Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
September 29th 2017 print

Geoffrey Luck

Sodom and Tomorrow

Don't be misled by those determined to see the word 'marriage' re-defined, as if it all starts and stops at spun-sugar same-sex couples atop wedding cakes. This is a totalitarian movement champing at the bit for a 'Yes' victory. After that the real re-making of society can begin

rainbow brigade IINobody else volunteered, so let me be the one to bell the cat:  The LGBTQIA people are not normal. So why should the vast bulk of the population be coerced into overturning the long-accepted idea of marriage to placate them?

The word ‘normal derives from the Latin normalis meaning ‘standing at a right angle.’ Its origins can be traced in English usage to 1650 when, according to the Macquarie dictionary, it meant ‘made according to a carpenter’s square’. Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines normal as ‘perpendicular to a tangent’. Together, these definitions might be taken to imply that normal people are upright, square-shooters, whereas deviants are liable to fly off at a tangent.

Nobody should have any problem understanding what normal is. If they still teach synonyms at school, any kid could find an alternative that left no doubt about the orientation of the majority of the population:

Average, common, commonplace, conventional, customary, established, everyday, familiar, general, habitual, natural, ordinary, orthodox, predictable, , regular, routine, standard, typical, universal, unsurprising, usual. And in a special sub-category: balanced, healthy, rational, reasonable, sane, stable, well-adjusted, free from mental or emotional disorder.

The word that stands out in that list is of course ‘natural’.  Because LGBTQIA people are not only not normal, they are not natural.  Nobody can argue that (except for the few tragic accidents) we all start out in life as one sex or the other, little boys or little girls – male or female. Natural. Not marvelous or supernatural, but born in conformity with the ordinary course of nature, in accordance with natural impulses. (Subversively, gender is now promoted as a term preferred to sex, to validate the social construct of a sliding scale of sexuality). There can be no disputing that some, born as boys or girls, discover or develop unnatural impulses, abnormal characteristics that set them apart from the majority. Nor can it be denied that throughout history, communities shunned, shamed, pilloried and persecuted those minorities.

But in my lifetime, we have moved from police entrapment, assignations in public parks and lavatories, even murder, to understanding, tolerance and acceptance. This may not yet be complete throughout our society, but it is so in the legal domain, where rights are not only recognised but enshrined in law, as the result of the reform package that passed through Parliament in 2008. That tolerance of the unnatural has gradually extended to those who cohabit with another of the same sex, although for many it has meant swallowing hard. Demonstrative same-sex kissing, so blatantly favoured by ABC producers to illustrate any story on the marriage debate, is cringeworthy for many.

Those who squirm at such scenes try not to imagine the amorous performances of same-sex couples. The great majority turn their faces away from these unnatural sexual practices, in disdain if not disgust. Yet the normalised Australian population is asked to accept these manifestations of a “love” as supposedly equal to that of ordinary, standard, well-adjusted male-female attraction. And that as a result they should be entitled to appropriate the term ‘marriage’, traditionally accepted as denoting normal, natural relationships, with the ideal consequence for society of producing and nurturing children.

So, just who are these interlopers, and how many of them are there? The 2016 Census, found there were 9,148,218 married couples in Australia, 48% of the population over the age of 15. (A further 1,626, 890 who ticked the ‘divorced’ box had previously been married). The number of same-sex couples can be derived by analysis of the census responses; in both the 2011 and the 2016 census the Australian Bureau of Statistics created a new classification ‘Relationship as Reported for Couples’ (RLCP).  The 2016 results are not yet available, but the 2011 same-sex figures, made up from both de facto and declared ‘husband and wife’ show a total of 33,714 couples. This represents only 0.37% of the nine million couples in the country.

