Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Gender Issues » Gay issues (Page 2)

Category Archives: Gay issues

Cry Context and the ability to read

Cheers Comrades

NoSharia-NoJihad

 

How dare you question my Saxonality? Or George Brandis and our right to be bigots

 

From my appearance with a (now greying) red beard, blond hair and blue eyes its pretty obvious that I have some measure of Anglo Saxon  blood in my veins, thanks to the period of English history when the Saxons were ascendant . What would people think if I were to begin to insist that I am a Saxon? Or if my children were to do the same and therefore ignoring the fact that their Opa  was a Dutchman from Rotterdam? Or that their Grandmother’s family were all good Irish Catholics? Under the way of thinking of those who sued Andrew Bolt I or my children should forever be unquestioned were we to insist that we are Saxons (even though my daughter has dark hair and hazel  eyes ) if my family insisting that we are Saxons is a shallow a conceit, and one that I could insist upon would it make someone a bigot if they were to question that conceit?  I might certainly dislike my conceits being questioned, I might even feel offended , insulted even a bit intimidated because I have had something as fundamental as they way that I ethically self identify but would it mean that those who ask those uncomfortable questions are “bigots” ?

Yesterday in the senate our Attorney General said in answer to a question that “every Australian has the right to be a bigot” it was a nicely put  argument that has got the latte sippers choking on their milky brews because I gather that many on the left are rather certain that being a bigot is about the worst thing that its possible to be unless you are an adult with an unhealthy interest in the contents of a child’s underpants which is of course just a (little) bit worse. Strangely enough Pat Condell published a vid yesterday in which bigotry is quite cleverly considered, its only a short rant so please consider this:

What Condell’s rant tells us with some clever wit is that the politically correct want to control the way that people speak , often for rather noble reasons, but noble reasons or not  the result is more toxic than the intemperate speech that the PC police would have silenced. Which brings us back to the clause in the racial vilification act that the government proposes to seriously amend.

The problem that our friends from the left far too often use a claim of bigotry as a sort of universal shut up when there is a truth that they find uncomfortable, a certain learned gentleman of this blogs acquaintance was very fond of insisting that anyone who thinks that marriage should only be between one man and one woman is a bigot. Our learned friend is obviously wishing to see the standing of homosexuals in our society raised and more respected.  Likewise our own Ray Dixon is extremely sensitive about the way that Muslims and Aboriginals  are perceived in our society he has the most noble motives in his desire to see multiculturalism work and to ensure that those from outside the majority are do not have to endure any kind of prejudicial treatment.  The problem with wanting to enforce any sort of superficial niceness is that the result is  a sort of bullying that Pat Condell so eloquently rails against in his video it ends up protecting that which, in a civil society, should be free to explore ventilate and maybe reconsider.  Thus when 18c was used to shut Andrew Bolt up so that the notion of self selected ethnic  identity by those who sued him under 18c would remain unconsidered, our society lost a good opportunity to take a long hard look at ourselves and just what it means to have any sort of ethnic identity. Some who harshly ventilate  their own feelings or beliefs of such issues may certainly meet the definition of bigotry but the way to counter such views is not with the blunt instrument of a widely cast law but by their fellows convincing them that the prejudice is both wrong and more importantly unproductive and  unlikely to “win friends or influence people”.

What George Brandis was saying is an iteration of the famous Voltaire aphorism , namely “I utterly disagree with what you are saying but I will defend, to the death, your right to say it” its not a principle that we should disavow at all if we want to enjoy a truly free and pluralistic  society but its a sad reflection  of of friends from the left who are both very keen to be the champions of free speech and to enforce”niceness”  is it any wonder that they are being called hypocrite?

So lets defend free speech and encourage niceness in social discourse because, to cite another aphorism you can lead a horse to water but you can’t force him to drink.

Cheers Comrades

Kevin Donnelly vs “buggery 101”

One of the sadly amusing aspects of the way that our society views sexuality is the rather desperate way that so many “gay rights activists want to insist that all aspects of human  sexual practice are “natural” and therefore should be absolutely affirmed by society and by extension our education system. Surely it all boils down to precisely how “natural” is defined and its the definition that underlays the piece in today’s Fairfax press that attacks Keven Donnelly for committing the heinous sin of suggesting

‘Forgotten is that many parents would consider the sexual practices of gays, lesbians and transgender individuals decidedly unnatural and that such groups have a greater risk in terms of transmitting STDs and AIDS.”

