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.

The lady says it all

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.