The Future according to the Left. SSM...

[Rorschach]

The Kids Are Not Alright: A Lesbian’s Daughter Speaks Out
Some children of gay parents, just like some gay people, do not support gay parenting or gay marriage. Male and female biology each provide something every child needs—together.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/21/the ... aughter...

[Rorschach]

Adults Raised by Gay Couples Speak Out Against Gay ‘Marriage’ in Federal Court

(CNSNews.com) – Four adult children of same-sex parents have submitted amicus curiae briefs in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals asking that it oppose the legalization of same-sex “marriage."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lau ... eral-court

[Outlaw Yogi]

In this country a family member can legally divorce themselves from a blood relative, just like a husband or wife can from their spouse.
A sexually abused child can legally seek compensation from the state government due to an incestuous parent.

So assuming same sex marriage will sooner or later become legal, it's only a matter of time that children with legally married homosexual parents/guardians will be suing state governments (tax payers) for psycho-sexual abuse.

I think the Nazis got it right .. put them in the back of a Mercedes truck with the exhaust piped in.
Imagine how much (tax) money we'd save.

[Rorschach]

Students directed to gay sex websites
Rebecca Urban
The Australian
October 24, 2016

A federal government-funded website set up as a one-stop shop for student health and well-being has potentially exposed young people to explicit information about anal sex, gay saunas and searching for sex online.

The recently relaunched ­Student Wellbeing Hub has been promoting links to ACON, a NSW organisation specialising in HIV prevention and support that runs regular sexual health workshops aimed at gay and bisexual men.

ACON’s website also provides a list of “sex-on-premises venues”, which are clubs, backrooms and saunas where people pay to enter to have sex with other customers.

Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham has demanded an urgent review of ­resources on the hub website after The Australian alerted him that users were being diverted to the ACON site.

Links to ACON were removed yesterday after questions from this newspaper.

Originally named the Safe Schools Hub in 2012, the Student Wellbeing Hub was relaunched this month, largely to clear confusion over its association with the unrelated Safe Schools Coalition. Although the site contains Safe Schools program materials, the information is among up to 400 other ­resources aimed at promoting ­student wellbeing.

Under Labor, the federal government committed $4 million to developing the Safe Schools Hub.

“The Student Wellbeing Hub is meant to offer age-appropriate materials for students and their parents and educators to ensure children feel safe and supported at school,” Senator Birmingham said.

“I have directed my department to review all third-party links to ensure only websites and materials that are age-appropriate are linked from the Student Wellbeing Hub.”

The inclusion of sexually explicit content within an Education Department resource will embarrass the federal government, which this year ­ordered an overhaul of the Safe Schools program following concerns the anti-bullying program exposed students to contested gender ideology and sexually explicit material.

The government ordered the Safe Schools ­Coalition to remove third-party links from its resources, including references to ­Minus18, the LGBTI youth group that co-created the curriculum, due to its promotion of gay nightclubs and sex shops.

Safe Schools’ resources do not promote links to ACON, but ACON claims to be a key partner of the program.

Originally established as the AIDS Council of NSW, ACON’s main remit is to stop HIV transmission among gay men. It is running a six-week Arse Class on anal sex and sexual health. Previous workshops have included Getting It Online, which covered the use of mobile apps to search for “mates, dates and sex”, and Cruising 101, a crash-course on gay saunas and sex clubs.

ACON’s website also lists up to a dozen sex clubs around Sydney that comply with its “PlayZone Sex on Premises Venue Code of Practice”, which aims to encourage safe sex.

Although the Student Wellbeing Hub classified the ACON site as targeted at parents of students in Years 10 to 12, there was nothing preventing or discouraging ­students from also ­accessing the link.

Coalition MP George Christensen said yesterday he was amazed that, following the review of the Safe Schools program, an ­official government resource for students could be found to provide links to “questionable materials”.

“It’s just bizarre,” he said. “I have no doubt that the majority of parents would not want their children being exposed to this.”

Nationals senator John Williams, who last week told Senate ­estimates in Canberra that the Safe Schools video resources appeared to continue to reference Minus18, echoed Mr Christensen’s concerns. He described the ACON ­material as “outrageous” and “not at all appropriate” for ­students.

A Department of Education and Training spokesman defended the hub: “This resource is widely referenced within the school community ... Many of the ­resources on the hub are links to websites operated by other organisations. Every ­effort is made as far as is practicable to ensure resources ­intended for students are age-­appropriate.”

The spokesman confirmed the department had suspended the hub’s link to the ACON site pending a review. A spokesman for ACON did not respond to requests to ­comment.

[Rorschach]

He’s a hurricane of fresh air, this university professor who baldly says that one of the many reasons he won’t adopt the faddish new non-binary gender pronouns is that “the people who made those words are possessed by ideology and not to be trusted anyway.”

