Qld. single parent surrogacy bill “horrific” – Family First’s Wendy Francis

Allowing children to be born with no legal mother or father is a disgrace and Australians should be appalled that the Bligh government could consider such a move, says Queensland senate candidate for Family First Wendy Francis.

The Queensland Surrogacy Bill is on track to be passed this week and Francis says that most Queenslanders would be shocked if they really knew the details of the bill.

“This is not about helping infertile couples – it’s a law that allows absolutely anyone including a single man or women or a same gender couple to use a surrogate woman’s womb to order a baby,” she said.

Francis has echoed the concern of many organisations including the Family Council of Queensland in calling this “a piece of legislation that will destroy the meaning of the word ‘parent’ and deprive children of their right to have a mother and father”.

“It’s a disgraceful attack on the family and will cause immeasurable harm to those we must protect – children who are yet to be born,” she said. “You can only imagine the psychological implications for the child who is forced to live their life without a mother or father because two men or two women—or a single person—selfishly want to have a baby. In these cases the mother or father would cease to exist in law.”

Francis said while many single or homosexual people may be loving parents, society has an obligation to give a child a mother and a father.

“We have no right to make the choice for the child to simply erase a parent”, she said.

Francis has called upon Labor members to vote with their conscience and join opposition members in defeating this horrific bill.

Comments

  1. They need to get with the times. These problems are not going to go away, so making them harder will just make people fight harder.

  2. Jack Richards says:

    Shockadelic.

    Smearing, labelling and name calling, and you reckon I behave like a 7-year old schoolboy!

    You get beaten in an argument and outvoted – and then chuck a vituperative, abusive, accusative, wobbly.

    “rabid extremists like Richards” – Give me an example of my “rabid extremism”

    “Richards claims to be an atheist!” – I don’t claim to be, I am.

    “the Agents who encourage them” – What agents would that be? You’ve been reading to many John LeCarre Novels.

    “Extremists of any kind should not be encouraged by the APP.” – I couldn’t agree more – you seem to be the only extremist here. Everyone who has disagreed with you, about anything, has been subjected to your sarcasm, ridicule, and insulting abuse.

    “any more than Richards speaks for most right wingers.” – I’ve never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. Every opinion I’ve expressed in these pages is my view, and only my view.

    If you don’t like my opinions, fine. I couldn’t care less.

  3. Crimson, marriage, adoption and funding are not “homosexuality”.
    Simply being homosexual is not an “agenda”.

    It’s quite easy to summise that all far-right groups are not homosexual-friendly, but this is precisely because of rabid extremists like Richards and the Agents who encourage them.

    “All Abrahamian Faiths have serious issues with homosexuality”.
    Yes, but Richards claims to be an atheist!
    Democracy is not theocracy or dictatorship, and the bible bashers and the Rabid Right better get used to that reality too.

    Gay activists do not speak for most gay people, any more than Richards speaks for most right wingers.
    Extremists of any kind should not be encouraged by the APP.

  4. Jack Richards says:

    I find it quite incredible that Shockadelic should describe me as : an agent provacteur; an extremist; a nit-picker; and rude.

    Perhaps Shockadelic should read back over what he/she wrote attacking me and denigrating my views and see whether this actually describes him/her rather than me

    Agents can be detected by their circuitous arguments, petty nitpicking about the meaning of words, failure to acknowledge that any alternative or more moderate opinion has any validity, and in-your-face rudeness.

    I think I have very moderate views, far more moderate than fundamentalist Christians, Jews, or Muslims.

    I find homosexuality disgusting, as do the great majority of “normal” people. I think that their demands for legal “marriage” and, perhaps, “surrogacy” and other “sacraments” (for want of better word) utterly offensive.

    Despite that, I accept the position of Bishop Richard Harries that homosexuality is a genetic mutation rather than a “choice” and, for that reason, should not be “punished” as demanded in Abrahamian Religious Texts. But that doesn’t mean that it should be promoted as “normal” and funded by my taxes.

    Insofar as being a “Bible quoting atheist” is concerned. Although I don’t accept that there is, or ever was, a God the Father; that Jesus was the Son of God; that he rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven; that he was born of a virgin; or any of the other astonishing miracles etc; I have no doubt that Jesus did indeed exist and was crucified.

    At the time of Jesus, as indeed today, there was no shortage of prophets running around telling everyone that “the end is nigh”. It seems that he was a very effective speaker and much of what he said is as applicable today as it was 2000 years ago. Of course, the story got embellished with each re-telling – as happens with all urban myths. But the fact of his existence is recounted not only in the Bible but also in Tacitus.

    So where am I being “extremist”? Where am I being “circuitous”? Where have I been a “nit-picker”?

    You attacked me originally over a Biblical quote from Leviticus; then over the meaning of “normal” and “natural”; then over whether the thief crucified with Christ was “saved”. Seems to me, you’re the nit-picker.

    It also seems to me that you’ve been rude to other posters on this thread who disagreed with you. It’s a case of you’re right and everyone else is wrong.

    A quick look through these posts show a few people supprting my view – but no-one supporting yours. It looks like you’re a majority of one.

    You said

    Do you value liberty at all? … What matters is whether the state has any right to interfere with people’s personal lives, and if so, on what justification.

    Yes, I value liberty – particularly Freedom of Speech. Do You?

    Yes, the State has a right to intefere in “people’s personal lives”. It always has and always will – unless we have complete anarchy. I could list hundreds of reasons why the State has the “right” to interfere in “people’s personal lives” and there are are very good reasons for doing so.

    Just a few examples.

    Child protection laws. Is it the State’s business if I neglect and starve my children?
    Environmental laws. I own a part of a river – why can’t I have the right to crap in it and dump my rubbish in it? Why can’t I play my stereo at 300 decibels at 3 in the morning
    Building Regulations: Why can’t I just knock-up a few shanties on my land and rent them out;
    Noxious weeds and pests: What business of the State’s is it if my fruit trees are full of fruit-fly; or my land is covered in lantana and blackberry; or my land is full of my rubbish collection and swarming with rats, mice and feral cats?

    You have your right to express your opinion – but not many seem to agree with you.

  5. Shock,

    The APP does have a position on homosexuality, it does not support homosexual marriage, adoption or even funding in any way that would support any homosexual organisation. Quite easy to summise that the APP is not a homosexual friendly organisation.

    That is the right of the APP, they don’t have to support the homosexual agenda, fact is, even both major political parties aren’t too keen on furthering that agenda on a national level. Only Queensland has moved this far, which is why people should be asking why, why Queensland?

    An by no means is Richards the only extremist who is a member of the APP, spend anytime on the Australian Identity Forum and you’ll find that the APP attracts them like no other organisation.

    All Abrahamian Faiths have serious issues with homosexuality and as long as half the worlds population prays to the Abrahamian God in their Churches, Mosques and Synagogues homosexuality is never truely going to be accepted.

    That is something that the homosexual community is going to have to take on-board, that they the tiny minority have as little right to dictate to the majority as much as the majority has as little a right to dictate in return. In such an instance the Status Quo should be upheld where it does not do any harm to either party.

    Regards,

    Crinson

  6. Jack Richards says:

    It seems to me that much of this debate has got to the point where it has descended into unproductive hair-splitting over the meaning of words or the interpretation of Biblical passages.

    Really, what’s the point of arguing over the meaning of “natural” or “normal” or whether heterosexual fish have sex? It’s a bit of fun, but when people get so worked up about it that they start accusing others of being “provocateurs” it’s probably gone too far.

    The igniter of this entire thread was the Qld Government’s possible decision to allow single men or women or gay couples to acquire children through a proposed bill of allow surrogacy.

    In this case, I am very much on the side of Wendy Francis. Of course, not a single gay couple nor one 65 year-old childless woman or anyone else has yet availed themselves of a surrogate child. It’s a question of the “implications” and the “possibilities” of such a procedure becoming readily available. Thus it becomes a theoretical question about “social” morality.

    From that you can extrapolate to the question: “Does the state have the right to interfere in the private lives of individuals?”

    Now that becomes a very vexed question – and we’ve seen many big battles about many moral questions almost since time began – and not many have been resolved.

  7. Jack Richards says:

    It seems to me that much of this debate has got to the point where it has descended into unproductive hair-splitting over the meaning of words or the interpretation of Biblical passages.

    Really, what’s the point of arguing over the meaning of “natural” or “normal” or whether heterosexual fish have sex? It’s a bit of fun, but when people get so worked up about it that they start accusing others of being “provocateurs” it’s probably gone too far.

    The igniter of this entire thread was the Qld Government’s possible decision to allow single men or women or gay couples to acquire children through a proposed bill of allow surrogacy.

    In this case, I am very much on the side of Wendy Francis. Of course, not a single gay couple nor one 65 year-old childless woman or anyone else has yet availed themselves of a surrogate child. It’s a question of the “implications” and the “possibilities” of such a procedure becoming readily available. Thus it becomes a theoretical question about “social” morality.

    From that you can extrapolate to the question: “Does the state have the right to interfere in the private lives of individuals?”

