel like we should live, in small social units and families where we must reproduce and take responsibility for those people in those units.” (emphasis added)

Heaven forbid parents should be forced to take responsibility for their children! If parents have a problem with the Safe Schools Program, Roz’s response is ‘tough! We’re going to teach it anyway!’ There is no opt out.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

13 Responses

  1. What absurd oversensitivity.

    • Agreed, why couldn’t they bake their own cake……would have saved the heartache!

  2. If the courts can make a business to promote an idea or thought against their moral conscience, then the Nazis have come to power in a new generation.

  3. The Australian immigration relies on a marriage being a genuine sexual relationship between a husband and wife whom commit to publicly living together and taking responsibility of their children. However, removing a man and woman union and their biological children from the meaning of marriage leaves only a legal state marriage certificate. What is a genuine same-sex marriage? If it only means a legal state marriage certificate as evidence of a marriage, then there are a lot of people including refugees who would be able to gain access to a legal marriage certificate with the pure purpose of gaining legal access into Australia. They would be prepared to live together in a domestic relationship like a same-sex married couple with no sexual relationship and having sex outside the marriage. The Australian immigration authorities can’t compare a legal “sham marriage” against a “one flesh” union with biological children because this sexual relationship can’t be practice by a same-sex married couple. A legal “same-sex marriage” is a type of “open marriage” because the law can’t stop same-sex couples from using their biological sexual organs for their designed biological function. Also, “same-sex marriages” are 100% infertile and create scientific experimentation of human reproduction. The Australian Immigration authorities would be forced to compare a legal “sham marriage” with an “open marriage” and/ “sexless marriage” because this will be the new legal basic meaning of marriage for everyone, and a defacto marriage is based on this new legal meaning of marriage. It would make it hard for Immigration authorities to protect babies/children from sexual abusers. My children will be confused when my girlfriend lives with my family because this could be viewed as a new defacto relationship which is totally separated from my “one flesh” union and biological children. The courts are going to have a difficult time working out relationships which will cost the taxpayers significant amount of money.

  4. Imagining that Bert and Ernie are gay is typical of the lgbt lobby. The thought of homosexuality never entered the minds of the children watching Sesame Street. (never entered my mind at least). Sesame Street used to be innocent.

    I imagine that people like Roz Ward have lost their innocence in their own childhood and are prone to corrupt the innocence of everyone else especially children.

    I don’t know how Roz got appointed to her position in the first place, (a degree in Gender Studies?). But whatever the cause, there ought to be a review of her radical and biased intentions.
    It could be argued that she has created more division and homophobia in the community since her appointment.

    It would be better if we had a neutral board of veteran educators involved in designing school curriculum, sex education and anti-bullying,
    … instead of a radical upstart like Ms Ward.

  5. Queensland has just passed legislation to allow gay couples and singles to adopt children.
    Gay couples already have all the rights of any other couple or singles.

    The one thing we can still hold sacred is the male/female union called marriage, as it has always been.

    Anything else is not marriage as we know it.

  6. Ernie and Bert are bachelors, they are puppets and the fictional TV show they are on has been infiltrated by perverts.

    If you thought your kids are safe in front of Play School and Sesame Street you forgot that the moral fabric of society has a blowtorch on it.

  7. Janine, concerning your post of a few days ago, the horse has already bolted for marriages of convenience to gain Australian residency. Legally since 1976 as I wrote a little while back sexual intercourse is not a condition of marriage. One of my sons married a woman from overseas 6 years ago and they had to give proof of a genuine relationship over a 2 year period. Such things as sharing household duties and expenses and attending family events were asked for, but not sleeping together or intention to have children. We were told not to send photographs of family parties etc to help prove the integration of the girl into our family. You may have seen recently that the Immigration Dept does not take notice of asylum seeker men who send photos of themselves having sex with men to prove that they are homosexual and would be sentenced to death if sent back to where they came from.