In fact, Dr. Jordan Peterson, the man at the centre of a freedom-of-speech battle at the University of Toronto, isn’t even certain that the whole gender-identity/gender-expression issue isn’t really at heart a question of fashion.

“Because the logic underlying the arguments is that … biological sex, gender identity and gender expression vary independently,” he says — noting quickly that that is “absolutely contradicted by the data,” which shows 98% of people have the same gender identity as their biological sex — “it has become unmoored from the underlying reality” and is “all interpretation.”

“Well, if it’s all interpretation it’s not distinguishable from fashion,” he says.

Peterson isn’t being mischievous or just idly stirring the pot.

Nor was he doing that when he posted three new videos to his YouTube channel late last month, thinking through on his feet, as he has done for years, the dangers of the looming federal Bill C-16 and how it will beautifully and terrifyingly meld with the policies already enshrined in the Ontario Human Rights Code.

It was during one of these videos that Peterson criticized the use of gender-neutral pronouns and drew the ire of self-appointed “social justice warriors” both at the school and outside it.

That led, in swift succession, to two warning letters from the university — one dated Oct. 18 from the dean of the faculty of arts and science, Peterson correctly calls “an exemplar of Orwellian doublespeak” — a free-speech rally and counter-protests and complaints against him.

He’s a psychologist, author and intellectual heavyweight whose life’s work has been the study of authoritarianism.

>snip<

To borrow a modern term, the trigger for his concern about gender neutrality sprang from his clinical practice.

“I’ve had a number of clients who have been bullied into states of mental uncertainty by their politically correct peers,” he says.

>snip<

“One of the things I’ve come to understand is that the central functional axiom of Western civilization is that language … is the process that keeps chaos and order in balance … and that when (language is) corrupted, we careen into chaos or pathological order.”

Having, as New York City has now recognized, 31 gender identities and expressions — from “bi-gendered to “agender” to “gender-gifted” and “gender-bender” and “gender-fluid,” all protected from discrimination — is “just not tenable.”

“We’re going to have 31 different classes of pronouns? No, we’re not. It’s just not possible. People can’t do that. Our language doesn’t allow for that; we can’t remember that; what if we make a mistake?”

“We use ‘he’ and ‘she,’ and we use ‘they’ when there’s more than one person, and we do that for purposes of simplicity of interaction.

“And for you to come to say, ‘You have to mark me out as singularly special in the manner that I require and you have to remember it,’ no, it’s like, no, you can’t ask that of me, because you’re actually not singularly special.”

He’s braced for the next shoe to drop: A student who asks him to use a preferred pronoun, or a complaint at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. “Perhaps that won’t happen and let’s hope it doesn’t,” says the warrior for common sense and plain speech, “but there is an element of logical necessity to it.”

More at http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... mmon-sense

More leftie "regressive" nonsense.

[Rorschach]

Bullied by "tolerant" students as apparently some tranny students “didn’t feel safe” because one professor refused to call them by their preferred gender pronoun.

From Steven Crowder ...

Practically the entire campus wants to punish this guy for not participating in their progressiveness. Hundreds of them felt the need to put their heads together to “fix the problem.” And the solution they picked? A cowardly letter demanding Peterson to stop doing that stuff. “That stuff” referring to… things they don’t like, because feelings. Students are also being proactive by staging protests and harassing him on campus. But remember, he’s the bad guy here.

Pronouns. Safety. They’re bullying him because of words. Because he’s refusing to go along with their fantasy that they’re anything other than weirdos who feel threatened with pronouns.

So it’s come down to 250 people vs 1 dude. All because of words, or lack thereof. Have I crystalized this enough for you?

Here we have an innocent chap harassed and bullied by bristling trannies until he conforms. Their reasoning? Everyone should be accepting of ALL identities… Unless your identity doesn’t adhere to leftist standards, of course. Welcome to Tolerance 101.

http://louderwithcrowder.com/canada-professor-pronouns/

Where will it end?

[Black Orchid]

Is there a reason you moved my posts here? They aren't about SSM.

[Rorschach]

Nope
Copied them here they are relevant to the topic....
The topic is about the future
"Take a chill pill" eh

[Black Orchid]

My topic is not about SSM nor is it necessarily about the future but if it makes you feel happy to try to control what goes where knock yourself out

[Rorschach]

Apparently its not enough that LW Progressives fill our education systems, now Labor are after the very young. They want children as young as 2 or 3 to be admitted to pre-school education classes. You can imagine just what sort of education they will eventually be indoctrinating them too. The Rabbits for example a children's book that indoctrinates children into the invasion of Australia by bad rabbits who ruin the idyllic life of the natives.

Compassion’s fine but ignoring fiscal reality won’t pay the bills
The Australian
October 25, 2016
Nick Cater
Columnist
Sydney

Few things are more certain to cause lunchtime indigestion than a shadow minister delivering another “bold vision for the future”.