    Now that becomes a very vexed question – and we’ve seen many big battles about many moral questions almost since time began – and not many have been resolved.

    Abortion is, perhaps, the question that will generate the most extreme and heated debate. In the USA pro-lifers have gunned down abortion clinic doctors and blown up surgeries. For myself, I would never consider abortion -that’s my moral first principle. However, if it was proved to me that a foetus had major defects such that the resulting child would be condemned to a bed-ridden life full of pain, then I would be in favour. In the same way that I’d be in favour if the woman was pregnant due to rape; or if the mother was sure to die. There are so many exceptions that trump my first principle “right-to-life” stance that I just keep my mouth shut on the topic.

    Drug use is another moral question to which there is no answer. There is no doubt that heroin is the best drug available for easing intense pain; while the opium poppy produces a whole range of very valuable drugs including codeine and morphine. There is a fair body of evidence that Heroin use, in controlled and standarised doses, does not lead to death or to living a filthy life in a gutter, or to violence, or to anything else – other than addiction. Heroin addiction was common and unremarkable before it was banned around 1950. It was the active ingredient in all cough syrups – and it worked a treat. There were plenty of loving and happy grannies who started every day with a dose of cough syrup. It was also the main ingredient in chlorodene (?) that cured diarrhoea and dysentery symptoms almost instantly.

    Marijuana is the same. The Cannabis hemp plant has many valuable products from rope to clothing to the finest paper. The THC drug has many therapeutic uses that are far better than the synthetic equivalents. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a single death attributed to over-dosing on “pot”. It is impossible to do. Also, smoking it does not cause lung cancer or arteriosclerosis as does tobacco. It’s far less harmful than alcohol. All these brawls and violence caused by binge-drinking would disappear if they smoked pot instead. There is some evidence that it can worsen schizophrenia in those genetically disposed to the illness – but the evidence isn’t all that clear.

    If it was up to me, I’d legalise drug use – not just “decriminalise” it. If it was legal, there’d be no significant increase in the number of users – but it would wipe out the enormous profits flowing to crime gangs, empty a lot of the prisons, and reduce the death toll from OD and gang wars. When the TAB and then pokies and casinos were legalised the under-world crime gangs that ran illegal gambling were put out of business – and the States inherited a multi-billon dollar windfall. When gambling was legalised, society didn’t collapse and the number of compulsive gamblers was not much greater than it had been before. At least now they can get help, and the industry is controlled and taxed.

    If heroin and marijuana use, and maybe cocaine, were legalised, would the “average person” instantly head for the Chemist shop, buy some smack, and stick needles in themselves? Of course not, any more than Mr/s Average heads for the casino on pay-day to lose their week’s wages.

    Prohibition does nothing other than create organised crime and all the rotten things that flow from that – as well as create a useless and expensive industry in policing, prisons and justice. It’s much easier for a 15 year-old to buy illegal marijuana from a street dealer than it is for him/her to buy a can of beer or a packet of smokes from a legal outlet.

    That’s my position on Drugs. I’m sure many here will disagree with me and think I’m proposing the end of society as we know it – and I am. I want to see organised crime with no product to sell, and no mountains of cash to buy politicians and corrupt coppers and judges. The fact is that those most vehemently opposed to legalisation are the under-world crime gangs and their lackeys – they don’t want to lose the huge profits or pay taxes.

    Homosexuality is another vexed question. It was illegal in Australia until the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s – and it’s still illegal in many parts of the world. I, myself, am disgusted by what homosexuals “do” – I just can’t understand it; it’s disgusting. How one man could get excited by another man’s arse in a smelly public toilet is just beyond me. I find the sight of gay men and women wandering around arm-in-arm and snogging utterly repulsive.

    But should the State interfere in what they do to each other in the privacy of their own homes? No, I don’t think so – anymore than the State has any right to look into the bedroom of a heterosexual couple. It wasn’t that long ago that “oral sex” was a crime, even in marriage.

    But allowing homosexuals to practice their perversion without State intervention does not mean that they should be entitled to other traditionally heterosexual “sacraments” (for want of a better word) such as legal marriage, adoption, or obtaining babies through the proposed surrogacy laws. At least, that’s my view.

    Another very vexed question is the “Family Law Act” and how it is applied. The parts of the act that really infuriate people, to murder and suicide, are:
    • custody of minor children and access by the non-custodial parent;
    • “no fault” divorce and therefore no penalty for that lowest act of contempt for one’s partner and breach of a “legal” contract, adultery;
    • adversarial property settlements that positively encourage lying and false accusations to gain a “financial advantage”; and
    • Child Support assessments that contain an in-built measure of “maintenance” for the custodial parent but no “enforceable” right for the non-custodial parent to an equal say in the raising of the child or how the money is spent.

    I’m sure there will be many people reading this who will have been through the “Family Law” crushing mill and know just how rotten, biased, and unfair it is. And that’s not even mentioning the outrageous and completely unjustifiable legal fees and costs involved.

    I think I’m like a lot of men who, having been through the Family Court once, would never consider another permanent relationship. I was lucky, my kids were all over 12 and could choose who they wanted to be with – and they all chose to come with me. Had they been just that few years younger, my three daughters would have, by default, been given to their mother – and by now be up to the third “step-father” who, incidentally, is a known sexual predator!

    With me they had stability, a firm hand, and no interlopers. My youngest girls who were 12 and 13 at the time of my divorce are now both University graduates, happy and healthy. I dread to think where they’d be now if they’d been handed over to that dissolute and insane slut who was my wife for 23 years.

    For some reason, when my Ex got into her early 40’s, she went quite mad. She dieted, exercised, went to tanning salons, started dressing like a teenager, got a tattoo, took up smoking again, had plastic surgery – and started picking on the kids and blaming them for her “not having a life”. To me, they were my life.

    The truth is that she could not accept getting older and could not bear the fact that our 3 teenage daughters were younger than her, far better looking than she’d ever been, more gifted in sports and music, and academically smarter than her. She saw them as competition both for my affection and for the “attention” they got from others. She was jealous of them, still is, and never sought access visits and has not contacted any of them for more than 8 years.

    In any robust political movement, questions of morality, ethics and ideas about the “social good” have to be vigorously debated. There is never going to be unanimity of opinion and the debates may never get resolved. Society changes over time – and so must the policies of a political party if it wishes to be relevant. About one hundred years ago it was unthinkable for women to have the vote; fifty years ago it was unthinkable for women to get equal pay for equal work; thirty years ago it was unthinkable that there’d be legal casinos.

    Starting in about 1965, the view developed that the White Australia Policy was an anachronism based on false premises. After all, the only difference between a White European and a Negroid is the colour of their skin. The only reason Africa was backward was “white colonialism”. The only reason Aborigines lived in filth and depravity was “white racism” that led to that terrible crime of the “stolen generation”. Islam was a quaint religion from the Middle East and what difference do a few Mosques make? After all, it’s no different from having a Catholic Church and an Anglican Church in the same suburb, is it? Multi-culturalism would be a good thing. These non-whites would bring in new cooking styles and make the country vibrant and would assimilate into the general community like all those English, Dutch, Italians and Irish did. And we’d all reap the benefits.

    Globalism was a good thing and so was free trade. We’d export all those boring, labour intensive jobs, and all move to the “tertiary” sector – a shiny new multi-cultural and multi-coloured world and us all living with mutual respect, social cohesion and social harmony. What a magnificent vision!

    What a pity that reality caught up.

    Africa is worse off now than it ever was under colonialism; Negros in the USA, UK and everywhere else they’ve infested commit crimes at about 30 times the white rate; generally seem impossible to educate; create ghettos everywhere they congregate; and become little other than an endless drain on society.

    Aborigines, despite the billions of dollars spent on them, mostly still live in filth, have no educational outcomes to speak of; commit gaolable crimes at about 30 times the white rate; blame everyone else for their own failures; and cook up demonstrable lies like the “stolen generation” and the “genocide” after the “invasion”.

    Non-white immigration and “multi-culturalism” gave us a choice of 200 different sorts of restaurant; ethnic enclaves; Lebanese rape gangs; political assassination; home invasions; an explosion of street crime; intimidation; extortion; organised terrorist cells; organised ethnic crime gangs running people trafficking, arms smuggling, drug dealing, identity theft, prostitution, and all manner of frauds and scams; endemic tax evasion; and systemic cheating of the welfare system. But we do have the “multi-cultural industry” endlessly demanding their “rights” and accusing every dissenter of “racism”.

    Globalisation and free trade has led to the near ruination of our primary and secondary industries and much of our manufacturing base – and foreigners own most of what’s left. In its stead, we have all those great “service industry” jobs at McDonalds and KFC etc – all casual or part time. The rich, the swindlers and frauds running the financial industries, have profited handsomely while the rest of us have seen all our benefits systematically stripped away and our standard of living forced into endless spiral of decline.

    Well Fellow Patriots, perhaps there are many ethical questions on which we disagree – but I’m sure we all agree on the big issues confronting this country – and that is to stop the rot of multi-culturalism; unfettered 3rd world immigration; Islamic aggression; the sell-off of Australia’s industries, resources and land; the dilution of our national character until it ceases to exist; and the unending racial vilification and demonisation of the white races.

