New Lessons Learned from Overseas

There are so many reasons to love living in Australia, one of which is the fact that we are amongst the vast majority of countries where genderless marriage is illegal.

It means we have the benefit of watching the fallout in countries where marriage has been degendered. Here are some recent developments…

In the UK - Once marriage is redefined and degendered, intolerance is redefined as the new “tolerance”, as a couple in the UK discovered.

After hearing about their traditional views on marriage, social workers rejected their request to adopt the two children they had been fostering for almost a year. The couple said: “The decision ... appears discriminatory to us and not related to the children’s needs. The children love us: we love them. All the reports show that we are a loving, caring and stable family. What more could a child need?”

In the USA - Make no mistake, if same-sex 'marriage' is legalised in Australia, you will be demonised even for associating with any organisation that promotes traditional marriage. Chip and Joanna (a reality TV couple) have made NO public comment about marriage, yet they are the victims of a hate campaign across USA media because the pastor of the church they attend believes marriage is between a man and a woman...

Genderless marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for a few years now, so they’re a good case study. To find out what’s been happening there, this video is a must-watch:

In Belgium – How do two men get a baby? At a baby market! A direct result of degendering marriage in the USA is a rise in the demand for commercial surrogacy in places like Belgium. From Ethics Forum:

“Branding unwanted childlessness as discrimination and injustice, several branches of the LGBT community are lobbying for gay men and transgender women to have biological children of their own…
“New terms were launched to keep the transactions as business-like as possible: the surrogate mother was called “a carrier”, the egg donor “a genetic material contributor”. Some agencies also offered a money-back guarantees (no kidding) and “multiple cycle package” deals.”

Women and children are not commodities but this is the brave new world that awaits when genderless marriage is legal.

In CanadaThe National Post reports:

“Bill 28 erases the basic, core rule of our law that a person is the child of her natural parents and deletes all references to ‘mother, ’father’, and ‘natural parents’ from Ontario statutes, replacing them simply with ‘parent’. It also removes references in some statues to persons being related ‘by blood’, while expanding its meaning in others to include new forms of legal family relationships that are not, in fact, blood relationships.”

Once same-sex couples are declared equal in every way, the rights of children are stripped away. Under Bill 28, a child will have no right to know who they biological parents are, stripping them of their identity and biological heritage. Medical history, cultural history, family tree – all erased.

Take heart!
Mexico – In September, tens of thousands marched against the proposal to legalise same-sex marriage. “Gay marriage is permitted in Mexico City as well as in several states, but the president has proposed changing the constitution to allow it nationally.”

Taiwan – On December 3, Tens of thousands took to the streets in support of traditional marriage. “DPP legislators originally planned to revise the Civil Code to allow same-sex marriage, but in the wake of such large scale protests are now considering drafting a special law for such unions.”

So what does marriage really mean in Australia?

Former same sex “marriage” activist, James Parker:

“At its core, a committed, eroticised same-sex relationship doesn’t have the same components as a marriage. Because it can’t. It’s wholly different. I know what it’s like to live both sides of the marriage debate. It’s cruel to fool each other that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are equal and the same. They’re not. To embrace this lie shows further injustice and ultimately deceives same sex-attracted people.”

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

18 Responses

  1. Thank you for this article. It’s helpful to know what consequences are being experienced in other countries where SSM has been legalised.

    Australia should take heed before it makes any radical changes to the legal definition of marriage.

  2. Since losing the right to a plebiscite on homosexual marriage and reading both Dr. David van Gend’s book and the now increasing consequences in countries where this has been
    legalised I am in despair how to enlighten all politicians about the long term effects on children, parents rights and indeed FREEDOM OF SPEECH in a democratic country Australia.
    What can we as citizens do to address this unjust legal imposition on the majority who risk being silenced as is the case in all other countries where homosexual marriage has gained
    legal status.
    I have never felt so strongly that this must not happen in Australia

  3. I hope that Australia takes note of what is happening elsewhere in the world where gay “marriage” is legal. Lets pray that it never passes the Parliament here.

  4. I’d love to see the excellent 3 minute advertisement broadcast on all television stations. This is a serious matter which should be brought out in the open for all to see.

  5. Thanks for posting What same-sex marriage did to Massachusetts. I have put video on DVD and sent it to all 226 federal MPs and Senators.