Such a proportion immediately raises the question of how such a tiny minority could have produced such a powerful campaign for change.  The twin answers lie in politics, and the emotionalisation of society. Political progressives started with sex education. Fifty years ago, the idea of stealing teaching time to inform children about sex was just an idea. In Britain, its introduction in council schools was hotly debated, and when it launched at our local school in Harrow, we took our children to Lords to see the England v New Zealand test match instead. This year the UK government has made sex education compulsory in all schools. It is now unquestioned throughout Australia.

Homosexual reform has had a much longer gestation. The Macrossan inquiry into sexual offences in Brisbane in 1944 was told by the town’s leading pathologist that homosexuality was a disease and the homosexual was incurable. The Macrossan report  concluded, “When the sexual offender is homosexual, it creates a suspicion that the offender is a pervert, either mental or moral.” In 1952 the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a sociopathic personality disturbance.

The Stonewall Inn riot in New York in 1969 (when police raided a gay bar) changed everything. It led to the formation of the Gay Liberation Front and the origins of the radical gay rights movement. Significantly, the public appropriation of the old English word ‘gay’ was part of the political campaign to normalise homosexual activities in the public mind.

Then came colour – first, the purple of Gay Pride, then the annexation of the rainbow, the symbol of God’s promise to Noah. The ultimate insult to public norms and Christian morality was the appropriation of the date of Carnevale – the traditional festivities before Lent in Catholic countries – for Sydney’s Mardi Gras procession. How many of the families that take their children to watch this rainbow extravaganza realise that the glitz and feathers celebrate buggery? The message pumped out to the community is one of equality, and the need for acceptance of homosexuality as a normal outlet for the affections.

The first big battle in the war was decriminalisation. Laws such as ‘committing carnal knowledge against the order of nature’ had to go, to make anal sex equivalent to vaginal sex. Decriminalisation equalled normalisation. Although sexual acts in private between adult males in England and Wales were decriminalised in 1967, it took until 1997 for all Australian states to follow suit. A new political obstacle to the holy grail of same-sex marriage had to be overcome when increasing numbers of divorcees (like Christine Forster) took their children into lesbian relationships, or created same-sex families by adoption or IVF (like Penny Wong).  It became necessary to claim that fathers weren’t essential. (Over the centuries that male homosexuality was condemned, paradoxically lesbianism was never criminalised. It was even celebrated in the erotic illustrations of clit-lick by the 19th century French artist Edouard-Henri Avril. So it is significant that females have been at the forefront of the equal-love campaign.)

Yet the real issue of lesbian families has been avoided in the Yes campaign. Research has consistently shown that children in single-parent families were at greater risk for emotional and behavioural problems, and for poor academic achievements. Even President Obama said “Children who grow up without a father are more likely to drop out of school and wind up in prison.” More importantly, the often-quoted U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) conceded that “children and adolescents with lesbian mothers are likely to experience stigmatisation based on their mothers’ sexual orientation, which in turn can influence their psychological well-being in a negative manner.” Even so, the NLLFS has frequently been criticised for its small self-selected samples, and its special pleading. The Regenerus study from the University of Texas found copious evidence that children raised by gay parents contend with unique difficulties. With a sample of 5000 young adults aged 18-39 years, this study was the most comprehensive ever undertaken.

So it’s hardly surprising that capital-L Love has been made the central theme of the campaign for same-sex marriage. It’s a ‘straw man’, designed to seduce the same warm and generous spirit that places thousands of flowers at every lateest terrorism site. What is more surprising is that senior politicians and government ministers continue to assert, in the face of all evidence, that the postal survey is simply a yes/no matter on same-sex marriage. That lawmakers who contend daily with the issues raised by the consequences of legislation they are drafting and passing into law can refuse to consider what might follow a Yes vote, is alarming.

The campaign for same-sex marriage is not about equality, it is about envy and destruction, the creation of androgynous families. In every real sense, equality already exists; homosexuals are free to love, like anyone else. Extremist activists reveal in their own words, that the objective is to “transform the very fabric of society.” So the threat is not only, or mainly to the Christian churches; it is to society as a whole.