    In short: WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK.

  8. Why was my comment just deleted ?

  9. What bis there to debate ? If a female cannot have a baby and has a medical reason hat prevents her from having kids why can she not have another person whom she trusts to have that baby for her ? Its like abortion if the baby has complications and it is known that the baby will not have a good quality of life or The person was raped why should they not be allowed to have an abortion. Honestly its the persons choice. It is not for ANY government to tell ANY person wether or not they can do this.

  10. Shock,

    A quick look at the “Primary Policies” of the APP should have been something you should have done before joining in on the debate. You’ll find that Jack is in-fact closer to the stated APP position on homosexuality than you are.

    So i don’t see how Jack is an agent against Nationalism when all he is doing is following the APP party line.

    Perhaps you can enlighten us?

    Crimson

    • Crimson, there is no "position on homosexuals", only adoption. Surrogacy in not adoption. One of the gay couple is the actual genetic father or mother of the child. Therefore they should be able to be declared the legal parent at birth.

      Agents always take the most extreme positions, thus convincing any more moderate onlookers that extremism is what the movement is all about (Agents also operate in progressive/leftist movements too for the same reason, to preclude any real debate about issues, by scaring any sensible people off.)
      Agents can be detected by their circuitous arguments, petty nitpicking about the meaning of words, failure to acknowledge that any alternative or more moderate opinion has any validity, and in-your-face rudeness. Richards displays all these characteristics. A classic example.

      If he is not himself an Agent, he has certainly been influenced by them to do what they want: advocate extreme positions to alienate any more moderate potential participants.

  11. Catty, humans are not mere animals. We can think, we can use turkey basters.
    There are no absolute norms in nature. Some animals do not have sex (fish), some fathers do the childrearing, some couple-bondings are same-sex.
    I agree taxpayers should not be funding fertility treatments (for anyone).
    There are no guarantees in life, no matter how close or far from the 'perfect family model' you may be. Stop expecting everything and everyone to follow some "plan" that will make everything perfect. Freedom is more important than perfection. That's why Eve ate the fruit.

    Jack Richards, I'm not even going to bother. You're an agent.
    You are here to discredit nationalism and deter anyone with an ounce of intelligence from joining in, thereby keeping the movement powerless as it will only attract idiots. Goodbye, Agent Richards.

  12. Catty, humans are not mere animals. We can think, we can use turkey basters.
    There are no absolute norms in nature. Some animals do not have sex (fish), some fathers do the childrearing, some couple-bondings are same-sex.
    I agree taxpayers should not be funding fertility treatments (for anyone).
    There are no guarantees in life, no matter how close or far from the ‘perfect family model’ you may be. Stop expecting everything and everyone to follow some “plan” that will make everything perfect. Freedom is more important than perfection. That’s why Eve ate the fruit.

    Jack Richards, I’m not even going to bother. You’re an agent.
    You are here to discredit nationalism and deter anyone with an ounce of intelligence from joining in, thereby keeping the movement powerless as it will only attract idiots. Goodbye, Agent Richards.

  13. Catty: “Of course that leaves any child (unfortunate enough to be ) born in this situation without a mother or father”.

    Plenty already are. Children need helpful, protective, caring and instructive adults in their lives, but these do not have to be their natural parents. They can be neighbours, uncles, aunts, grandparents, teachers, ministers, coaches.
    Limiting a child to just 2 adult relationships (one woman – Mum, one man – Dad) is itself rather distorted. Those 2 people are limited by their personalities, knowledge and experience. They can’t be everything their child needs.

    “The nature of mammals is to create their offspring via the act of sex. Always male & female sex.”
    Yes, but we are beyond being just animals. We can think. We can use turkey basters.
    Heterosexuality may create offspring, but animals are not uniform in the care of young. Sometimes the father cares for them,sometimes the mother, sometimes the whole clan, sometimes adoptive parents.
    I agree taxpayers shouldn’t fund fertility treatments, only I oppose it for straights too. But if gay or straight people pay with their own money, fine.

    “WHY should a child pay the ultimate price for the complete SELFISHNESS of two adults.”
    So gay people wanting children is selfish? What about heterosexual parents?
    Giving up your money, time and freedom for another is hardly “selfish”.

    Jack Richards, I don’t know why I even bother, but I’ll respond in the hope that others see through you.

    Plenty of sex research (and polling your friends doesn’t count) has clearly shown men have stronger libidos. There are evolutionary advantages in men having lots of sex with lots of partners, but with women having a committed provider. Trying to reconcile these conflicting urges has baffled mankind for millenia. Swallowing the feminist propaganda that women are ‘just like men’ doesn’t seem very conservative of you, Jack.

    “When you say “This tendency to promiscuity isn’t because they’re gay alone, it’s because their (sic) gay men”. Not true. Poofters are FAR more sexually active than straight men.”
    Uh, der. That’s what I said!
    Because they’re MEN, with high libidos and so are their sex partners. Straight men can’t be as promiscious for the obvious reason that they bonk women, who have lower libidos.

    “Sodom and Gomorrah are not fairy tales. It’s quite possible that the Biblical authors described some sort of earthquake.”
    If an earthquake levelled a town full of queers, it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
    There is no moral lesson in the movement of the earth’s techtonic plates.

    Onan: so coitus interuptus isn’t ‘bonking’?

    ‘You say, “Well if something’s genetic and occurs in animals too, I don’t know why the term “natural” would be inappropriate.” Are you kidding? Mutations happen all the time, like two-headed sheep and other freaks, but it’s not “normal”.

    Mutations are still ‘natural’. Their rarity doesn’t make them ‘unnatural’.

    Now you’re trying to confuse the words ‘natural’ and ‘normal’, but that’s what you’re here to do, isn’t it? Deliberately and ridiculously twist everything, so anyone with an ounce of intelligence will just give up and leave. It’s also why you’re so rude and vicious.
    You are here to turn any sensible person insightful enough to distrust the looney left from committing to the nationalist cause. One look at comments by people like you, and any intelligent person will run the other way, keeping the movement impotent, and encouraging a bad image which turns even more people off.
    Well, you’re not scaring me off. I see though you Agent Richards.

    (And please don’t protest about your years in the movement. That would only make you more suspicious. Someone who’s had years to debate, research and contemplate would sound a bit more sophisicated than a 7-year-old schoolboy.)

  14. Classical Rome is a remarkable example of what happens when Liberalism is allowed to run its course, that said, this new law in Queensland in some aspects would be even far more Liberal than what the Romans would have tolerated.

    In many respects the Classical Roman era even though suicidally Liberal in terms of many of its social customs and laws still held some very Conservative traits, one of note being the Death Penalty for Adultery and this from an era which saw child sex slavery rampant and incest with “non official” family members very much lawfull.

    Even then, in Classical Rome were pedastry and paedophillia were considered normal homosexuality was not futhered socially and never would a homosexual couple be allowed to marry as citizens of Rome or have children.

    Yet here we are in Queensland contemplating exactly that even though we as a people are educated enough to know from historical example that Liberalism is a slippery slope to damnation and the fall of ever Liberalistic Civilisation in history is proof certain of that.

    I may not agree with Jack in his entire arguement or with everything pro or anti homosexuality i do believe that humans and society or even greater civilisation needs limits to survive and we are fast going well beyond those limits.

    Crimson

  15. Jack Richards says:

    Shockadelic

    Talk about shifting ground – you’re a master of it. Maybe you’re actually Kevin Rudd.

    How do you know that “men want more sex”? I’ve met plenty of women who had very high libidos. This myth dates from Victorian ideas of sexuality i.e. the advice to “close your eyes and think of England”. It wasn’t true then and it’s not true now. In my modest experience, women want sex just as much and just as often (often more so) than do men.

    You said “But why stifle your desires”. Everyone has “impulses” at times but the great majority of people don’t act on them because they know they are wrong.

    You say, “Well if something’s genetic and occurs in animals too, I don’t know why the term “natural” would be inappropriate.” Are you kidding? Mutations happen all the time, like two-headed sheep and other freaks, but it’s not “normal”.

    “Your wife didn’t “nest” with you? Why does that not shock me. Smart woman.” Do you know her? Before you lower yourself to sarcasm and take sides in a “Family Law” matter, you should make some effort to acquaint yourself with the facts. All you’ve done with that remark is to prove what a pernicious person you are and how ready you are to sink lower than whale crap in an effort to score a cheap point.

    Rome didn’t decline for the same reason as Sparta. Rome declined because the Empire became too large, with too many borders, to be defended by Romans. It was when they created large mercenary armies, and then granted them citizenship, that the rot set in. Effectively, they had “multi-culturalism” and it was this that destroyed them. As I said, go and read some ancient history so that you won’t look so foolish the next time you open your legs and talk through your arse.

    Sodom and Gomorrah are not fairy tales. Both cities existed, as did Troy, which many thought was fiction until it was found. Perhaps the destruction of these cities was not as it is described in the Bible, but it’s quite possible that what the Biblical authors described as the “Wrath of God” was some sort of earthquake. Archaeologists are currently digging up sites south of the Dead Sea, which they believe may be Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities of Zoar.