    The ‘gay’ goal is the abolition of freedom. This is why they march through the streets bound in dog collars, leather horse furniture, and chains. The sexual ‘freedom’ they preach means bondage to sexual sin. A ‘gay mardi gras’ is Satan parading his captives through the streets. He chose the word ‘pride’ because God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. It is not the proud who will inherit the earth, but the meek.

    The ‘gay’ movement is really a cult: it denies its own members the free and rational choice to ever leave. “You are born that way, and change is impossible.” This is not love, or tolerance, or compassion; it is heartless cruelty.

    The sodomaniacs want yet another marriage vote in Parliament, so they can target the good people who speak/vote against them. We are seeing this type of thing in Tasmania, with the poisonous group GetUp announcing its intention to move into the state, to unseat state MPs Guy Barnett and Rene Hidding (state election due March 2018, might come earlier).

    These two are targeted for special treatment because:–

    1) Guy Barnett exposed gayatollah Rodney Croome’s ageist bigotry in State Parliament, pointing out that Mr Croome called highly respected former Chief Justice and former Governor of Tasmania, William Cox, a “homophobic old man”.

    2) Rene Hidding has told State Parliament he will send his Bible to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, and ask her to strike out the parts we are no longer allowed to read!

    We are seeing intimidation at local council level too. In Ulverstone (NW Tas.), the council voted down an application to open an ‘adult’ shop in the main street. The pornographers had the decision overturend by the Statewide planning tribunal, and then went after the councillors who voted against them. Three councillors have been found guilty of breaching the local government code of conduct, and now have to attend re-education courses to learn how to treat people ‘fairly’.

    An ‘adult’ shop is a sinagog, because sad and lonely people go in there to be agog at sin.

  6. I think that the language demands of Ontario Bill 28 will be its undoing. The deletion of “mother” and “father” and a child having 4 or even more “parents” none of whom may be biologically related to the child leads to the question as to what does the child call its “parents”? If there is no mother and father in the “all families are equal” terminology, are the words “mummy” and “daddy” replaced and what is the replacement? Following the logic of the legislation the term would be some diminutive of “Parent 1”, “Parent 2” etc. Or does a child now call its parents by their first names? What about all the other gendered family words like uncle, aunt, brother in law, sister in law, son in law, daughter in law, niece, nephew. Are they all now officially indistinguishable “persons in law”? The implementation of Bill 28 is going to require a dictionary of new words to be coined and enforced re-education of the whole population in using them. It will be interesting to see how the gay media handle this challenge. Since Canada has officially both English and French all legislation must be written in both languages. If you look at Bill 28 you will see the difficulties of expressing the gender neutral terms in a language that is founded on gender. There is no gender free word for “parent” in French; French has only “père” and “mère” and the word “parent” in French means the English word “relative”. To overcome this, the legislation says that in the French version “père” and “mère” mean the English word “parent”. I think that the ridicu-lousness of the bill through its language demands will cause ordinary people to react against it. It could be the over reach that turns well meaning people against the Juggernaut (tyrannical deity) that same sex marriage is revealing itself to be.

    Michael, I am so glad that you have the energy and resources to have sent that video to our parliamentarians. I notice that it was made in October 2013. With the whole of the US now bound to implement same sex marriage the situation is worse. Hopefully excesses like Bill 28 will cause the whole thing to implode through its own contradictions.

  7. I am horrified at the attempts to re engineer our whole society by those promoting same sex marriage. I believe that this is the tip of the iceberg and that thee is an agenda to remove all reference to male and female, where we are all just objects to be exploited, especially children, who simply become items that are purchased like a house or car etc.

    I am encouraged by the efforts of those opposed to these insidious proposals and the clarity of their argument which hopefully will enlighten our political leaders and enable them to
    make appropriate decisions.

    I do believe there could be a title given to same sex relationships that gives legal recognition, but does not intrude in any way on, or undermine traditional marriage.

    • Yes, the agenda is to change all the meanings of words, to take away the free and rational choice to think for yourself, to deny you the ability to understand anything about the world you live in. Christians understand this as preventing people from being able to understand special revelation (the Bible) and natural revelation (creation). Like Alice in Wonderland, the LGBTIQ mob want you believe “six impossible things before breakfast.” They have already redefined many words and phrases. “Having sex” used to mean sexual intercourse, but they mean any sexual act, no matter how sordid or harmful. They talk about diversity, but want to eliminate the most fundamental diversity of all, male and female.