The clever fraud of ‘marriage equality’ and the organisation of the mob may be local, but the lead, and the political strategy come from America. The author of Queer in America, Michelangelo Signorile  wrote that the fight for same-six marriage was to “debunk a myth and alter an archaic institution…the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.”

Should legislation redefine marriage, as the campaigners hope, there will be no end to the demands on society to pursue those ends. Schools will be the major target, and the intolerance, bigotry and refusal to allow free dissenting voices will increase.  Anti-discrimination laws will be applied, paradoxically, to discriminate against critics. Already today, those who try to say that marriage should be, and always has been, about man, woman and children, are shouted down.

We are told that as long as kids have a clean home, love, decent school grades and good scores on sociologists’ ‘self esteem’ tests, terms like ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are interchangeable. The nonchalance about the child’s attachment to cultural figures is proof of the aim to re-make society. And government and opposition parliamentarians alike succumb weakly.

Paul Johnson concluded that it was decriminalisation which led homosexuals to organise as a powerful lobby to place them on the same moral level as normal sexuality. He wrote:

“Thus we began by attempting to right what was felt to be an ancient injustice and we ended with a monster in our midst, powerful and clamouring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental – and to most of us horrifying – changes to civilized patterns of sexual behaviour.”

Beware Australia – this is a totalitarian movement on the march. But as to the so called ‘tides of history’ argument, there is no such thing as inevitability – not to long as there is free choice and free speech. The consequences for those precious rights could be dire indeed, should the Yes vote prevail.

Comments [30]

  1. Jody says:

    My Polish GP and I discuss this; he says ‘we live in the age of the abnormal and I see people across my desk every day who feel more and more like victims”. You can see where this is going can’t you; an effete society incapable of defending itself and under siege from within.

  2. I was involved in discovering the Cure for AIDS [I discovered the 32 base pair deletion mutant in the chemokine family of cellular receptors and thus made the scientific Breakthrough of the Year for 1996; AIDS was cured in Berlin in 2008 using this approach], but the sodomites, like a wicked child [think Frances Abbott], have broken my heart.

  3. StephenD says:

    To me there is nothing quite as obscene as “sugar spun same sex couples atop wedding cakes”. They are a shocking parody of marriage, which ought to be society’s most treasured institution. Australia is going exactly in the wrong direction. It ought to be taking every possible measure to strengthen the biological family unit.

  4. Bill Martin says:

    The editor of QOL is to be commended for publishing this fearless, hard-hitting article.

    “… how such a tiny minority could have produced such a powerful campaign for change.” asks Geoffrey Luck. The explanation he offers is not without validity but seems altogether inadequate. There is a far more powerful force behind the spectacular success of the LGBTQIA movement than that. It, together with every other socially subversive phenomenon afoot, is serving the agenda of the Globalist, One-World-Government cabal, intent on destroying society in order to construct their utopia on its ruins. The promotion of sexual perversion is one of the significant aspects of their program, together with CAGW which has morphed into Climate Change; the fragmentation of social cohesion with identity politics and politics of envy; open borders to facilitate mass-migration of unassimilable waves of people into hitherto solid societies, to name just the most obvious. Conspiracy theory? A conspiracy it certainly is, but a theory it is not.

    • pgang says:

      You raise some interesting questions. Who or what is the driving force behind progressivism? Is there an organised ‘cabal’? Do they understand the consequences of their actions and is their an actual, formulated intent to destroy the west and enslave it?

      My loose conclusion is that this is a splintered movement which finds common cause by accident, for the time being, without consciously acknowledging that there is a greater global narrative within which they are acting. The movements are driven almost entirely by a selfish motivation to grant themselves special privileges. Theses small splinter groups are enabled, even though they have vastly different motivations (feminism, homosexuality, environmentalism, communism, unionism etc), because in combination they have become an accidental political powerhouse. I can’t see the movement ever cohering under a common banner, but in the meantime much damage has and will be done, and a great deal more power passed to the state at the expense of freedom and prosperity.