    First, you say: “Onan was an adulterous masturbator.” and then you say, “Onan was a heterosexual who bonked his sister-in-law”. Actually, he didn’t bonk her, but rather:

    “And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother”. (Gen 38-9).

    Spilling his seed “on the ground” could mean that he was a wanker, like you, but it could also mean that he practiced coitus interruptus. Perhaps the meaning is clearer in the original Hebrew and it just didn’t translate well.

    When you say “This tendency to promiscuity isn’t because they’re gay alone, it’s because their (sic) gay men”. Not true. Poofters are FAR more sexually active than straight men. I once read in Time Magazine, when the AIDS epidemic first started in the early 80’s, that it was “usual” for the New York poofs to have sex with up to 20 different partners a week! There was one sodomite who was dying of AIDS who said he’d had sex with at least 3,500 other poofs over a period of six months! He also suffered from gonorrhea and syphilis in the mouth, throat, eyes and rectum. So that’s “natural” is it? Incidentally, how sexually active are Lesbians? From what I’ve read on the topic, they seem to be just as active as their male counterparts are and just as unable to maintain any sort of long-term, monogamous, relationship. And yet you seem to be of the view that they’re just like anyone else and should be allowed to legally marry and “order” surrogate children.

    As Catty points out, kids brought up by gays develop huge psychological problems and suicide at a frightening rate. Can you imagine what it would be like to be heterosexual and be brought up by a pair of poofs or dykes? Once you were old enough to understand what they are, and what they do, you would be so disgusted and so shamed that death would look like a good escape.

  16. Chris dear – where have homosexuals EVER been accepted by societies…..they are merely tolerated by Western nations because of aggressive Gay Activists leaning on governments to change our laws. Not content to have their civil needs met, they want the coveted prize, the holy grail, marriage. Well, as far as I am concerned they can keep their conniving paws off the sacred ceremony of marriage. An institution DESIGNED for two heterosexual individuals who wish to commit to one another and raise a FAMILY! Personally I don't give a flying leap what you think. The act itself is disgusting, plan and simple. Don't like it? Who cares………I certainly don't. Children are not a commodity. They are vunerable little people that need the love of both a mother and a father…..imperfect as some may be. What they don't need is to see two men intimate with one another. Wanna see how screwed up some of these kids are under a gay union. Take a look at some of the talk shows in America. Some kids have even committed suicide. No gay has the right to place a child in such a terrible position. Any gay couple that can remain disciplined and not seek to bring a child into such a union should be supported. There is no way , shape or form that I would support a gay couple wishing to raise a child in that environment. Get over it Chris…….there are millions like me in Australia……..and billions throughout the world. Just be thankful I am not like Ahmadinejad. At least I would let you live……. ; – )

  17. Jack Richards, I can only presume you’re an agent provocateur troll.
    Your comments make little sense otherwise.

    “So who do the heterosexual Men have the affairs with?”

    I said men WANT more sex, and with gay men not needing to worry about pregnancy and all their partners also being men, they tend to have more sex.
    This tendency to promiscuity isn’t because they’re gay alone, it’s because their gay men.

    Your wife didn’t “nest” with you? Why does that not shock me. Smart woman.

    “For the same reason I don’t rob banks, murder people like you and Kevin Rudd, or rape Kylie Minogue”.
    Here we are again, with the same old (yawn!) broken records. Comparing consensual sex between adults with robbery, murder and rape. Sad, really sad.

    “And you’re still arguing that was is obviously “unnatural” should be regarded as “natural”.”

    Well if something’s genetic and occurs in animals too, I don’t know why the term “natural” would be inappropriate. But then, you seem to own your own self-written dictionary where all the meanings of words are slightly twisted beyond their usual boundaries.

    Sparta declined and disappeared because its CITIZEN’S birthrate was low but it’s SLAVE’S rate was high (Rome declined for the same reason). If they hadn’t owned so many damned slaves, they could have buggered each other till the end of time.

    “Sodom and Gomorrah”? Again with the fairytales! And from an ATHEIST!
    .
    Onan was a hetersexual who bonked his sister-in-law. Off topic.

    Do you value liberty at all? Your politics seem to be motivated only by personal grievances and no philosophical/ethical contemplation at all.
    I matters not one bit what YOU think of homosexuality. What matters is whether the state has any right to interfere with people’s personal lives, and if so, on what justification.
    Since gay people are not infertile, they can have children. How they arrange to do this is not your, or the state’s, concern.

    • Since gay people are not infertile, they can have children. How they arrange to do this is not your, or the state's, concern.

      Of course that leaves any child (unfortunate enough to be ) born in this situation without a mother or father………..for their entire lives. The nature of mammals is to create their offspring via the act of sex. Always male & female sex. What gays do is unnatural and therefore they cannot reproduce naturally. Their only recourse is to use a surrogate by proxy or utilize expensive medical services (at taxpayer expense) originally designed for MARRIED couples. Of course it didn't take long for the gay activists to highjack the whole shebang, did it???

      WHY should a child pay the ultimate price for the complete SELFISHNESS of two adults. If two adults want to have same sex intercourse, and remain doing that all their lives……..there is a price. You remain childless! No child should have to pay for a gay couples 'lifestyle'. They suffer for it……..especially at school. You are really turning me off Shockadelic…….or is it your intent to shock??

      • Catty do you realy think people CHOOSE to be gay, why the hell would they. Would you CHOOSE to be hated by complete strangers, your parents, your brothers and sisters? Is it possible its not a choice? Would you CHOOSE to be kicked out of every sporting club, work places, poltiics and just about everywhere? But your still missing the point, and being blinded by prejudice that you have already admitted to (the fact that it makes you feel ..ill..hardly a good guide for morale)……… in our society everything is permissible until banned, acts just like people are innocent until proven guilty… guilty by virtue of causing more harm to someone than benefit to the rest. Hence murdering causes a fair bit of harm for little benefit etc etc.

        So the question is what HARM does surrogacy cause to you (none) me (even less) society at large (scant at best) and to the offspring themselves….. no evidence on harm there either unfortunately.. children are very resilient.. some of the greatest people of all time have grown in harsh environemtns, it toughens us up! People have been raised by single mums, single dads, grandparents, mums and dads since the dawn of time, far before this concept of marriage arrived. What matters more is that they are loved, cared for and provided for and given good moral lessons and teachings (like do unto others as you would have them do unto you etc etc etc).What will harm these poor kids is the fact that prejudiced people like you will discriminate against them.. that is the crime, that causes the harm and that should be banned. Further more, if two infertile people or people of the same sex want to have a child and that can cause this formidable harm to society at large, how does it compare to 2 drug addicts, 2 junkies, homeless, peadophiles etc etc.. and yet NONE of those are banned, somehow permissable because they can unite sperm and egg?

        Lastly.. put yourself in there shoes,….. what would you do. I assume the answer is you would never have sex, never meet someone, never show affection for someone you love inpublic, never display your instincts, never desire family, always lie about ur feelings to everyone ………. perhaps if you were a little more secure about yourself you wouldnt need to express this illogical sentiment. No self respecting, moral and logical heterosexual can hate homosexuals……… they leave more for the rest of us.

  18. Jack Richards says:

    To Nicholas Folkes

    Yes, Trisha Goddard was married to a gun liberal and describes her life with him in her biography.

    I knew Nestdale well and had many a heated argument with him and the wanna-be Che Guervara’s on the University SRC back in 1974/75. Nestdale wasn’t a member but turned up at every meeting to pull the strings of his puppets who were.

    Nestdale was from one of those families that, like Menzies and Fraser, really thought they had a divine right to rule. He spoke with this very “posh” accent and was so condescending to everyone, so superior – and yet there was a group who flocked to him and did his bidding just to gain a word of approval every now and again.

    As I mentioned, he never did his own Uni work, but would pay others to do the research for him. Then he’d put it together into an un-punctuated and misspelt load of crap and then pay someone else to type it up for him – like the bloke in the room next to me. I once accused him of plagiarism but couldn’t make it stick because no-one was game to admit they’d “aided and abetted” him.

    When Fraser was elected at the end of 1975, Nestdale left Uni (without getting a degree of course) and went back working as a staffer for the Minister for Defence. Needless to say, there was no selection process, he was just appointed – even though it was a Public Service job that paid $30,000 pa – whereas my job as a 4 year trained and qualified secondary teacher paid $10,000. Nepotism was the rule rather than the exception in those good old Menzies/Fraser days.

    After his time as Leader of the Young Liberals he seemed to disapear for a while – then resurfaced as Director of UNICEF!

    What really shat me was that all these things, jobs and celebrity, tax-payer funded jet-setting, were handed to him on a silver plate through nepotism. He wasn’t qualified for anything and never went through a selection process. Me, and people like me, had to fight for eveything we ever got.

    Nestdale made a number of “speeches” that are still on the net – such as “the Liberal Obligation”. But I’ll bet my bottom dollar that he did not write them, any more than J F Kennedy wrote “Profiles in Courage”. he would have paid someone tod do it for him – and then claimed the credit.