In the eyes of the “politically correct” it is the worst sin imaginable to be in any way critical of the sexual practices of gay people and the worst possible sin is to claim or imply that such practices are “unnatural” . While I and most other parents are more than ok with the idea that our children should be taught that there is a great deal of diversity in the way that human desire and sexuality is expressed there is no need to pretend that everything done in the quest for sexual pleasure is “natural”. It should be enough for students to learn that the primary consideration when it comes to any sexual activity between any individuals is that it has to be entirely consensual, we don’t have to pretend that there is anything “natural” about some types of sexual congress because homosexuals want to have their desires and sexual practices socially  affirmed. 

Yet the social engineers of the left just won’t give up on “buggery 101” until it is front and centre in every classroom and they will attack without mercy anyone who might dare suggest that some sexual practices are anything but natural. Thus we find Fairfax dragging out the cudgels to bash Kevin Donnelly just because he points out the widely held belief that not all types of sex are entirely approved of by the parents out there. The politically correct teaching unions of course think that they know better than parents but they forget that its not their place to dictate what is taught to our children. That is the prerogative of parents; teachers are both our servants and proxies in the teaching process not our betters or our  masters and they clearly need to be reminded of this fact.

Cheers Comrades

Gay dog1

 

 

The follies of an over blown town council

Could there ever be a topic that gives as freely as the push for same sex marriage?  It certainly is a cause that arouses great passion form its advocates many of whom try very hard to berate, bully and intimidate their interlocutors when they can not convince them that marriage is only about “love”. If the lesson of  human history tells us anything it is that marriage is about many things but prime amongst them is the formalising  of a pair bond for the purpose of propagating the species.

As someone who does not endorse changes to the marriage act I have been subject to the abuse I mention. As I have previously argued I don’t think that “marriage” is really  desired by same sex couples, rather it is social acceptance of their sexuality something that to a large extent they already have in this country. None the less they seek further affirmation in changing the definition of marriage to include their partnerships. It is a project that will fail even though they do seem to have a reasonable level of support among the young people who are led by their romantic  loins when considering such things. My own teenage daughter thinks that my position on same sex marriage is “terrible” and “wrong” none the less I see no reason for me to change my position.  which brings me to the recent passing of a bill in the ACT “parliament”  to create same sex marriage in that jurisdiction. In the first instance I think its entirely relevant to remind readers how small and insignificant the ACT is at a national level. in many ways the ACT assembly is little more than a glorified Town Council it has sway over an area substantially smaller than any of the major cities of this country  and a population that is easily exceeded by many of our provincial towns. So to envision it being on par with the other states or even the Northern territory is entirely wrong headed its a minor town council with delusions of grandeur, which trades upon its responsibility to host the national parliament to inflate its importance.  in reality it should focus on the same matters as other town councils, namely roads refuse and rates instead we get cavorts like the same sex marriage nonsense. neatly summed up by Paul Kelly in the OZ:

Only a year ago a same-sex marriage bill was defeated in the House of Representatives 98-42. That is not a close vote. Since then Labor, the main same-sex marriage party, has lost a swag of seats and the Coalition, the main traditional marriage party, has gained seats. The September 2010 debate saw the Coalition vote as a bloc against same-sex marriage. Even if Coalition MPs had voted on conscience the bill would have been defeated by a wide margin. This remains the situation.

Why is this? The explanation, contrary to much same-sex propaganda, is that support for its cause is far more equivocal than it admits and, for many people, there is resistance to the nature of the noisy and often intimidatory same-sex campaign. Telling people who are not persuaded to your position that they are prejudiced or bigots does not, ultimately, assist your cause.

Attorney-General George Brandis announced on October 10 that the commonwealth would challenge the validity of the ACT laws. He had advice from the acting Solicitor-General they were invalid. This was no surprise.

The founding fathers enshrined marriage in the Constitution as one of the legislative powers of the national parliament. Moreover, under section 109 a federal law prevails over a state law “to the extent of the inconsistency” between them. The national parliament ignited the marriage provision in 1961 when the attorney-general, Garfield Barwick, promoted the federal marriage law. Until then, states and territories had regulated marriage.