      The over-arching facilitator is the nihilist void that has been left by our lack of a meta-narrative, post Christianity.

      That scenario is depressing, but at least it leaves room open for a renaissance of the common people, at some stage in the future. I can’t see any other way to achieve this than with a Christian revival.

      • ArthurB says:

        Pgang: I have also wondered about ‘who or what is the driving force behind progressivism.’ I am (in general) not a believer in conspiracy theory, it proves everything and nothing. However, I believe that many movements — feminism, environmentalism, SSM, human rights, open borders etc — are vulnerable to being taken over by radical groups. The Soviet Union under Stalin was a master of the technique, using ‘front’ organisations to further its aim of subverting the West. The best book on that subject that I have seen is Stephen Koch’s Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Munzenberg and the Seduction of the Intellectuals.

        I am curious to know what (and who) are driving the current threat to the West – open borders and uncontrolled immigration of Muslims and black Africans into Europe and America. If it is allowed to continue, it will destroy the West, by a process of making the host countries bankrupt from paying welfare to unemployable immigrants who refuse to coexist with their hosts, and dividing the country into mutually hostile ethnic groups. When I look at Germany and Scandinavia, I cannot believe how anyone rational could have opened the borders to all and sundry, and persecute its own citizens who object to the consequences.

        • Bill Martin says:

          Responding to both pgang and ArthurB.

          Consider the secretive Bilderberg Group, consisting of the members of the 50-odd wealthiest families of the world and their soulmates, European royals and some of the most prominent political, financial, commercial and industrial personalities. They meet annually, inviting a number of influential “outsiders” to participate and sworn to secrecy but journalists or any non-invitees are strictly excluded. No minutes of the meetings are ever available. From the public utterances of many of the well known members we know that they are concerned with the state of world affairs and claim to wish to influence it in a beneficial manner. In the interest of that endeavour, they believe that drastic measures are necessary. The foremost being the need to centralise absolute power in the hands of those who genuinely care about humanity and the environment and also have the ability and integrity to rise to that challenge. In other words, their exclusive, elite selves. How many of them genuinely believe the bone fide of their stated aim is anyone’s guess but it is obvious that many have ulterior motives, best personified by George Soros, who, as a teenager, happily participated in the confiscation of the property of deported Jews in nazy-era Hungary, concealing his own Jewishness in the process.

          Certainly, there are any number of fragmented movements bent on destroying western civilisation and the Bilderberg cronies enthusiastically support all of them, always under the banner of human rights and the like. Make no mistake, this is the real threat to our future.

          • Jimbob says:

            ‘Who or what is the driving force behind progressivism?’

            A dark power whose offer has always been, ‘I will give you all these kingdoms…..if you fall down and worship me’……

          • Lilybeth53 says:

            And I would say that now, that dark power you speak of, is in full control.

  5. Geoffrey Luck says:

    “Whether it is gay marriage, transgenderism, health care, or the these appalling national anthem protests, phase one of the left’s fascist propaganda campaign always begins in this way… Hey, just let us do our thing. We are not bothering you. No one is hurting you. We are just expressing ourselves. What do you care? Let us live our lives.
    Again and again, though, history informs us that this is nothing more than a ruse, a con, a hustle, a lie—because it never, ever ends there.”

    JOHN NOLTE Columnist, Breitbart News

    • psstevo says:

      Part of the current problem is the Kinsey Report back in the 1948′s. Read Dr Judith Reisman’s excellent book, ‘Kinsey, Sex and Fraud – the Indoctrination of a People’. Resiman’s book highlights the fraudulent data presentation and raises very serious questions as to the practice of paedophilia in their Report.Interestingly there is a serious link to the founder of Playboy empire, Hugh Hefner, whose unlamented death was reported today. Statiscal data over time and from reliaable researchers show that homosexuals comprise slightly less that 2% of the adult population.