    Back in those days of 74/75 I picked him for a queer and said so to a few people – who assured me I was wrong and that he was just “aloof”. In his entouage was a girl named Nerida S who was a real babe and it was clear she was “after Robert”. But he just didn’t respond – and Nerida inadvertently told me so. That conversation confirmed to me that he was not only a plagiarising cheat, a liar, and a two-faced hypocrite, but a poofter as well. I let Robert know my suspicions about him and, needless to say, he took a great dislike to me – because it was all true. In the next SRC election he paid a lot of money to print up “how to vote cards” and had his minions attack me at every opportunity. It’s a long story so I won’t bore people with it. All I can say is that I hated him and he hated me – but he had money, influence and connections and I didn’t.

    When I learned that he had died at 40 I was, of course, quite surprised. I can’t say I was sad. Mostly I felt schadenfreude. It wasn’t until 1992 that the truth about him came out before the ACT Legislative Assembly i.e. 4 years after his death that had been variously reported, at the time, as either “pneumonia” or “leukaemia”. The word AIDS hadn’t been mentioned.

    It was some years later when I was working in Canberra for a Federal department that I came across some people who just happened to know the truth about Nestdale – about his homosexuality, rent-boys here and in Africa and everywhere else (while he was representing UNICEF) and his being “known” to vice-squads for visiting beats (just like Justice Yeldham)! It was all suppressed, of course.

    Even today, there is a web site that has this to say about the bastard:

    A quick fact about Robert Nestdale: Robert Nestdale was a man of high and absolutely resolute principle, a rare commodity by today’s standards…

    Yeah Right! Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Had it not been for Goddard who’s mounth couldn’t be bought off or frightened off, the truth would never have come out. As she says in her book:

    But then something else sinister happened. I got a very clear message from people in Robert’s party that if I ever went public about how he died, they would turn it around on me and tell the Press that I had given HIV to him.

    Not at all unlike the way I was “warned off” in 1975! Make no mistake, the Liberals are just as rotten bastards as the ALP.

    I hate them both.

    • Hence the emergence of both the BNP and APP, but a pound to a penny those exact pricks you talk about have their fingers in all the nasty places from politics to law and they will do everything under their power never to let both parties come into their own, then they sprout on about democracy!Though not in the same league as what you went through, as a chef I had the experiance of working with a right mincer, who entered so many competitions that he couldn't do them all by himself, and the excutive chef made us complete the work for him, for which he got the gold medals for! It was sickening to listen to his acceptance speeches and the interviews he was granted by the Cairns Post back in the '90's hailing him as 'a rising star in the culinary trade.' He walked with a mince and had a permanent lisp, not a nice person at all

  19. Hey guys, I know we don't agree on everything, but we are all supposed to be on the same side here, that is, stopping this evil genocide on white australia through this evil Multiculturalism, it doesn't mean we have to agree on everything, and indeed I have a problem with a homosexual Asian at work bothering me. But I have also flated with gays whilst in Queensland, and they hated the whole Mardi Grass set as they said, it just wasn't who they represented in real life.
    I'm not having a go at anyone, as the majority of my comments have been received with nice advice and well wishes, but it upsets me when people who are on this site because of the evil government in power are now fighting over somethng as trivial as homosexuality, when there are far more evil things in this world such as pedophiles etc, that should never see the light of day. (I was dragged off my bike by one when I was 9 whilst running an errand for my drunken mother in NZ, saved only by a man walking to work to open his shop, I wouldn't be here now if the ped had got me.)

  20. Nicholas Folkes says:

    Shockadelic it is true that the left do promote the gay lifestyle as normal. They were apparently 'born that way'…….never seen a mother give birth to two baby Bruno's choc-a-block up each other.

    I don't care what goes on in their bedroom but I do object to Gays publicly parading their lifestyle on TV or on the streets esp. when it is subsidised with our taxes. If I see another pair of bright pink hotpants with ass cheeks hanging out I'll spew.

  21. Jack Richards says:

    Really Shockadelic, you should shut your legs – your breath really stinks.

    What I find offensive is homosexuals who flit from partner to partner”
    Well, that has more to do with being male than being gay. Do some research on the differences between male and female sexual desire and you’ll understand. Men hunt, women nest
    .

    Is that so? So who do the heterosexual Men have the affairs with? Is there just one loose woman who services all these straying husbands? Get real, for every bloke who has an affair, there’s an equal number of women. Incidentally I am also a “single father” who brought up four children (1 son and 3 daughters) after my ex-wife shot through with another bloke. The “ex” has not bothered to contact any of the kids for past 8 years and fought me all the way to the Courthouse to get out of paying Child Support. “women nest” is another of your broad-brush assumptions that is patent crap! I know far more men who have been dudded by their wives than I know women who were dudded by their husbands.

    Homo Sapiens do have free choice and can choose not to act on impulse.”
    But why stifle your desire?</
    em>

    For the same reason I don’t rob banks, murder people like you and Kevin Rudd, or rape Kylie Minogue. It’s called “impulse control”, you should try it sometime.

    And you’re still arguing that was is obviously “unnatural” should be regarded as “natural”.

    Yes, I have noticed that some homosexuals have been very creative – in about the same proportion that they occur in society generally i.e. about 0.5%. For every turd-burglar you can name who is/was a “creative genius” I’ll name 20 who were not.

    You should read some ancient history. Sparta declined and disappeared because its birthrate was well below replacement – due to homosexuality. Homosexuality was much more common in the ancient world than it is today and there were many societies mentioned in Ancient writings, including the Bible, that simply disappeared e.g. Sparta, Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Onan was an adulterous masturbator. Talk about off topic!
    Not at all. I was talking about you!

  22. Jack Richards, you quoted the kill-queers scripture to remind me of IRAN?
    You said “We should all remember the advice on these matters given in the Bible”. Does this not amount to advocacy? Where’s the mention of Iran?

    “Every atheist I have ever met has a good knowledge of religious texts”
    Yes,but they don’t use them as the authority which justifies their opinions.

    Ancient Sparta declined for many reasons. And who cares what they were.
    I don’t live in Ancient Sparta and would never want to: DULLSVILLE.

    “Animals act only on instinct.”
    And their instincts can be homosexual. So its hardly “unnatural”.
    “Homo Sapiens do have free choice and can choose not to act on impulse.”
    But why stifle your desire? Not because of the Bible or the Koran, that’s for damn sure!

    “repent” “normal”. It’s bad enough when loony leftists play these silly semantic games. Do I have to deal with this from the right too?

    “Slavery and witch-burning as examples of “normality” hey?”
    That’s the point I was making, genius. What is COMMON (quantity) doesn’t mean “normal” (a qualitative value judgement)
    The commonality of heterosexuality does not make it the only normal possibility.
    It is “normal” for homosexuality to occur in a small number of people, which it always has in every land, era and people. Something so consistenly present in the human species can hardly be “abnormal”.

    “Nature has a way of culling out those abberations that are not “normal”.”
    And yet the ‘gay gene’ has survived for millenia. Hmm, maybe it actually serves an evolutionary purpose. Have you noticed the tendency of creative geniuses to be a little ‘limp-wristed’?

    Onan was an adulterous masturbator. Talk about off topic!

    How about you leave the judging of Sin to the God you don’t believe exists (Qué?).

  23. Catty: “It is only the left wing socialists through their disgusting social engineering who think being gay is hunky dory”.

    This is the lie that keeps the nationalist movement from tolerating homosexuals.
    It is not the left, but the right, that has always championed the rights of the individual (which includes sexual liberty) and by perpetuating this “gay = left” myth you alienate all “right”-thinking people, who want nothing to do with intolerant authoritarians.

    “What I find offensive is homosexuals who flit from partner to partner”
    Well, that has more to do with being male than being gay. Do some research on the differences between male and female sexual desire and you’ll understand. Men hunt, women nest.

    “I have even less regard for cowardly homosexuals who marry an unsuspecting person”
    Don’t you see your own attitude encourages this, by keeping people in the closet.

    • Your last comment is a load of utter bull – avoiding responsibility for ones own actions seems to in fashion these days. Any person that marries another under a veil of deceit is totally amoral. And as for your other comment: It is well known that Labor have been instigating their social engineering programs inside our schools and universities for decades. It is the reason why we are on the verge of seeing 'gay marriage' being foisted on our western based societies. Only socialist liberals are peddling this garbage. The Euroweenies are expert at it. Name me one conservative government that is seriously considering going down this path. The American Democrat Party can barely disguise it's contempt for family values – which is the reason why Sarah Palin is gaining ground. Sarah might be a little green around the gills when it comes to taking on the corrupt sharks running that country, but she is learning FAST. Personally I am tired of gays flaunting their 'lifestyle' for our children to see….as if it is something to aspire too. My daughter (then just turning 18) started university in 1992 and on orientation day they were given bags filled with literature on gay life and how to 'explore' with safety (condoms) In fact the bag had free condoms inside them. As a responsible parent I was livid – as were hundreds of other parents. Of course the excuse was that they were 18 and therefore 'adults'. They give impressionable youths a loaded gun, but will never take any responsibility for the fallout. As if raising children isn't hard enough we have to navigate the recruitment tactics of the gay community!!! A pox on all their houses.