      In Tasmania, the Anti-Discrimination Commission (the same one that found fault with the Catholic church’s booklet) has proposed a law which would let people change their birth certificate to the opposite sex (pdf), just like that. Talking of redefinition, the Anti-Discrimination Commission has had the chutzpah to rename itself Equal Opportunity Tasmania!

      For the LGBT despots, the title of ‘marriage’ is essential, so they can get (further) into the schools, corrupting the innocence of childhood, and capturing the idealism of youth. For example, it’s normal for teenagers to have close friends of the same sex before they discover the attractions of the opposite. The homosexual movement uses “safe schools” programs to recruit vulnerable young people who are at this point. It’s also normal for teenagers to feel awkward and difficult in many situations. The gay movement wants to convince your child that there really is something different about them: a “sexual orientation” that must be acted upon, preferably with older, more experienced adults.

      The goal is to get your child to go through a painful “coming out” experience in front of you, so that the gay movement can manipulate you, as a parent, into affirming your child’s participation in dangerous and unhealthy sexual behaviour that will ultimately destroy him or her. Moreover, they want to promote ‘homosexual’ activities, anal and oral sex (sexual abuse of the digestive tract) to everyone as normal and healthy, because this will make the whole world ‘gay’. This is why they usurp the rainbow; in the Bible it symbolises a covenant with all life on the earth.

      As for relationship titles, there are many life-long, committed same-sex relationships that work perfectly well without titles or certificates from the government: men with their fathers, sons and brothers; women with their mothers, daughters and sisters! These aren’t marriage. Sexualising a same-sex friendship doesn’t make it marriage either; a man and a woman can do ‘homosexual’ things too, but these can never consummate marriage, nor grant the couple the title of ‘marriage’. A man and a woman unite their different and opposite sexual organs as one flesh, which alone consummates marriage; which alone has the right to be called marriage; and which alone produces children and families.

  8. Isn’t it so amazing, and alarming that the Massachusetts story has never made it onto any mainstream media.
    In terms of relevance to our society, its by far more relevant to all of us, than just about any other big news story going around.
    I thought the media was supposed to keep us fully informed on all stories that may affect us. Normally they pride themselves on this.
    Yet with a shocking story like this, all we get is blanket silence. What are they all afraid of?? Being labelled homophobic??? Viewer backlash??
    Surely it must take some serious organising to maintain this blanket silence. ???
    Journalists receiving regular reminder emails from the boss..”Please, no, I repeat NO stories about gay marriage in Massachusetts”. ?????
    Is this whats happening behind media closed doors???…You would have to think…yes !!!
    How else could they maintain such a perfectly organised blanket silence ???
    If we can find this Massachusetts story on the internet, then surely the all knowing media must be aware of it, too.
    Yet all we get on the media, particularly on ABC, are pro-gay stories.
    We know from the Massachusetts story, that media is one of the principle weapons used & dominated by the pro gay campaigners.
    So, its already looking ominous for us here in Australia. The warning signs are already happening.
    We are being lulled into passive acceptance, in preparation for a nazi-like takeover.

    • Vince,
      You are certainly right about media manipulation. When the homos marched into the Hobart police station in the 1990s to confess to “unnatural sexual intercourse” and “indecent practice between male persons”, they made sure the media were there to support them, and have had them onside ever since.

      In August 2012, after the Tasmanian Government announced homosexual ‘marriage’ legislation, there was a rally in support outside Parliament House in Hobart. Apparently, not enough people turned up for the gay movement’s liking, so the Sunday Tasmanian ran it as a human interest story, with large photos of three gay couples. Below these, there was a tiny picture of nine people and two dogs, taken from behind, and captioned as “hundreds of people” (Sunday Tasmanian, 12/8/2012, p. 3).

      Last year, a homosexual group holding an event attracting hundreds of people got a full-page article with photos and sympathetic reporting (Sunday Tasmanian, 9/8/2015, p. 3), while a Christian group holding an event attracting hundreds of people got a one sentence throw-away line at the end of another pro-homosexual article (Mercury, Friday 7/8/2015, p. 8). Apparently, this is media equality.

      Re the ABC (or GayBC?), there was a marvellous graffito in Hobart for some years, saying “Kill your TV”. I killed mine in 2009, haven’t looked back.