  6. Peter says:

    Geoffrey

    I don’t go along with this normal abnormal division because I think it might be unkind to good people who happen to be gay. But, nevertheless, I loved your essay. It was all so well constructed and held my interest to the last word. I was sorry when it ended. How many times does that happen? Hardly ever. Great stuff.

  7. ArthurB says:

    If the nation votes ‘Yes’, even if by a tiny minority, the activists will take it as a mandate to bring in legislation for their entire agenda. If the nation votes ‘No’, that will not be the end of the business, the Left will redouble its efforts, perhaps using human rights and/or activist judges to circumvent the will of the people.

    I also fear that the plebiscite is vulnerable to fraud, as the saying goes, vote early and vote often.

    In this charade, our national broadcaster has shown its true colours, i.e. the rainbow. The ABC is notorious for not employing anyone right of centre in its current affairs section, and the same applies to the SSM ‘debate’. Some time ago, on Q&A a panellist said he was not in favour of SSM, and Tony Jones seemed genuinely puzzled, as though he could not imagine any rational person being against it. On the occasional times that I watch The Drum, the subject of SSM comes up with monotonous regularity, and the panel and the presenters ignore any arguments against it. The ABC is supposed to present both sides in any debate, but in matters such as SSM and climate change, it is an advocate for only one side.

    I agree with Geoffrey Luck, the whole thing is not about rights for gays, it is merely part of a push by the Left to impose their agenda on our nation, if they win on SSM, they will move on to the next stage.

    • 8272 says:

      “… how such a tiny minority could have produced such a powerful campaign for change.” asks Geoffrey Luck.
      In my opinion, major social chaanges in society do no occur randomly. Rather it is some well-resourced activist group behind the changes.
      So it is with the LGBTI, same-sex push. The following edited excerpt from my recently published book,”The Decline and Imminenet Fall of the West”, provides some answers.Unfortunately, the table does not display correctly in this format.

      The origins of same-sex activism
      If you are puzzled why the same sex marriage debate has consumed Australia politics in recent times and why the debate has pushed more important headlines off the front page, you need to look no further than wealthy American left-wing individuals and groups such as George Soros and the Ford Foundation.
      The Ford Foundation doles out hundreds of millions of dollars annually to fund and promote its social engineering activities. Promotion of gay and lesbian rights is one its most important experiments.
      From its founding in 1936 through 1991 Ford had doled out more than $7 billion to over 9,000 organisations and 100,000 individuals across America and overseas. Its 2014 tax return runs to 1,450 pages, with assets listed at $11.9 billion. Its staff of 574 are spread across offices in New York, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, Chile, Peru, Bangladesh, Beijing, New Delhi, Jakarta, Bangkok, Manila, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, Cairo, Zimbabwe and Kenya.
      In 2014 it doled out a massive $569 million in grants, including $203 million for “democracy, rights and justice” and $165 million for “education, creativity and free expression”.
      Donations included $300,000 to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and $1 million to the International Center for Islam in Indonesia.
      A glance at Table 1 below will illustrate why the LGBTIQA groups are so well funded and organised. Table 1 represents a small sample of the Ford Foundation’s grants to gay, lesbian and transgender groups for the 2014 financial year as extracted from, Form 990-PF, Return of Private Foundation (a public document). The document lists a total of 97 grants to gay, lesbian LGBTI groups.
      Table 1 – A sample of Ford Foundation donations for the 2013-2014 year