      • "Your last comment is a load of utter bull"
        Look who's talking.

        "avoiding responsibility for ones own actions"?
        How are gay couples who want get married and have kids being IRRESPONSIBLE!!!!!
        Isn't that what you've pounded into their head all their life: get married, have kids, get married, have kids, get married, have kids, broken record, broken record, etc.

        Now they actually want to do that and you CONDEMN them!

        You people are nuts! You keep chasing you tail into ever-more convoluted mental pretzels (atheists quoting the Bible!) to reject homosexuality no matter what.

        If you're a promiscuous slut, CONDEMNED!
        If you're a monogamous couple who want kids, CONDEMNED!
        If you hide in the closet, CONDEMNED!
        If you flaunt it, CONDEMNED!
        Pathetic.

      • I find any school of teaching promoting sexual promoscurity disturbing. They should just leave the kids to figure it out themselves, it's ok if u r and ok if ur not.
        Although I have to admit, I find this distrubing as it seems to be the far left are deliberatly wanting the white race not to breed and are using any mean possible.
        And then I guess in many ways i too am a hypocrite, I actually like gays, but the majorityof the ones I have known through my work in hospitality seem to act not effeminate, which to me, is repulsive when men act this way, or when women act butch.

  24. Jack Richards says:

    Catty, you are wrong thinking it’s only left-wingers who are AIDS spreading poofs.

    When I was at University in the 1970’s there was a very “upper-class” poseur poncing about organising the “Country-Liberal Forum”.

    In any event, his name was Robert Nestdale, and he went on to become the National President of the Young Liberals. He had the view that he was “born to lead” and was soooo superior to working class louts like me.

    To improve his electroral “appeal” he had his hand-maidens search out a suitable woman to marry i.e. one from a minority group. He subsequently married Trish Goddard, a black Englishwoman who hosted a childrens show on ABC and anchored the 7:30 report at one time.

    To cut a long story short, Nestdale died of a very rare form of pneumonia. It was only when Trish Goddard got hold of the autopsy report that she discovered he had died of AIDS – and that his doctors had withheld that information from her – for quite a few years.

    It then transpired that Nestdale and Goddard had had a very unsatisfactory sex life and this, in large measure, was the reason she left him and returned to England. She found out that Nestdale was a hyper-sexed sodomite and had screwed half the blokes in the Young Liberals as well as trawling “beats” in parks and public toilets for regular “anonymous sex”.

    As Nestdale was a “staffer” in the Fraser Government and subsequent opposition, and had all the right connections, his activities and his disease was covered up by his colleagues and on-side medicos.

    Goddard appeared before the ACT Legislative Assembly to try to make it compulsory for Doctors to tell spouses that their partner has been diagnosed as HIV positive.

    Nestdale was being groomed for a safe Liberal seat, but died before he could realise all the promise he’d never shown.

    Strangely, the Liberal Party still have the annual Robert Nestdale Memorial Lectures for the Young Liberals – and still deny that he died of AIDS – despite the proof Goddard tender to the ACT LA!

    So it’s not just the left. We should not forget the way “Justice” Yeldham was protected, for decades, by both sides of the NSW Parliament either.

    It’s a sick world.

    • Nicholas Folkes says:

      Very interesting Jack. Didn't realise Goddard was married to a gun Liberal. I must admit I'd find it hard to crack a ballarat with someone like Goddard lying next to me.

      Labor covered up Keating and Carr, two well known poofs. I wouldn't be surpirised if that Rhodesian Malcolm Fraser was putting a few away in his chum's backdoor.

  25. Jack Richards says:

    Shockadelic

    It sure sounds like someone has bruised your piles. But I’ll overlook your vituperativeness and, briefly, address your concerns.

    1. Every sensible atheist I have ever met has a good knowledge of religious texts and the falsehood contained therein. Indeed, the quote from Leviticus is used to justify the execution of homosexuals in today’s Islamic States. Had it occurred to you that I quoted it to remind people of this fact – it obviously had the desired effect on you? There will soon be a World Conference of Atheists in Melbourne which will feature such speakers as Prof. Richard Dawkins, Phillip Adams and Christopher Hitchens. They are all quite able to quote the Bible.

    2. Ancient Sparta became predominantly homosexual until there were so few Spartans left that they were overwhelmed and slaughtered in the Helots revolt.

    3. Animals do not have free choice and act only on instinct. Homo Sapiens do have free choice and can choose not to act on impulse.

    4. I own a dog and he’s a lovely old fellow – not that he’s gay or anything. I don’t see anything sub-human about dog ownership.

    5. The thief did indeed repent and confess his crimes. Read Luke 23: 39-43

    6. Riots, slavery and witch-burning as examples of “normality” hey? Surely you could have done better than that!

    I am assuming that you are a man. So all I can say to you is that you should stop committing the sins of Onan (Genesis 38:9).

    For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper. Rom.1:26-28

    AIDS, incidentally, is a disease of the depraved. It originated in Africa in the region of Lake Victoria where the practice of bestiality with chimps and other primates is commonly practiced by the blacks. From there, through the practice of buggery, it eventually reached the cities, infected a homosexual Canadian Airways steward, who flew around the world, passing it on to a dozen “partners” at each stop-over. It may not have been God’s punishment, but it was ceratinly mother nature’s. Nature has a way of culling out those abberations that are not “normal”.

  26. I am so tired of dealing with these sham arguments against homosexuality.
    And from an atheist this time! A bible quoting atheist! My mind is reeling.

    “The Bible has much wisdom and great insight into human nature”. Yes, but quoting kill-the-queers texts isn’t going to foster any deep contemplation on the part of the bible basher types, is it?

    “I don’t see any contradiction with Jesus saving the thief as described in Luke. What part of Corinthians are you referring to?” The Corinthians text you quoted (nor thieves, nor effeminate…)
    The thief on the cross did not repent, he merely stated he thought he was being appropriately punished and asked Jesus to ‘remember’ him, to which Jesus replied the thief would be with him in paradise.

    “If everyone had that “minor flaw” then the human race would die out”.
    Yawn. Haven’t heard that one a million times.
    But EVERYONE isn’t and never has been and never will be.
    It is a genetic variation that only ever occurs rarely, but occurs throughout all eras, peoples, cultures.

    “As everyone has a unique biological and psychological reality, there really is no such thing as ‘normal.” What nonsense!”
    How is this nonsense. The word ‘normal’ is a value judgement, not merely a quantitative description. You are using the word ‘normal’ as if common or frequent means ‘correct/moral/good/right/true’.
    When people are rioting, smashing windows is common, everyone’s doing it. Doesn’t make it ‘correct’ or ‘moral’.
    Slavery used to be common. And burning witches. Commonality doesn’t make the uncommon incorrect/bad/wrong, just different.
    You wouldn’t argue that people with 6 fingers, or 7 feet tall, should be condemned for wanting children.

    You’re even aware that homosexuality occurs in animals (so much for the ‘unnatural’ argument the bible bashers continually assert).

    “I am sure that there are many homosexuals that are, in every other way, decent and upstanding citizens and, maybe, some of them would be good parents to an orphan or a neglected child”
    But not their OWN!!
    Yes, homosexuals are so subhuman they should just get a dog, as that’s the level you put them on: not even human.

    • Sorry Shockadelic – but I cannot stand homosexuality. The very thought of what they do to one another leaves me cold. I am not alone in thinking this way. My husband thinks the same as I do and virtually ALL his workmates of 40 years think the same way. It is only the left wing socialists through their disgusting social engineering who think being gay is hunky dory. They have poisoned the minds of our youth into thinking it is perfectly natural to 'experiment'. The behaviour of some of our teens lately make animals a higher species in my view. Of course all this was deliberately planned by those family hating socialist swine. The socialist elite in this country (and right across the Western world) have turned our countries into amoral sewer pits. Not fit to raise a child in that is for sure….and while I don't condone Irans hanging of gays, I can understand why they are concerned. They don't want western style liberalism to turn their family based society into sh*t. Don't expect a Sydney style Mardi Gras anytime soon in downtown Terhan. I agree with Jack Richards…..homosexuality is NOT a natural norm. If you are born that way there has to be a defective gene that predisposes an individual to want sex that way. I will say this: I have no problem tolerating homosexuals who commit to one partner…..like Justice Kirby & Allan Jones. What I find offensive is homosexuals who flit from partner to partner with no regard for anyone except in filling their base desires. I have even less regard for cowardly homosexuals who marry an unsuspecting person of the opposite sex, fathers children, then declares himself to be a homosexual. I would personally HANG a person like that.

      • Catty: the question is not if a sexual act makes you ill or not. I think its a question of tolerance. From your argument what turns your stomach is promiscuity and buggery. The first is hardly limited to gays and lesbians. The second, I think you may find, neither.

        and

        'I have no problem tolerating homosexuals who commit to one partner…..like Justice Kirby & Allan Jones' ………… how do you expect them to do that in the face of so many people who hate them at every turn just for being the way they were born.