      Not just the media, the police have been ‘sodomised’ too. In Tasmania, there are (literally) pink police posters, announcing LGTBI Liason Officers, to “ensure the LGTBI community of a fair and equitable policing service”. All Inspectors, are ‘encouraged’ to be trained as a LGTBI Liason Officer as part of ‘professional development’. Tasmania Police is also acting illegally, by describing “homophobic, biphobic or transphobic offences“, i.e., crimes. Legally, the police can call something a crime, only if it named as a summary or indictable offence in an Act of Parliament of Tasmania. There is no such offence, and therefore no crime, described as ‘homophobic’ in any Act of Parliament.

      • I looked at the Tasmanian LGBTI Liaison Officers link that Michael posted and noticed another lack of thorough review of what they are saying. It is that Officers are to provide “discrete” advice, repeated twice in both the public advertisement and another version. Surely they mean cautious, prudent advice, for which the word is “discreet”, not “discrete”. People who do not write for a living can be excused for not knowing the difference but not people who write official Government documents. To prevent such mistakes the Fowler brothers’ “The King’s English” used to be a standard reference in Government offices.

  9. Michael, thank you for your work sending out all those DVD’s. All we have to do now is get them to watch them!

  10. As the Ontario bill shows, this is a legal language battle over the redefinition of words. Normal people use language to express their thoughts; the LGTBIQ dictators use language to control your thoughts. Normal people use words to describe the world as it is in itself; the LGTBIQ dictators use language to define the world as they want it to be.

    Marriage, family, husband, wife, father, mother, man, woman, boy, girl, are all under attack. Men and women of Australia need to fight back by strongly and effectively telling the obvious truth, so that we don’t lose our freedom and Australian way of life.

    The LGTBIQ dicators talk about ‘diversity’, while trying to eliminate the most fundamental diversity of all, male and female. Newsflash: men and women are different, their sexual organs very much so. A man’s penis and a woman’s vagina are the opposite of each other, hence the phrase “the opposite sex”. These unite as one flesh to consummate (complete, make possible) marriage, able to create new life.

    Married people wear wedding rings: the symbol of one-flesh sexual union. The wedding ring represents the woman; the finger, the man. Putting the ring on your spouse’s finger symbolises consummation. Wearing it in public shows the world your commitment to a life-long, one-flesh natural sexual intercourse relationship. The woman taking the husband’s name symbolises taking him inside herself. Married often refer to their spouse by saying ‘my other half’ or ‘my better half’. Half of what? Their one flesh!

    The real world testifies to the union of male and female: key and lock; plug and socket; bolt and nut; piston and cylinder; male and female pipe fittings. The world doesn’t work without this. In grade 7, the music teacher showed us both ends of an XLR microphone cable; he said the plug with the pins was the male, and the socket with the holes was the female, “you can see why, can’t you?”

    Normal people celebrate the new life that only one-flesh sexual intercourse can create. Normal people flush faeces down the toilet. The LGTBIQ dictators want you to flush your dead baby down the toilet, and have sex with faeces. Retarded people who smear faeces all over their bodies in a non-sexual way, get locked up in mental institutions. LGTBIQ despots who smear their sex organs, tongues and hands with faeces in situ, are now dictating sex education and public health policy.

    Some will think, what has abortion to do with same-sex marriage? Everything, they are motivated by the same spirit which distorts truth and denies life. When Tasmanian ‘gay’ activists marched into the Hobart police station in the 1990s, with the media in tow, they were happy to risk 21 years in prison for “gross indecency between male persons”. (Rodney Croome told police he had done this over 1,000 times to that point (front page story in the Mercury)). But they will not risk just one year in prison, under Tasmania’s Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act 2013, to try to save the lives of babies whom they claim are born gay! They have redefined ‘abortion’ (already a sanitised term) as pregnancy termination, ignoring the fact that all healthy pregnancies will terminate naturally in birth.

    The LGBTIQ dictators endlessly spout the phrase “marriage equality”. What do they have to do with equality, really? In reality, marriage equality requires the equality of both male and female sexes in the marriage relationship, and the equality of the spouses’ different and opposite male and female sexual organs during the marriage act. Natural sexual intercourse is the only sexual act in which the genitals of both sexes are treated equally by uniting as one flesh. There can be no “marriage equality” without the genital equality of the marriage act (sexual intercourse, coition).