    I wonder how much what has been claimed to follow from no fault divorce was the intention of Senator Murphy. I think that it all comes from stretching words in ways that were never intended. The situation since 1976, we are effectively told, is that a man having sexual intercourse with his wife is no more related to marriage to her than sex with a prostitute. Sharing household duties and expenses and other activities are legally of more significance to being married than having sexual intercourse. What all that leads to is that the groundwork for a smooth transition to same sex marriage is already in place and is reinforced by “non discrimination” and “equal opportunity” adjustments to words used in legal and government documents.

    Since marriage no longer legally implies sexual intercourse the blood-based restrictions on who can marry whom have no basis. This is reinforced by the Sexual Conduct Act of 1994 which states that sexual conduct involving only consenting adults acting in private is not to be subject, by or under any law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, to any arbitrary interference with privacy. So, sexual acts between any two adults, with no exceptions mentioned, are not to be interfered with and former laws prohibiting such conduct are over ruled. Not just in marriage, but incest in general is protected by this law. In SA a few years ago this was dramatically tested by a father-daughter couple who lived as if husband and wife and a baby girl was born. The man was thus both the father and grandfather of the baby. All that the courts could do was give the man and his daughter a one year good behaviour bond.

    The big mess that you forecast will happen I am afraid has already happened without same sex marriage.

    • David.S
      Your comments are exactly the reason all Australians should be standing up and rejecting the Australian’s Government’s PC (politically correctness) assault on our culture, language, moral conscience, marriage, family and relationships. My understanding of the word “people” includes “children,” and Australian Government somehow believes in a “fantasy marriage” which can be “a union between any 2 people.” I find this type of “fantasy marriage” absolutely disgusting and extremely offensive because I don’t believe in “child marriages” which do exist around the world today and they have even entered western countries. The Australian government has to redefine the word “people” and discriminates people against children under 18 years old. Then this PC madness wants to redefine relationships by attacking my religious understanding of the meaning of relationships including sexual relationships. The government only got involved in NSW marriages in 1857 to support and protect the religious practice of marriages by keeping accurate records for the illegitimacy of children and inheritance. The religious marriage belief is a behavioural practice based on a religious/legal contract to a public, life-long sexual relationship between one man and one woman which can reproduce new-life (natural human reproduction). The legal state marriage certificate is suppose to protect and support this behavioural practice and enable Australians to build a civilised society which involves kinship, legal sexual and non-sexual relationships, a language we can all appreciate and understand, and religious fellowship etc. However, over the years the Australian government decided that a “civil marriage” didn’t need to be consummated in order for it not to be annulled and adultery wasn’t grounds for divorce so this removed the sexual relationship out of “civil marriage,” but was held onto by religious marriage practices. Also, the Family Law Act which dealt with the breakdown of marriages this law created a no-fault divorce and this meant marriages were no longer a life-long commitment/contract. This was based on the idea or an abstract concept that couples married for “love” and a married couple shouldn’t be force to stay together if they were no longer “in love.” This was justified by claiming a marriage contract was abusive to women and children whom were trapped in bad married relationships. This has resulted in “civil marriage” basically meaning a legal union between one man and one woman to a “living arrangement.” Now the PC madness wants to make this “living arrangement” open to all who live in any type of “living arrangement.”

      Religious people like myself find “civil marriage” offensive enough because we believe marriage is more than a “living arrangement,” and we don’t believe in a legal “open marriage” which currently is practiced in our Australian culture by a minority group of married couples. However, a fantasy legal “same-sex marriage” is even a further attack on my understanding of relationships because this PC madness is basically informing my family that our cat and dog registration every year is a “legal local council marriage certificate,” and this is absolutely insanity. I will absolutely refuse to believe in this PC madness that somehow believes my NSW marriage certificate which sits in the NSW Marriage Registry office is the equivalent of my cat and dog’s “legal local council registration” because this is “any type of living arrangement.” My husband, children and I are “committed” and “love” our animals and treat them as one of the family, but we absolutely refuse to believe we are married to our animals. The council doesn’t require us to have a “wedding ceremony,” but they put other requirements that the animals need to be de-sexed etc. I refuse to believe this PC madness as it will lead everyone to insanity because it is self-centred, narcissistic and a deliberate attack on our beliefs, language, culture, history and values. I don’t understand the reason Australians can fall for such PC madness. I will refuse to believe in any PC madness that is creating a belief that same-sex friendship should be treated the same and equal to a married relationship. I can’t pretend that sexual activities are the same and should be treated equally to sexual intercourse or “one flesh” union which consummates a marriage. Barneby Joice believes that the younger generation wouldn’t fight for a our country if foreigners own it, and I believe the younger generation won’t fight for it if they can’t ever own it. I also don’t believe the next generation will see any meaning or point to a legal marriage contract when it is totally disconnected to the behavioural practice of a public, life-long, faithful sexual relationship between one man and woman which can reproduce new-life (natural human reproduction).