        I think tolerance is one of the best qualities of the society that has evolved in this land. I think there is a big difference between wanting to PROTECT australia, its people and values and wanting to insite hatred. Dont get me wrong, I understand your feeling, but a bit of levelheadedness is important, isn't it?

    • Nicholas Folkes says:

      I don't see anything wrong with Jack quoting Christian scripture even though he is an Atheist, it is good that he has knowledge about the Bible and supports the "moral" side.

      I believe in God and also believe the Bible to be the word of God but I do not go to Church as I am disgusted with the lefty indoctrination that has invaded the teachings of the Church. Most Churchies I know support bringing in non-Chrisitian illegals, multiculturalism, welfare and Socialism – good recipe for decay. Fortunately there are many Christians who do not support this altruistic crap.

      I quote Koranic scripture but hate the teachings of Islam. It is the dumbest and blindest faith around but I need to have knowledge to show others what a demonic religion it is. Knowledge is power.

  27. There is only one way at this point to punish the Bligh government for this and many other dictatorial decisions she has made and that is to vote against Labor at the federal election as they stood by and didn't even whisper a word. After all, Rudd has stood by her on everything and has always shown his full support to her. Hit this force of darkness and destruction where it hurts as the Labor Party all stand for the same principles. Whether state or federal, they are all networking between themselves to give themselves more power. They are worse than a pit of Cobra's the way they pre-meditate their next move. When a government constantly takes these decisions away from the people, it sets a dangerous precedent and severely erodes a democracy and reduces the power of the people. It is extrememy destructive. If a government is to change such important laws, it MUST have the approval of the people through referendum. If it is the people's choice, then the people have to live with the consequences, but to put it onto the people with no approval and with revolt is extremely dangerous and destructive.

  28. Jack Richards says:

    Shockadelic.

    I had a very religious upbringing and can probably find a quote from the Bible for every side of every debate there has ever been. The Bible has much wisdom and great insight into human nature – and I see nothing evil in using quotes when appropriate and when they reflect an existing social norm.

    “it only encourages those raving loony biblical literalists”. No, it doesn’t. Having a good knowledge of the Bible, and a good knowledge of science, allows one to challenge the loonies and turn their own guns on them. I look forward to my monthly visit from the Jehova’s Witnessess, armed as they are with copies of WatchTower and Awake, all full of “out-of-context” quotes. They wanted to convert me, but I think Iam converting them.

    I am fairly certain that St John had a case of ergotism and that those very real hallucinations gave rise to the visions in the Book of Revelations.

    I don’t see any contradiction with Jesus saving the thief as described in Luke. What part of Corinthians are you referring to?

    Jesus’ mission was to save the sinners, as in Luke 5:32 where he says, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance”. The Thief repented his sins and confessed his wrong doing and thus earned his salvation. No contradiction of any of the Gospels.

    Insofar as homosexuality being a “minor flaw” is concerned. It is not “minor” at all. If everyone had that “minor flaw” then the human race would die out with this generation. I don’t think that is “minor”.

    “As everyone has a unique biological and psychological reality, there really is no such thing as ‘normal.” What nonsense!

    There are many things that are “normal” and fall within a “normal range”. It is “normal” to be born with 5 fingers on each hand. It’s “abnormal” to have 3 or 7!
    It is “normal” for a Causcasian adult man to stand between 5’4″ and 5’10”. It’s not “uncommon” for men to be marginally outside those heights, but it is very “abnormal” to be 12 inches outside i.e. 4’4″ or 6’10”. Heterosexuality is normal in all sexually reproducing animals, and a lot of plants. Homosexuality is “abnormal” even though it does occur in animals as well as homo sapiens. No cattleman wants a gay bull – but it does happen occassionally.

    I am sure that there are many homosexuals that are, in every other way, decent and upstanding citizens and, maybe, some of them would be good parents to an orphan or a neglected child – if that was the only option left. But surrogacy is something else entirely. That is the creation of a child who will have no legal parent. Why don’t the Cecils and Cedrics, Lucys and Lindas just buy a dog.

  29. Jack Richards: “I’m not advocating the death penalty for homosexuals”.
    Well, that’s good to hear. Perhaps as an atheist you could stop quoting the bible, as it only encourages those raving loony biblical literalists (and Muslims too) who do indeed want to impose those laws on everyone else.

    Jesus (in Luke) does contradict Corinthians and the Ten Commandments, so he contradicts “the bible”. The very fact, as you pointed out, that there is a lack of consistency throughout the bible’s many books, is precisely the reason why one shouldn’t quote selective texts in an attempt to legitimise your views.

    There are many heterosexual people who are hardly “normal”. Yet the government has no right to stop them having children (through sterilisation) or take their children from them (unless real abuse or neglect occurs).

    There are many ‘genetic aberrations that should be pitied’. Homosexuality causes no significant physical or mental problems, it is a minor ‘flaw’ that doesn’t effect any other aspect of the person’s mind or body.
    Should a single minor genetic flaw that doesn’t cause any other serious physical or mental disability disqualify one from parenthood?

    This whole idea that there is such a thing as ‘normal’ is itself an ideological invention of society. As everyone has a unique biological and psychological reality, there really is no such thing as ‘normal’.
    Common traits (quantity) might be ‘usual’, but that doesn’t automatically make them ‘normal’ (quality), nor does it make unusual traits worthy of condemnation.

    • I have found there are all forms of people, and there are perversions and decent human beings in all areas of sexualities.
      I would have galdy traded my drunken, voilent, mother for two nice caring lesbians or gays if they were to have fed me, cared for me, and sent me to school with food.
      Instead I was bashed almost on a daily basis and every thursday, friday and saturday nights, was left with 'babysitters' (Heterosexuals) who took drugs (one had an overdose) and molested my little sister in her bedroom whilst my mother went out looking for 'sweeties' to bring home every night.
      It can be quite confronting for a small boy to go and say hello to his mother in the morning only to find a strange man (or two) in her bed staring back at you.
      Also my heterosexual mother tried even having sex with me at the age of 13 and taught my brother and myself how to 'French kiss" I can stil taster her horrible cigarette and bourbon flavoured tounge rolling around in my mouth.
      I ran away as soon as I could and needless to say, now wake up and go to bed alone.

    • If one bothers to look up "parents" one will find it does not speak of a daddy/daddy or mummy/mummy contraptions. I think even the crookest gaylesbiansadomasosodo weirdo knows deep in it's heart what parents are, what it means and why nature has seen to it the way it is. So to deprive a child of a chance for natural upbringing and natural development for the sake of following one's sodomic urges is abhorrent. Not many good conservatives would care what Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve do in their own quarters. But if some fairy brained fabians start depriving innocent children of their natural birth right, the tolerance stops. As it does with child molesters, violent drunkards as fathers or retarted mothers who just pop one child after the other for sit-down money. There is a universal morality and natural balance, and just bacause something can be done does not mean it must be done.

  30. Hi Catty, nice to see you back! I haven't seen any comments from yu for a while. What about Euro freedom and Black Knight? Are they still around too?

    • Hi Mike – I haven't been posting lately because both my parents are extremely ill. I feel like I have been hit by a tsunami. They are both battling cancer and I have been taking them all over the bloody state of (Qld) to get treatment. Mum for breast cancer. Dad for his prostate cancer and severe spinal osteoporosis. Last week I had to take Dad 240k round trip to Rockhampton for scans………now this week I have to take Mum for special X-Rays………another 240k round trip! Actually it's more, because I have to travel 70k to pick them up! Because the Labour government is taking away services from cities like Gladstone, we are left high and dry to drag ourselves and our ailing parents beackwards and forwards to Brisbane & Rockhampton for treatment. Never mind that they are 79&80 years old and growing frail. Of course this 'government' couldn't care less about the elderly. Their usefulness as taxpayers is over. The faster they die the better, it will save the miserable bastards $$$$. But before they do, the government wants to wring one last drop out of the growing army of old – in their new quaint policy of 'job opportunities' for the elderly. It gives a whole new meaning to 21st century slavery doesn't it?

      • So very sorry to hear that Catty, I wish you and your lovely AUSTRALIAN parents who no doubt worked hard all their lives and beleived that the government would look after them after a lifetime of service all the very best.
        Yes, I agree with you, nowdays once your usefullness is over, you are abandoned, especially if you are white.

  31. The left wing socialist engineers have catered to (the 'rights') of all interest groups in this matter – except for the 'rights' of the children who are going to be born under this hideous legislation. Mark my words – there WILL be disasterous consequences down the track, and much heartache. The monumental selfishness of these political Marxist fools knows no bounds!

  32. Jack Richards says:

    Actually Shockadelic, I’m an atheist. But I have read the Bible from Genesis to Revelations. Despite my atheism, there is much in the Judeo/Christian ideas of morality and ethics with which I fully subscribe.

    I have no time at all for the claims of any Pope, Preacher, Imam, Rabbi or fakir to impose relgious laws on anyone.

    Incidentally, so far as the robbers are concerned, there are different accounts in all four Gospels. For you enlightenment, I include some quotes:

    Matthew 27:44 “Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing”

    Mark 15:27 “With Him they also crucified two robbers, one on His right and the other on His left.”