Barwick’s intent was to honour the purpose of the founding fathers and create a national, consistent and uniform law for marriage in Australia. He specified a free vote for MPs. The issue was not treated as a party matter. His design was embraced by ALP deputy leader Gough Whitlam.

The Abbott government has a firm position: the Barwick design. Brandis stands on the shoulders of Barwick and Whitlam. Brandis has signalled the depth of his own views by saying “it has been understood for more than half a century that there is a single commonwealth law governing marriage”.

Indeed, there has been almost no suggestion since 1961 that states retain a residual power in legislating marriage. Lawyers will dispute the matter. But for many people it is hard to imagine a greater inconsistency between federal law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman and the state-territory push for same-sex marriage.

In his recent Eureka Street posting, Frank Brennan calls the ACT law “a dog’s breakfast” and shows that it has conflicting definitions of marriage. He warns of the risks in the tactics of the same-sex lobby and says any changes to marriage law should come only by free vote in the national parliament.

States and territories know any marriage laws they pass must be tested in the High Court. It is imperative, given lives are being affected, that test come as fast as possible. Brandis rang the ACT Chief Minister, Katy Gallagher, told her he intended to challenge her law and suggested the ACT not operate its law until the High Court resolved the issue. ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell later told Brandis there would be no delay.

The situation is clear: the ACT government is responsible for each and every consequence if this law fails. It is inconceivable that Whitlam, a Labor icon and human rights champion, would have tolerated this ACT indulgence designed to undermine national marriage laws that, if upheld, would permit states to freelance on marriage (think a populist Queensland premier merrily legislating against a federal same-sex marriage law).

If the High Court eventually upholds the Brandis position in relation to territory and state law, the onus will shift back to where it should belong, the national parliament. At this point Labor should insist that Abbott operate by the Barwick rules and give MPs freedom from party positions on the vote. This is the best means of advancing debate on marriage laws. Yet there is a danger that Labor may commit a huge tactical blunder on this front.

– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/same-sex-lobby-in-slippery-territory/story-e6frg74x-1226749264326#sthash.fBSTG3sX.dpuf

In the end I expect that homosexuality  will continue to become far more socially acceptable than it already is. It is certainly something that I look forward to because I steadfastly believe that we should all be able to openly  love and openly live with the partners of our choice regardless of their gender. The great irony is that at its heart the ACT bill creates a form of civil union for homosexual couples and when I an others have previously advocated civil unions as an instrument to meet the needs of gay couples the usual suspects have gone into a form of apoplexy that is most undignified and dare I say it, counter-productive to their cause because they then alienate those of us who do want to see our Gay brethren living happy lives even if we hold a more traditional view of what a marriage is  and should remain.

Cheers Comrades

11472-Stirring-Coffee

We could cure the common cold or solve the Gay marriage conundrum by respectively snuffing the snotty and burying the Gay.

My inner libertarian wants to believe that every individual has the right to do with their body   what ever they please. However my inner conservative thinks that those who want to have themselves either chemically or surgically disfigured to make them into a simulation of their desired gender are mentally ill and utterly delusional if they think that any amount of “renovation” can ever make them into what they want to be. At the very best they can become a sad parody of their desire. Naturally such radical disfigurement can lead to terrible regrets as this woman from Belgium discovered after she had convinced doctors there to mutilate her body.

athan, born Nancy, Verhelst, 44, was given legal euthanasia, most likely by lethal injection, on the grounds of "unbearable psychological suffering" on Monday afternoon. Wim Distelmans, a cancer specialist who carried out the euthanasia, is the same doctor who late last year gave lethal injections to congenitally deaf twins who were frightened they were also going blind. "I was the girl that nobody wanted," Mr Verhelst told Het Laatste Nieuws newspaper in the hours before her death. "While my brothers were celebrated, I got a storage room above the garage as a bedroom. 'If only you had been a boy', my mother complained. I was tolerated, nothing more."

athan, born Nancy, Verhelst, 44, was given legal euthanasia, most likely by lethal injection, on the grounds of “unbearable psychological suffering” on Monday afternoon.
Wim Distelmans, a cancer specialist who carried out the euthanasia, is the same doctor who late last year gave lethal injections to congenitally deaf twins who were frightened they were also going blind.
“I was the girl that nobody wanted,” Mr Verhelst told Het Laatste Nieuws newspaper in the hours before her death.
“While my brothers were celebrated, I got a storage room above the garage as a bedroom. ‘If only you had been a boy’, my mother complained. I was tolerated, nothing more.”