      Recipient of Donation Purpose Amount
      The Regents of the University of California Los Angeles For the Williams Institute to develop and launch a user friendly website that makes its research on lesbian gay bisexual and transgender people and issues accessible to broader and more diverse audiences
      $125,000
      Neo Philanthropy Inc. For the social transformation project to promote coordination among social justice leaders and organizations
      $150,000
      Gay Straight Alliance Network For the Racial and Economic Justice Project to strengthen and expand efforts to address school safety and improve educational outcomes for lesbian gay bisexual and transgender youth of color
      $125,000
      Creating Resources for Empowerment and Action Inc. For the 2013 and 2014 Sexuality Gender and Rights Institutes to help global south practitioners and policy makers link the latest scholarship to policy legal and program studies
      $150,000
      American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Inc. Core support for the lesbian gay bisexual and transgender rights project to create an America free from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and for work on marriage fairness
      $250,000
      Funders for Lesbian and Gay Issues Inc. General support to mobilize philanthropic resources that enhance the well-being of lesbian gay bisexual transgender and queer communities and for capacity building assistance to the new president $275,000

      Advancement Project General support to advance a broad national racial justice movement core support for the power and democracy program and to advance the rights of lesbian gay bisexual and transgender students of color $700,000

      Western States Center Inc. For training and fellowships to build the leadership and collaborative capacity of lesbian gay bisexual transgender and allied leaders working to advance LGBT rights $150,000
      National Center for Lesbian Rights To develop a comprehensive communications program to increase the efficacy and reach of advocacy on behalf of lesbian gay bisexual and transgender people and better engage its diverse base $134,615

      Basic Rights Education Fund General support to ensure that all gay lesbian bisexual and transgender oregonians experience equality by building a broad and inclusive movement shifting public opinion and achieving policy victories
      $250,000
      Gay Straight Alliance Network For the racial and economic justice project to strengthen and expand efforts to address school safety and improve educational outcomes for lesbian gay bisexual and transgender youth of color $125,000
      American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Inc. Core support for the lesbian gay bisexual and transgender rights project to create an America free from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and for work on marriage fairness $250,000
      National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation General support to build the grassroots power of the lesbian gay bisexual and transgender community $250,000
      The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission General support to advance human rights and improve the lives of those who experience discrimination and abuse because of their sexual orientation gender identity or expression $100,000
      National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Foundation General support to build the grassroots power of the lesbian gay bisexual and transgender community $500,000
      Freedom to Marry Inc. General support to end the exclusion of same sex couples from marriage $1,000,000
      Freedom to Marry Inc. General support to end the exclusion of same sex couples from marriage $750,000

  8. Bran Dee says:

    What more can one say? 8272 has displayed the money trail, and ArthurB has linked the ABC. Geoffrey Luck would be able to tell exactly when the ABC started the TV screening of the Gay Mardi Gra. No conservative government offered or prevailed in any objection and so again the public broadcaster upheld minority standards. Now the SBS continues the promotion.

    Conservative governments even in control of the senate are to weak to wind back the progressive revolution.
    Conservative candidates even tell the electorate: ‘The will be no change to the ABC or SBS, and no cuts to health and education —–’! Remember, the same fellow who funded ‘Safe Schools’!

  9. MattP says:

    I have encountered the argument that homosexuality is “natural” because it happens in nature. Thus, because it happens in nature, it is intended, and so normal.

    I never did get to reply to that online assertion, so I shall put it up here: homosexuality is as natural as a boil on the backside.

    It may be “natural” in the strict sense of the word…but it certainly is not preferred. We lance that boil at the soonest opportunity.

    • Doubting Thomas says:

      I am one who tends to believe that virtually every combination or permutation of human behaviour is “natural”, and that it is futile to argue otherwise. What is a far more fruitful argument is about what defines normal and abnormal behaviour. Geoffrey neatly encapsulates the answer to that question in his first few paragraphs.

      No matter what occurs after this ridiculous survey is complete, and the inevitable Parliamentary decision to legalise same-sex marriage occurs, the abnormal minority will not stop its subversive activities. There will be a steady succession of destructive new campaigns about issues that not even they have thought of yet. It’s the nature of subversives.

      There will be no end to this revolution, and it is a revolution.