    • Michael Watts,
      I agree with you. Australians have to become warriors against the LGBTIAQ PC madness that will lead to insanity for everyone. Same-sex couples are wanting equality with a civil marriage and this is impossible because they don’t meet the basic criteria of an exclusive legal union for a genuine man-woman living arrangement/relationship. Also, same-sex couples don’t meet the basic criteria of a genuine Christian/religious marriage which is a public commitment to a life-long, faithful sexual union (“one flesh”) between one man and one woman as this can create new-life (natural human reproduction). This “one flesh” union is the only way to consummate a genuine Christian marriage which no church can annul. Marriage is a union of difference not sameness. Brexit has been described as a divorce because Britain has been legally married to the E.U. Britain and the E.U are different, despite them being united legally together for benefits. The Australian federal parliament removed sexual intercourse as the basis of the meaning of a civil marriage by the introduction of the no-fault divorce in 1975 which also made civil marriage no longer a life-long contract. This has had a negative impact on Australia society with increase adultery/affairs, sexless marriage, divorce or separation. At the heart of a man-woman marriage is a faithful sexual relationship for life as this union can procreate new-life. Otherwise, man-woman marriage without sex is just a complicated legal friendship. Adultery/affairs and sexless marriages break the basic agreement to a man-woman marriage contract. A defacto “same-sex marriage” is 2 people of the same-sex whom live together as housemates/ siblings/ parent-child in a non-sexual relationship (100% infertile). The federal parliament believes that gays and lesbians have a civil right to gain marriage benefits, but this discriminates against my neighbour who lives with her elderly mother who owns the house. If the federal government allowed house-mates, siblings and parent-child to have a civil marriage which is non-sexual nor life-long, then cars/property could be passed between them without paying stamp duty. I could have married my sister for a short period of time in order to give her my old car without paying stamp duty.

      • It’s worth quoting John Locke (whose observation that marriage is the first society was mentioned in David’s recent talk) re the negative impact of no-fault divorce and removing the sexual intercourse basis of civil marriage has.

        Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and tho’ it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another’s bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation; yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common off-spring, who have a right to be nourished, and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves…..Wherein one cannot but admire the wisdom of the great Creator, who having given to man foresight, and an ability to lay up for the future, as well as to supply the present necessity, hath made it necessary, that society of man and wife should be more lasting, than of male and female amongst other creatures; that so their industry might be encouraged, and their interest better united, to make provision and lay up goods for their common issue, which uncertain mixture, or easy and frequent solutions of conjugal society would mightily disturb. (Second Treatise of Government, sections 78 & 80

        If one had enough time/money/lawyers one could get the government out of marriage altogether. Really, if the government has for the past 41 years not recognised the natural basis of marriage, then its marriage contracts are totally worthless and without legal foundation, for what other legal contract has no penalties for breaking it? Can a teacher or doctor or lawyer or builder or shopkeeper choose to leave the legal contract they voluntarily chose to enter, with no penalty, just because they no longer feel like it? Conversely, who would enter a contract that provides no right to any benefit? If sexual intercourse is not the basis of civil marriage, then no-one has right to have an expectation for their legal spouse to have sex with them.

        (I accidentally blurted out my surname on the last post, but oh well, they will find out who it is anyway if they look up my letters in the Mercury.)

        • Michael,
          Some lawyers in Australia have argued for a legal “same-sex marriage” for the purpose of a break down of a marriage. However, lawyers never discuss the reason same-sex couples meet the basic criteria of a genuine or bona fide marriage because there is no reason. God didn’t design marriage for a legal divorce, but adultery was grounds for a divorce. A Bona fide or genuine marriage is important for detecting “sham marriages” for both the Australian Immigration and social security authorities. It was interesting reading about Lutwak vs United States which is a detailed court case where the married couple met the legal requirements of a civil marriage for immigration including wedding ceremony and legal state marriage certificate, but they weren’t a genuine or bona fide marriage as they never planned to live a life together and failed to consummate their marriage so the marriage was declared a fake or a “sham marriage.” Same-sex married couples can’t ever consummate their civil marriage as a genuine or bona fide marriage.

          I agree that entering a legal marriage contract that fails to include the basic agreement of sexual intercourse is insanity. However, the government hasn’t been doing a good job at legally protecting home buyers from purchasing poorly built homes, students from purchasing expensive courses that have worthless certificates, protecting women and children from a violent boyfriend/partners/spouse or children from institutional sexual abuse. Marriage is more than living a life together as other types of relationships can achieve this criteria, but they’re not marriage.