This instance of “buyer’s regret” is by no means unique but the fact that this sad woman was Belgian meant that she could get assistance to commit suicide which raises the ethical question for the euthanasia enthusiasts, namely where do they want to draw the line when the mentally ill seek suicide as the final  solution to their very poor life choices?  Surely the next step in Belgium has to be to start helping the schizophrenics to die when they voices get too loud? or to offer the manic depressives the needle when the lows are to dark?  What about those of us with chronic back pain?  Are we too going to qualify for the blessing of death? What about athletes who get a nasty sprained ankle surely they too should be put out of the misery of failure when they can not compete? Maybe even sporting teams who suffer the anguish of loosing the grand final should all be given the phenobarbital  blessing    to save them from the anguish of defeat. (and to improve the sporting gene pool by culling failures ) Why stop there? We could cure the common cold or solve the Gay marriage conundrum by respectively snuffing the snotty and burying the  Gay.

Oh hang on this line of argument sounds awfully familiar to me as it should be to any student of history, it is where the  well oiled slippery slope could lead too and sadly there are far too many euthanasia enthusiasts who are either uncaring or oblivious to the negative consequences to the changes that achieve their desire to embrace the fleshless  arms off death.

Do we really want to go there Comrades?

9vayk0

 

 

 

Penny Wong vs the Australian Christian Lobby

Just a quickie this morning and it concerns the Faux rancour being produced by Penny Wong over the the claim from the Australian Christian Lobby that Gay marriage could lead to a new stolen generation:

click for source

click for source

Obviously when it comes to Same sex couples making children there has to be the intervention of a third party to supply the gametes that are necessary for conception and this means that any child thus created is going to be, to a greater or lesser extent, alienated from one half of their biological heritage. There is a great deal of evidence that most children who are adopted or created by donor insemination suffer a great deal of angst about who their missing biological parent is. Enlightened Gay parents should be aware of this issue but as homosexuals are just like everyone else in their diversity I expect that there will be a variety of way that this issue will be felt with from the pretence that the children they create are theirs alone to total openness about who the absent biological parent is and even some sort of continuing involvement of that person in the life of the children thus conceived. Only time will tell if this becomes a real problem and I hope that those who make children with the “help” of people outside their pair bond do the right thing by the children they make and that they keep their persona vanity in check.

On the issue of teaching the mechanics of “gay sex” in schools I am hardly surprised and I certainly expect that if we are going to become an even more liberal society that considers homosexuality as just another page in the book of human sexual expression that we will at some point have to make its practice part of the lexicon of sex education. Now in the past I have made jokes about “buggery 101” being taught to our children but if we are to “normalise” homosexuality in our society then we won’t be able to make the mechanics of sex between people of the same gender “Secret Gay business”. In any event I very much doubt that any same sex attracted young person won’t have seen enough online pornography before they attend sex Ed classes to know the basics anyway.

So on balance I think the ACL and Wong are each partially right the former are correct to be concerned about the children created in same sex unions being alienated from one of their biological parents, but they are wrong to be absolutely horrified that our children might have the mechanics of gay sex discussed in our schools. The latter is wrong to dismiss concerns about the children like the one that she and her partner are nurturing as nonsense.The thing that we must ensure above all when it comes to Sex education is that anything that children are told is entirely age appropriate and that no matter  what nut and bolt stuff they are taught it is essential that such things are accompanied by some exploration of the value of  enduring pair bonds over sex being just another  sport devoid of a reproductive or social   purpose.

Cheers Comrades

pics_animation-spank-that-ass-1

students who do not pay attention in class can expect to be punished

Kiwi anti-sodomites buggered?

(by Ray Dixon – an equal opprortunity holiday accommodation provider)

The message is clear!

The message is clear!

“We don’t want sodomy in our home. That’s not the same thing as saying we are anti-gay,”

On the surface this sounds like straight-out discrimination against same-sex couples (being lesbians, in this case).

But I smell a bit of a set-up:

les-be-friendsThe owners of a New Zealand guesthouse who refused to let a lesbian couple share a bed are standing firm despite threats.

Karen and Michael Ruskin, of Pilgrim Planet Lodge, in central Whangarei, say they have received death threats and verbal abuse over their stance on homosexuality.