Kate Ellis’s National Press Club address last week was no exception, particularly when she arrived at what she called “the nitty gritty”.

“I don’t think that Australian early education and care should be cheap,” she mused, “but I think it should be affordable.”

Expensive but affordable. It is difficult to pair those opposing adjectives unless one believes in magic, as Labor apparently does. Like Samantha in Bewitched, a ­future Labor finance minister will twitch her nose and sprinkle ­affordability dust across Ellis’s portfolio.

The prospect of the member for Adelaide becoming childcare minister is not the only thing that triggers anxiety at the thought of Bill Shorten moving into The Lodge, but her speech made a not inconsiderable contribution to the growing apprehension that Labor is not keeping up with the plot.

In the real world, the shortfall between what childcare services cost and what parents can afford must be topped up with taxes. In the real world, we’re staring at almost half a trillion worth of government debt with no conceivable way to repay it. In la-la land, on the other hand, it’s about fairness, equity and social justice, the touchy-feely drivers of public policy that got us in this mess in the first place.

No policy speech these day that fails to mention the words budget, debt and deficit deserves serious attention, yet the indifference to fiscal reality on Labor’s frontbench suggests the question of how you’re supposed to pay for stuff is not a matter of great concern.

Nor, incidentally, is the question of whether the policies will ever deliver what they promise. Inputs, not outputs, are increasingly Labor’s measure of good policy. It’s not what comes out that matters but the amount of compassion one invests in it. How can it be wrong when it feels so right?

The infiltration of this moral narcissism into mainstream politics is a disturbing development in a fiscally challenged era when hard-headed policy thinking is needed more than ever before.

Many on the progressive Left are dumbfounded when asked to justify the expenditure of public funds on their latest plan to edge us closer to their imagined utopia.

Victoria’s Education Minister James Merlino is so convinced that lecturing schoolkids about male privilege is “the right thing to do” that he was astonished that his $21 million program was being questioned.

“It’s astounding that anyone could think teaching our kids about respect for other people is a bad thing,” he told The Australian’s Rebecca Urban last week.

Few public policy areas are as prone to the tyranny of good intentions as childcare.

Evidence that early childhood learning is a “good thing” is used to justify ever growing subsidies on an area that, until quite recently, was not regarded as the business of the state.

The last Labor government’s attempts to make childcare ­affordable were a spectacular failure. The cost of childcare has risen by an average of more than 7 per cent a year for the past 10 years, exceeding the growth in both healthcare and education prices by a not inconsiderable extent.

The Productivity Commission calculates that Julia Gillard’s high-minded goal of better educated staff in the sector has added $50 a week to the cost of childcare.

Ellis’s plan to tackle rising costs floated at the press club is the kind of barmy, socialist, centrally planned scheme that should have disappeared in 1949 with the fall of Ben Chifley’s government.

Ellis proposes that the government should buy up childcare places in bulk from private operators and negotiate down the cost.

Bureaucrats will be required to calculate the number of kids requiring childcare in each suburb and ensure that the right number of places be made available. Ellis’s explanation that she has not yet had time to get the experts to look over the scheme is simply no excuse.

You don’t have to be Milton Friedman to know that organising the childcare market in the manner the Soviet Union used to manage the production of shoes is nuts.

Labor in its present state of mind would never accept that parents, not the state, are best placed to decide what constitutes quality care.

The notion that a bureaucrat should decide is unlikely to go down well. Like the last Labor government’s centrally planned super GP centres, it has the smell of disaster about it. Most things are better left to the market.

Ellis was somewhat dismissive of the Productivity Commission’s extensive report on the childcare system published last year. Understandably so, for it blows many of Labor’s assumptions out of the water.

Childcare provision has relatively little influence on the number of women in the workforce, for example.

Lower fertility rates, changes to workplace relations laws, changes in the structure of the economy such as the decline in manufacturing and the increase in services, technological change and the increase in higher education for women have had more direct influence.

And there is little evidence that subsidised childcare has made any significant contribution to the number of women in the workforce.

Lowering effective marginal tax rates and family-friendly work hours would achieve more.

The public policy justification for spending more on childcare is weak and the evidence that it will reduce costs or produce better care is even weaker.

Yet one senses that Labor will brook no argument on this one since in its socially orientated world, it’s simply the right thing to do.

“If your intentions are good, if they conform to the general received values of what a person of your class and social milieu is supposed to think, everything is fine,” writes Roger L. Simon in I Know Best, an insightful critique of the politics of good intentions.

“It doesn’t matter that they misfire completely, cause terror attacks, illness, death, riots in the inner city, or national bankruptcy … you are that good person. You can do anything your wish.”

Nick Cater is executive director of the Menzies Research Centre.