      I agree that our Australian culture isn’t perfect, but there are people like you that have been willing to speak the truth against this PC madness that believes marriage is “a union between any 2 people.” This is the reason we have to remind all Australians that marriage is at the heart a behavioural practice to a public, life-long, faithful sexual relationship between one man and one woman which can reproduce new-life (natural human reproduction) and the legal marriage certificate is suppose to protect and support this faithful behavioural practice for a civilised society. We have to remind Australians that natural human reproduction shouldn’t be contaminated with scientific experimentation of human reproduction as this has significant harmful health and relationship problems for the present and future generations of people. We need to be warriors against the PC madness because we will all suffer a mental illness in the end if we don’t resist this language attack on our beliefs, culture and way of life. I am thankful that you joined this blog so we could attempt to fight back against this PC madness. To believe a cat and dog registration with a local council is a type of marriage with a family is absolutely insanity. We need to tell the truth that marriage isn’t a legal state marriage certificate as this doesn’t keep a marriage loving, healthy, respectful, life-long and stable and to believe otherwise is a “delusional fantasy.” The Australian Constitution section 116 protects all Australians free exercise to any religion including a religion that will never believe “marriage is a union between any 2 people” because this is a “delusional fantasy.” I absolutely reject the Australian government’s attempt to establish a religious marriage law by creating a religion which believes in this PC madness of a legal “same-sex marriage,” and forces religious people to observe a religious practice of a fantasy “same-sex marriage.” The Australian government shouldn’t expect me nor any other Australian to believe in such PC madness which beliefs includes a fantasy “same-sex marriage.” This is an oxymoron like the “jumbo shrimp” as it is absolutely nonsense and leads to insanity. There are people in our society whom are suffering sexuality problems and “gender dysphoria,” but surgery (removal of healthy sexual organs), hormone treatment, changing birth and marriage certificate have never been appropriate treatment for any mental illnesses and to believe otherwise is a “delusional fantasy.” I hope at the end of the day I am not the only one left that stays sane because witnessing everybody going crazy around me would be “Hell on Earth.” Please stay with me and fight this PC madness because our children deserve a hope of a future that is free from this disease of insanity.

    • David.S
      I know I have said more than enough on this subject that I could write a book. However, I refused to allow the Australian government’s PC madness to pretend their legal state marriage certificate is a public contract to life-long, exclusive sexual relationship between one man and one woman, especially when the Family Law Act completely demonstrates that this is false. Then the PC madness pretends marriage is a sexual relationship which can encourage and promote homosexuality, gender theories and “open marriages.” This PC madness believes sexual activities including anal and oral sex are acceptable to all who live in our society. Therefore, they believe it should be taught as normal sexual practice on our entire society through sex and relationship education programs, and they choose to deliberately ignore all the scientific evidence which shows evidence of significant harmful health and relationship problems and this is total insanity for our civilised society. The only hope all Australians have is to exercise our Australian Constitutional section 116 right which prohibits government from the free exercise of any religion that only believes marriage is between one man and one woman for the purpose of natural human reproduction. This basic human right which allows our free exercise of any religious practice including marriage protects all our other freedoms including free speech, and to believe otherwise is a “delusional fantasy.” I do hope and pray that God would rise up great warriors to attack this PC madness which believes “marriage is a union between any 2 people” because this is a “delusional fantasy,” and will only lead to insanity for everyone. I am not going to stop a guy believing that he can find it acceptable, normal, natural and healthy for him to put his genital in another man’s anus, but I am absolutely going to refuse that his belief is now the only belief I and all Australians should have regarding this deviant sexual practice, and I believe it is not fair or just for those whom reject this belief of sexual activities are the same as sexual intercourse should be punished by jail, fines, re-education programs, removing their children etc. I also reject a community of guys, girls/women whom hold a common belief that it is acceptable, normal, natural and healthy for all of society to practice sexual activities including oral and anal sex. I believe it isn’t fair nor justice to create laws, policies and regulations to reflect a minority belief to practice a fantasy legal “same-sex marriage” as this changes the meaning and purpose of a birth and marriage certificate and creates a legal “sham marriage practice.” Also, government have no legal right to force Christians and their churches and any other religious organisations to change their beliefs regarding homosexuality, gender theories and all other sexual immoral practices in order to encourage and promote a “delusional fantasy.” Australian society is a swamp which needs draining from all this PC madness which believe in a fantasy legal “same-sex marriage” and people decide their own gender.