… Lesbian couple Jane Collison, 30, and Paula Knight, 45, decided not to stay at the lodge on May 7 after being told they could only have a room with single beds.

They had booked online a room with a king-sized bed but Mrs Ruskin said that when the couple arrived they were told the lodge’s policy was for same-sex couples to be put into a room with two king-single beds.

The engaged couple decided not to stay but could not find other accommodation until they got to Waipu.

Mrs Ruskin said she was sorry for the couple’s inconvenience but was standing firm on her morals and the sanctity of her home.

The Ruskins live in the bed and breakfast-style lodge, where guests share lounge, kitchen and living areas.

“It’s our home – it’s not a motel.”

The lesbians have since filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission claiming discrimination due to their sexual orientation but the owners claim they have a legal right (and indeed a precedent) to say who will share their residential accommodation:

She said that in 2010 a gay couple also complained to the commission after being asked to sleep apart, but that complaint was withdrawn when the exception for shared accommodation came to light.

Hmm, I’m starting to wonder if this incident was a case of gay activists deliberately targeting the Pilgrim Planet in a sort-of payback or even a re-test of the exemption, now that gay marriage has been legalised in New Zealand.

I wonder why they chose this place, which already has ‘form’ for rejecting gay couples, and which also states right upfront on its website’s home page that they, err, cater to only certain people:

Pilgrim Planet: B&B guesthouse in central Whangarei, modern accommodation with old fashioned values*

*Our nation’s moral code has been based on generally accepted values which have guided legislation. Essentially parliament’s concern is matters legal and the peoples’ concern is matters moral. When these line up we have peace and harmony but when politicians legislate against morality, a disconnect occurs. Unjust laws need to be questioned for if we fail to do this we will become corrupted by the law instead of edified and protected by it. You are welcome to stay in our home, whatever your beliefs, so long as you respect and understand ours.

And just in case the lesbian couple missed that bit when they booked online, they surely must have seen this on the bookings page:

Pilgrim Planet – modern accommodation with old fashioned values! …….. We reserve the right to change any rooms that have been booked on-line at our discretion.

I’m in the accommodation business too, but I wouldn’t go imposing any ‘moral values’ on our guests. We’ve had gays & lesbians stay here at GG and it doesn’t bother us in the slightest. All we ask is that guests don’t disturb others and don’t leave the place in a mess. Quite frankly (and I don’t mean to stereotype here), our homosexual guests are generally much tidier than most others, especially those guests with little kids. As for what they do in the beds, well our linen is hired in for each stay so we don’t have to wash it anyway!

Then again, our units are completely separate and fully self-contained, whereas the Pilgrim Planet is actually an oversized house that merely lets out bedrooms and allows its guests to share most of the house, it seems. It’s not the sort of accommodation I’d choose to supply – to anyone – because the only people I like sleeping in my house are my own direct family. Yeah, we even put our relatives in the units when they visit (at no charge of course!)

I sort of think the Ruskins, if homosexuality offends them so much, are simply in the wrong business. But I also think the lesbian couple would (or should) have known in advance that they would be discriminated against – I mean, just the name Pilgrim Planet should have been a dead giveaway that mein host was a little bit on the churchie side, don’t you think?

Anyway … they’re just bloody Kiwis, who cares?

I think I might ban all New Zealanders from GG full stop – I wonder if that’s discrimination?

.

“I get more pussy than u”

(by SockPuppet – your insitive Melbourne blogger and social commenter)

Another example of progressive Melbourne?

Another example of progressive Melbourne?

I have some questions for the hotlooking chick holding up the “pussy” sign at Yesterdays ‘marriage equality’ rally in Melbourne:

1. If you are getting so much “pussy” why do you want to get married to just one woman? You will get a lot less pussy that way.

2. If you are lesbian why are you standing so close to what looks more like a bloke in the black Tshirt?

3. If the ‘bloke’ in the black T shirt is female is she your lesbian lover?

4. If you answer yes to question 3 Why are you wasting yourself on her?

5. Is that bald bloke behind you picking his nose your Dad or your stalker? He looks like one.

6. Would you be interested in a threesome with Laura and me?

And for Gig Guy – see what I mean about Victoria now? It is all action here buddy, you would not see this in western muslim Sydney would you?

.

%d bloggers like this: