Getting married

One of the best  pieces if advice I've heard about marriage, and I mean actual real marriage, not sham marriage, is 'don't take turns' at  housekeeping jobs; if something is to be done, just do it without fuss, point scoring or recrimination. And that goes for both parties.

Another basic piece of advice: when you marry, you do not marry one person, you marry a family. Unless your spouse to be is adamantly cut off from their family, then they will be your family too. So if it contains members who you cannot respect, let alone love and sacrifice for; the marriage will bring more misery than joy.


Where wives came from...

From the book "The Year 1000"

Showing the link between marriage, the protection for the weaker and good social order (irrelevant, that is, to people of the same sex who want to live together).


What means...'normal'?

I heard that the Premier of NSW was asked in parliament by an MP who with her female companion (ah, remember that phrase?) is raising children, if he thought that arrangement was not 'normal'.

I didn't need to hear the fluffy talk that would follow, but here's how it should have gone:

Premier: Normal? What do you mean by 'normal' (a rhetorical technique pioneered by Bill Clinton)?

MP: [pauses, slightly flumoxed] Well, ordinary, everyday, the sort of thing that normal people do?

Premier: Oh, when I heard the word 'normal' I immediately thought of the normal distribution. I would have thought that two friends of the same sex raising children would be far off to one side of the distribution: a long way from most of the population. In other words, 'not  normal'.

MP: [flaring] Not normal! You bigot.

Premier: I'm sorry that you are surprised, but how is it 'normal'? I mean, think of the children you look after. Where did they come from? Did you and your friend have them...[chuckles] that would be the first sperm-free conception ever!

MP: [cranky, with a dopey look on her face] We love our children.

Premier: I am glad. One should always love children; and I expect you use the 'our' in the sense that you have parental responsibility for them, but only one of you could actually be the parent. Is not that so?

MP: [petulant] I don't see what you are getting at.

Premier: [with a kindly facial expression] What I am getting at is that the conception of children requires male and female, and unless the children in your care came from a prior relationship of one of you, then one of you had to step outside your friendship to conceive. And do the children know their father? I mean their real father? The man whose genes they have? Or are the cut off from the person who helped form them?

Do you know there is  a movement of people conceived by sperm donarship to find their fathers...they don't want to be dis-identified with their father, they want to know them?

MP: Bigot!

Now for the real world

One of my young relations recently had to do this school project: research solar energy and write a persuasive piece supporting it use.

I've got nothing against solar energy: it might be good base load one day; but until then?

I will write to the school to suggest that in the interests of even handedness, and critical thinking, the children be asked to do the following:

  • Research clean coal as a future energy source that is cheap and plentiful to support energy provision to the poor; write a persuasive piece supporting it.

  • Research packaged nuclear reactors as a safe, cheap and plentiful form of energy to meet the world's growing needs; write a persuasive piece supporting it.

  • Write a speech explaining the cost of wind power production and how those on the lowest incomes are supporting its inefficency.

  • Write a report explaining what would happen to our way of life, our cheap food, clean water, safe waste systems, convenient health care and public transport if we had to rely on so-called 'renewable' power sources. 
  • Research the safety of coal seam gas, and report on the consequences for our families' energy cost if we run out of gas. The starting point for that one is below.


Poor little Connor

Letter to a local newpaper about a child actor acting as a child of a same sex pair.

I hope that Connor Burke’s parents told him the full story about gay couples: that their sexual relationship is attenuated and is not possible to produce offspring. I hope that they went on to explain that if a gay couple wants children they have to use some one else’s and that this disidentifies the child with at least one of its actual parents. It makes the child live a lie that two males or two females, no matter how loving, could be its parents. Then they could explain that the ‘Cinderella effect’ and its dire outcomes for the step-child are invited in a gay couple.

In short, because gay couples don’t really couple in any biologically or socially meaningful way their ‘coupleness’ is a parody of real coupling between the sexes. It produces a social outcome that eons of evolution have avoided. Dare we go against nature in such inert relationships to cynically make use of children as a screen of normality to mask the truth of a relationship that is sexually void?


Its a parody

I can't believe that people take the idea of people of the same sex being 'married'. They parody sex, so they will have a parody of marriage. Why then should the government have anything to do with this black comedy?


SSM: what it's really for.

Cori Bernardi recently debated Penny Wong on same-sex marriage.

Naturally Wong trotted out the usual distortions, avoiding the link between marriage, state interest, and orderly protection for and recognition of procreation; notwithstanding that some married people cannot or do not wish to procreate.

But, the heart of the matter is twofold:
  1. regularising sexual perversion, (and the evolutionary exploitation that it involves) so that its practitioners don't have to feel opprobrium because of their GOTS practices; and
  2. getting state endorsement and social acceptance of a system for procuring children by those whose sexual practices are perverted. At one go this cuts children off from at least one of their parents, places them in a distorted environment for their nurture (that is, one that has not been selected for by evolution) and exposes them to the risks of the Cinderella effect.
 Of course, the killer that rips the carpet from under the whole idea of same-sex sham marriage is children. To produce children the same sexers have to step outside the exclusivity of marriage to bring others in who will or might have no involvement with the child produced. Children converted to chattels. Back to point 2 above.