  8. Thanks Janine. You put clearly ridiculous implications that follow from denial of sexual intercourse as the basis of marriage. But they are willfully ignored by our legislators with exasperating Humpty Dumpty insistence that marriage means what they want it to mean.

    • David.S
      Unfortunately, Australian governments (Federal/State/Local) are ignorant of creating a legal defacto same-sex partner (all the sexual orientations including bisexual/ heterosexual) because the Australian immigration and social security can’t discriminated against any sexual orientation including bisexual/heterosexual. The Australian immigration authority has to treat my girlfriend from America and I as a defacto (same-sex house-mate) as this is a 100% infertile heterosexual relationship that is irrelevant to the living arrangement to a defacto same-sex partner. The only thing that would exclude our living arrangement from being an exclusive relationship is that I am married with children. However, if a married couple can also be in a defacto relationship with other people at the same time, then a defacto same-sex house-mate could claim a defacto same-sex partner. I think this is all absolute madness that leads to “rorting” and “faking” marriage for the pure purpose of gaining government marriage benefits or legal access to Australia to gain other benefits. It is definitely time to “drain the swamp” from all the LGBTIAQ PC madness which leads to insanity and a poor, unhealthy country.

    • David.S
      The next time a same-sex couple or anyone defending a fantasy “same-sex marriage” on the basis of “love is love,” you can inform them that a sexual union (sexual intercourse) hasn’t been the bases for a civil marriage in Australia since the no-fault divorce 1975, but civil marriage now currently is based on an exclusive, man-woman living arrangement recognised as a legal union and awarded with a legal state marriage certificate. This is the reason the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators don’t want Australians to discuss “same-sex marriage” in a plebiscite because it is impossible to convince all Australians that marriage should no longer remain a man-woman living arrangement which has natured and raised children for centuries and gays and lesbians have the same-type of living arrangement when the scientific research show their relationship is more equal? Also religious marriages which are legally recognised in the Marriage Act is only supported by religious texts and supreme being as sexual relationship within marriage, and marriage is a commitment to a life-long, faithful sexual union between one man and one woman whom can reproduce new-life (natural human reproduction) and is protected as a basic Constitutional right section 116 of free exercise of any religion. This is the reason the LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators only hope of a legal “same-sex marriage” is to demand it through the Australian Federal Parliament as they failed in the High Court of Australia under the disguise of “Marriage Equality.” The federal politicians need to be reminded that a change to the Marriage Act to include same-sex couples (LGBTIAQ) would mean the government would have to discriminate them from the majority of 2 people of the same-sex (heterosexual) that have a living arrangement as house-mates whom are also a 100% infertile living arrangement. The government aren’t allowed to discriminate against sexual orientation including heterosexual from same-sex marriage because a same-sex living arrangement isn’t defined in any marriage laws in the world. The government hasn’t explained the reason it would be fair and just to discriminate same-sex house-mates from same-sex married couples especially since a sexual relationship isn’t the bases for marriage in Australia.

Leave a comment