    Luke: 23:39-43. at 23:42-43 reads, “Then he said to Jesus, “Lord remember me when You come into Your Kingdom”. (43) And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise”

    John 19:18. “Where they crucified Him, and two others with Him, one on either side and Jesus in the centre”.

    Jesus did not “contradict” the new Testament. Only in Luke does it mention Jesus telling the robber he’d go to Paradise. There are many contradictions in the Bible and many of the stories about the same event differ greatly in important detail. In particular, I refer you to Matthew 27:52-53 which is an astonishing story that does not appear in the other 3 Gospels.

    Insofar as Homosexuals are concerned, I couldn’t care less what they do with each other in the privacy of their own homes. But I do not think they have any right to be surrogate parents. There is no doubt in my mind that homosexuality is a genetic abberration that should be pitied rather than condemned – it can’t be cured. To claim that it is a “normal life-style” is obviously a nonsense and I object strongly to the idea that they may be able to “order” surrogate children and them with the idea that sodomy and lesbianism are “normal”.

    No, I am not advocating the death penalty or any other penalty.

    • Nicholas Folkes says:

      I do advocate the death penalty for murders. I don't see the point in keeping Martin Bryant alive when those millions upon millions could be diverted into schools and hospitals. Bryant's upkeep is in excess of $400,000 per annum – what a waste of taxpayers funds. We should follow the Czech Republic where law dictates paedophiles will have their offending equipment removed.

      I live in the Innner West of Sydney with a high percentages of resident gays both female and male. There are many gay female couples with children in the Inner West and in most cass their children esp. girls are just as butuch as their Mums. The Fabians are playing with fire as usual. Bligh's legislation worries me as this will set out a tsunami of stupidity around our nation, other States will follow. Down with Labor, I hate their guts for conitnually diviiding society.

  33. Jack Richards, are you actually advocating the death penalty for homosexuals! (Leviticus) . I bet that’s the only part of the Bible you even adhere to.
    In case you didn’t notice, the church no longer dictates law. You ironically align yourself with Muslim jihadists with this kind of talk.
    The bible preaches many things, (often contradicting itself) including forgiveness.
    Apparently Jesus contradicts the bible, telling the thief crucified with him that he would go to Heaven.
    I’msure the children of heterosexual parents wouldn’t want to walk in on them having sex, and find many reasons to feel ashamed of their embarrassing parents.
    People like you are the very reason these kids would have it so hard.

  34. It's great to see Barnaby Joyce speaking in simple, easy to understand terms about Australia's massive debt and Rudd and Swan's lack of strategy to pay it off. Then it becomes amusing to hear Rudd and Swan talk about how Abbott and Barnaby are a risk to our national economic recovery. That's just so bloody funny. How could this government possibly point the finger at anyone else for bad economic strategy? They have mastered over decades the concept of running a national and state economy into the ground. Even if Abbott and Barnaby Joyce were ordinary economic managers, they couldn't do any worse than Rudd and Swan if they tried.

  35. Jack Richards says:

    It really is a sick world.

    Can you imagine what it would be like to find out you were “ordered” by Cecil and Cedric who wanked off into a petrie dish, the contents of which was then sucked into a straw and then blown into an ovulating surrogate female! This might be a desirable thing with beef cattle, but people????

    How would you feel on Parent-Teacher night at School when Cecil and Cedric (or Lucy and Linda) stroll on in, hand in hand. Who do you give a gift to on Mother’s Day? Can you imagine storming into your parents’ bedroom on Christmas morning and there’s Cecil bending over with Cedric behind him giving him a reach-around.

    It would be a life of unending humiliation and shame. Imagine having to produce your birth certificate to get a drivers’ licence, a passport or anything else.

    We should all remember the advice on these matters given in the Bible:

    If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.” Lev 20:13
    Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:9

  36. While I don’t see an intrinsic problem with single or gay parents, or surrogacy (even for money), this idea of “no-legal-parent-at-birth” means a woman could give birth (whether a surrogate or not) and simply walk out of the hospital without any responsibility for the child!
    What is the hospital to do?
    Assigning a ‘legal parent’ is automatic precisely so people are held responsible for the children they create.
    That legal responsibility can always be transferred to someone else later through adoption.
    But to have a child born with no legal parents is asking for trouble, creating all sorts of ethical/legal conundrums.

    • i have to agree with you. The best case scenario for a child is to be born to a man and a woman, both alive, living together, economically stable and well educated. I was lucky enough to be born like this. Unfortunately this is not always the case. The thing is we don't criminalise birth outside of this, except in a few situations: like the law that was recently overturned, i think that is was discriminatory. remember these freedoms are the freedoms and advances that make our society so successful and so advanced.

  37. Another things just made me angry also. Disgraced Queensland Labor MP Mike Kaiser who was forced to resign for alleged electoral fraud years ago is now being employed by Rudd's NBN company and is being paid $450,000 per annum at taxpayers expense. This is cronyism and corruption in the most severe sense. No-one else was even interviewed for the job, it was just a case of Labor mates looking after Labor mates. Rudd is even defending his actions. Ushering someone to the top job using taxpayers money without even considering other applicants is corrupt and undemocratic and cronyism at its best. This is the sort of thing which happens in a dictatorship.

  38. If you want to complain to Anna Bligh's office, call 07-3224 4500. This is disgusting that this is happening and clearly against the will of the people. That's why they are trying to rush it through parliament. Because Queensland has no senate, they have free reign to do whatever they want because they have the numbers. I'd like to think there were some Labor MP's who would cast a conscience vote against them but the ALP are not inclined to do that. They don't care about morality or the unborn child, they are a force of darkness and destruction which has a history of eroding our morality and way of life. In the 1920's the Labor Party in QLD had a referendum to abolish the senate and 80% of Queenslanders said 'No' that they wanted to retain the senate and the Labor Party abolished it anyway, despite the overwhelming revolt against it. They clearly have a long history of not caring what the 'people want'. They are utterly destructive and cunning. I'm just waiting for them to start their dirty smear campaign on the opposition.

  39. I have just had this emailed to me and I think it is something that we should all be reminded of.

    Sir Edmund Barton’s ideas on Immigrants and being an Australian in 1907.

    'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an Australian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an Australian, and nothing but an Australian… There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an Australian, but something else also, isn't an Australian at all. We have room for but one flag, the Australian flag…. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to theAustralian people.'

  40. I am not surprised at this new law that "Captain" Bligh wants to put in place. Remember they even changed the spelling of LABOUR to suit themselves. The sooner these parasites are out of the States and Federal government the better.

  41. I find this whole debate on surrogacy quite amusing, as it clearly demonstrates that when you mix science and politics, you still can't change the laws of nature, and for those who think they can, they deceive only themselves !
    In 99.99% of reproduction in the rest of Nature, a male and a female are required in order to maintain the species and breed. This produces normal, fit, healthy offspring that will be equipped with the skills to survive. Anything less than that will be a compromise, and 'survival of the fittest' laws kick in and the "compromised" offspring enters the food chain. This is how nature works, and we are a part of this "nature"
    If we want "normal" children in our society, we need to bring them into this world in a "normal" way, ie. with a mother and a father, surprisingly, this has been going on for a long time with "normal" results, as in well balanced, get educated, employed, contribute to society, etc. "Normal" !
    If we allow "abnormal" situations for our children to be brought into this world, we will get "abnormal" results, ie. unbalanced children, problematic, criminally minded as a result of no respect for society,
    As a so called "intelligent species", we aren't doing too good eh ?
    In nature if you are homosexually inclined, you don't reproduce, end of story, get used to it,.
    Mixing science and politics to change that would be unnatural with unnatural results.

    • I agree with you 100% mate. The traditional family unit is the backbone of our society. We ignore that and leave that behind at our own peril.

  42. Australia for the Aborigines!!!

  43. pale face says:

    children need both parents each parent plays an important role. and raising a child on your own is a massive burden one person cant look after a kid on there own and expect to be a good parent

  44. Nicholas Folkes says:

    "Francis has called upon Labor members to vote with their conscience and join opposition members in defeating this horrific bill". Is Wendy serious, doesn't she realise that Labor is here to undermine society at every turn? The Fabians are at it again and will continue with their anti-family rhetoric.

  45. This Queensland Labor government is a disgrace and it doesn't stop at Queensland. It goes right across every state and territory and right into our federal parliament like a deep vein of deceit. Rudd has also taken midwives and mothers for a ride by attempting to stop them from performing home births. What happened to letting women decide what's best for them? He has also cut in half the medical payments for new mothers and he has a made it so easy for homosexuals to be recognized as a couple that we are only a small step away from recognizing them in marriage. It certainly doesn't surprise me that Bligh and her Labor cronies are passing these appalling laws and I hope there is a strong opposition to them. This government and this party are not representing women and have no idea what a womans needs are and it stuns me that these Labor women in parliament just sit there and smile for the camera without even batting an eyelid at the degrading way in which women are treated by this government. I can't believe the erosion in our society since John Howard left. It's a disgrace.

Leave a Reply