The sex-free marriage

It is a conceit to assert that homosexual people 'have sex'; I guess that means sexual intercourse within their sex.

Not so; sexual intercourse has the potential to produce a zygote.

Homosexual people stimulating each other's genitals is not sexual intercourse (of course) because there is no chance of a zygote. Thus, it is just a parody of sexual intercourse (sex being about reproductive difference).

So people who don't have sex want to get married...how odd.


The world's most unproductive culture

Today was Harmony day at school.

As you know, I don't think too much of the Australian ritual of saying "hi" to dead abos at state-sponsored events. But others seem to enjoy joining their spirit worship.

Now schools are doing it to kids! Inducting them into the spirit worship that helped them fail!

Today we were told that aboriginies had been here for 40,000 years. Really? And all they developed were string bags, boomerangs and dot painting. Great culture!

What I want to know is what they did for the other 39,999 years and 11 months.



I was pleased that this was published a couple of days after a big $ consultant inflicted PowerPoint to transmit non-knowledge to colleagues and I. Pointless, robotic, and uninformative. And here's why, from the Australian Financial Review of last Friday:



Stun me with a wet fish

Peter Fitzsimons, one of the Fairfax writers who wants us all to hold hands and sing Kumbayah as we are absorbed into a caliphate (sharia law being the spear head), is amazed at the objections that some have to Halal food.

I object!

1. Halal is not just a cute food fashion, 'culture' as the intelligentsia like to think. It is a part of a whole system of law that will reverse the 1000 years of creating the freedoms that we enjoy. Halal doesn't stand alone, it is an integral part of Sharia.

2. Halal certification fees form, in Islamic eyes, a tax we pay for the 'right' to not be Muslims in a Sharia state. It is their way by stealth, and we all dumbly follow, like the animals led to Halal slaughter.

The RSPCA is concerned there are much greater risks of an animal suffering during slaughter without stunning than for conventional slaughter. Slaughtering an animal while fully conscious requires additional handling and restraint and means that the animal will experience pain associated with the throat cut and subsequent bleeding out. For these reasons, the RSPCA is strongly opposed to all forms of slaughter that do not involve prior stunning of the animal.

4. I oppose Sharia, and will happily take up arms against it, if need be (I prefer Metal Storm electronically fired guns myself). I oppose it because I am against governments flogging women for reporting rape, for flogging dissenters who write for freedom, for preventing women from driving, voting, being educated, for stoning adulterers, for giving women no say in legal proceedings, for enslaving people disagreed with, for systematising the rape of women and girls who don't share your views, for making women wear tents (although, granted, for some women this is a decided improvement), for segregating everyday life in public places, for executing homosexuals. The list goes on.

Fitzsimons is clearly selective in his understanding of Sharia, and defective in his understanding of Islam.




GOTS = genitals for other than sex; its what homosexuals do. It ain't sex because it can't and won't produce offspring. So its hardly an adult use of genitals!

Thus, there is, of course, no such thing as sexual 'orientation' as though there are valid varieties of sexual activity, no, if its not sex, then its GOTS.

Not only is sexual 'orientation' meaningless; it's also silly. It pretends that there is something legitimate (I mean biologically legitimate) that constitutes sexual behaviour or sexual intercourse that is other than what makes babies (even if the couple does not or does not want to at that time make babies). There is not.


Rainbow and you're in!

On the local council chambers flag pole, guess what?

They were flying a rainbow flag. No, not for the anniversary of Noah's flood, but for the assorted pack of who think that  sexual deviance needs to be 'included' in society as some sort of valid regular and, dare I say it 'normal' sexual conduct.

Well its not....stick to that conduct and we die out in a generation. So tis not viable. And I don't want my local council to think that  is needs to fly the flag for private perversions. Its gross, crass and of no interest in the public arena. What people do at home, no concern of mine.



Given the trouble Knox Grammar has caused its boys and society due to poor management by Dr Ian Paterson, it has decided to rename the Paterson Centre for Ethics and other Stuff.

I initially thought it might be renamed to the Les Paterson Centre for Crass Conduct; but my own suggestion would be a more casual but informative name, in keeping with the heritage that Dr Paterson left: "The Busy Dick Centre".


ABC 3 attempts politics on kids

My complaint to the ABC:

During a promo (or perhaps a program intro) on ABC Friday (13 Feb 2015) evening, the talking head talked about the 'Stolen Generation' with the inference that children were removed from their families in large numbers and without cause in the words similar to "how would you like to be taken from your family...". With children in the room I turned the program off due to its tendentious and misleading nature.
Please clarify in future that some aboriginal children were 'given up' by parents, others were removed for their own safety due to the aboriginal cultural habits of abuse and neglect of children, and others (mixed parentage) were rejected by their family or tribe.
You might also point out that there was no policy to eliminate aborigines or to 'steal' them. For such children it was necessary and compassionate to provide them with alternative care within the mores of the period in question.
It was entirely misleading to not cast the narrative in these terms and blends for young children fiction and reality in an unfortunate manner.