      • gardner.peter.d says:

        The question should be asked of our genes. Those in the LGBQTI or whatever it is camp would say, Oops, sorry our bad, we’re going to die. Those in the normal camp would say, well, we’d better not do what they did or we’ll die out too.

    • Ben says:

      Um no. Sodomy is an unnatural act. And it doesn’t take much in the intelligence department to understand why. And whilst you talk about “nature” this is not the same meaning as the Natural Law.

      • MattP says:

        Hi Ben, I couldn’t agree more. The problem is that “Occuring in Nature” is nowadays conflated with Natural Law.

        What I was attempting to illustrate is this conflation that was presented to me in online spaces.

        We currently see a reductionism or disenchantment that attempts to express a viewing humans as no more than biological entities seeking comfort and security.

  10. bts says:

    This essay is as good in its own way as that , published a couple of days ago, by Dr Zimmernan.

    I have nothing useful to add to the foregoing comments on the present article.

    I do presume, however, to repeat what I said in my own comment on Dr Zimmerman’s article. What is the point of attracting high quality arguments for the “No” case and leaving them to be read by, comparatively, a mere handful of survey respondents?

    • pgang says:

      This is always an issue for the truth. It’s hard to sell until it’s too late. Nonetheless, it has to be done if for no other reason than for the sake of our own humanity. Besides, you never know who might be out there paying attention.

      • Jimbob says:

        Bingo!!

        That’s the whole point. Truth has it’s own power. It’s like one of those birthday candles that flicker back to life after the excitable kids have blown as hard as they can to put it out. The privilege we have in commenting here is to keep the fuel up to the candle.

        You’re absolutely right pgang – you just don’t know who might be reading or who may read in the fullness of time. One small spark of truth could start a raging fire…..

  11. LBLoveday says:

    The book by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen: “After the Ball – How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 1990s” lays out the homosexual activists’ long-term plan that we now see coming to fruition.
    A shorter version appeared earlier in Guide Magazine and is worth reading – well it was worthwhile for me.
    “The Overhauling of Straight America” by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill.

  12. gardner.peter.d says:

    The law contains provisions on marriage because it is an institution with special responsibilities, costs and strains and it has benefits for all of society. Same sex marriage provides no benefit to society and has no special costs or strains to bear. Redefining marriage reduces it to same-sex marriage. Therefore the law need not make any special provision for it. It need provide only for people bring up children. They could be anyone and there is no need to limit it to two. And logically any individual or group will have equal rights to bring up children if they want. Indeed with SSM the number of families in which only one or no adults have a blood relationship to the child will increase. Blood parents outside this group have no rights and no responsibilities. The next step is for the state to decide the most suitable family for a child and to fulfil quotas to ensure all those wishing to exercise their right to a child are satisfied. Some parents will be disappointed but it will be for the greater good. Equality means we must share. How the state will deal with the vast majority of gay couples who do not want a child remains to be seen.
    Meanwhile our genes will decide matters for themselves. Since there will no longer be any point in being attracted more to one person than another, sexual desire will reduce. And as for sex, if it wasn’t enjoyable would anyone do it? Seriously, would you? No the genes will make sure you don’t miss it. So what will our genes do to ensure survival of our species? I guess that first some plague will afflict the genetically weakened species and the the population will diminish, until some new mutation will find another way of reproducing. We might become an asexual species. This will be extremely boring and lead to untold psychological problems. Science will step in with an answer in the form of artificial intelligence that removes all emotions from humans. We will be coupled to an AI machine at birth and our lives completely controlled by the machine. Then we won’t mind anything. We will feel no pain even in violent death. We will produce new genetic material for selection and breeding in a laboratory.
    One day the chap,God, who started this species will think to himself, this is boring, it’s all so predictable there is no point. I have better things to do. He will switch the machine off and turn his attention to that other species in another world he has been nurturing for a while and which is just beginning to be interesting.

    Not my idea. It is a mix of Huxley and Arthur C Clarke’s sequels to 2001 A Space odyssey.