          • Thanks for your clarity and insight on this issue. I agree that the law has to be able to discriminate between genuine and sham marriage, both for those in Australia (social security) and seeking to live here (immigration). Seems the law wants to recognise the necessity of consummation (sexual intercourse) for bona fide marriage in these cases, while trying to deny its necessity in others with no-fault divorce. Being denied one’s “conjugal rights” used to be grounds for divorce. It is not just one act of intercourse, but consummation ‘with intent’, with commitment to its life-long practise in a genuine marriage relationship. In the Lutwak vs US case, even if they had had intercourse just once, so they could say they had consummated their marriage, that would have still been a sham. Hopefully, there are similar cases on the Australian books, as that would help re-establish sexual intercourse relationship as the legal sine qua non of marriage.

            In the 1990s, the government abolished the name ‘Department of Social Security’, because the movement now known as LGBTIQ-PC doesn’t want society to be secure, with life-long natural families whose parents have a natural, healthy and faithful sex life. The dictators’ goal is to break down the natural family, and end up with a nation of individuals, all directly linked to the central government, hence the name ‘Centrelink’.

            Also, they abolished the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES), because of the economic goal of controlling inflation by maintaining 5% unemployment. This fits with cultural aspiration of the financially comfortable: blaming dole bludgers for the ills of society; ignoring the fact that quite lot of bludging is done by people with jobs. And a person with one hour’s work per fortnight is not counted as ‘unemployed’!

            Yes, marriage is more than just living together; otherwise all of us who live together in Australia would be married to each other. Sometimes a marriage remains genuine even if the couple is separated and therefore sexless for an extended period, depending on circumstances. I know of a Tasmanian soldier in WWII who was away from his wife and children in Queensland for five years solid; the army never let him have any leave. Neither he nor his wife even looked at someone else during this time, or even thought of it. Their marriage practise resumed when he finally got back after war’s end, evidenced by more children. (If he had been a POW, he would be lauded as a hero, but because he never left Australia, he got nothing; only getting an army gravestone because of family pressure).

            The LGBTIQ dictators have us all using the phrase ‘same-sex couple’, but this is a contradiction in terms. Only a man and a woman can make a couple, by literally coupling themselves together via sexual intercourse. (The description of ‘engaged couple’ or ‘courting couple’ are still valid, because marriage is the ultimate goal of these).

            There is obviously a need to recognise “sham marriage practise” but many Australian jurisdictions, and Christians for that matter, adopt the “sham time practise” of ‘daylight saving’. Daylight can’t be saved; you can’t put light in a jar to use later on. Changing the clocks doesn’t change what time it is. Time is defined by the relative movement of celestial bodies, which God put in place, and which man cannot change. My watch stays on Eastern standard time. We just do things an hour earlier when we need to meet other people’s times/appointments. Yesterday was 22nd December, the longest day; for over half of the ‘daylight saving’ period, available sunlight is actually decreasing.

            I agree the government doesn’t do all that much to protect its citizens from other shams, and from violent/abusive situations. But for some of these, some of the other people involved have to take some of the responsibility. Only legal adults can buy property, so there is an expectation they have the maturity of “a reasonable person” in the eyes of the law, to thoroughly investigate for themselves (caveat emptor, buyer beware). There was the case of former test cricket umpire Steve Randall, held up as an example of what Tasmanians could acheive on the world stage. He was famous for offering minties to the bowlers; turns out he had offered sweeties to children when a schoolteacher. But his abuse of a teenage girl took place in her family home, in her bedroom. How could parents invite/allow their child’s schoolteacher into their home like this??

            I once heard a domestic incident from the next-door flat. The man had been seeing someone else; as a result, the woman was taking the children to live elsewhere. “If they ask me why, I’m telling them, because Daddy put his penis in someone else’s vagina!” One simply can’t make this up. But then she was sobbing, “Why did you do this to me?? I want your friendship in my life.” It was so sad.

            The natural sexual-intercourse-based marriage of a man and a woman should be the only sexual relationship/activity endorsed or promoted by the government. All other sexual activities spread disease and dysfunction; promote jealousy, suspicion, depression, and domestic violence; reduce peace, security, stability, and economic productivity; and greatly inhibit a person’s chance of being able to form a life-long marriage partnership.

            P.S. Happy Christmas.

        • Michael,
          Thanks for your comments.

Leave a comment