The Future according to the Left. SSM...

[Rorschach]

Currently society and its traditions are under attack from LW Progressives from 2 fronts re sexuality and society's response to it.

They want SSM to be recognised in law.
They want sexuality to be recognised as fluid and not set by your physical nature.

Hence we have the push to deny the majority of Australians a say in SSM and we have to pernicious agenda of the LW Progressives and some homosexuals to deny the natural order of sexuality where heterosexuality is the norm in order for a minority to feel "normal".

So what does this world look like?
It looks like a place where anyone can marry anyone no matter what sex they are because sex is not defined by how you are born. Physicality has no influence on your sexuality because sexuality is fluid. You can be born male but choose to be female and vice versa.

This is their future... a world where heterosexuals are just part of the mix, where you can be indoctrinated into various forms of sexuality and none are more correct than another.

A world where heterosexuals will be propositioned by homosexuals and made to feel bad if they reject them. A world where the birthrate will slow and in time fall. The third world population the only place birthrates will continue to rise.

Children will be educated and indoctrinated into a non-discriminatory sexual existence where all sexual orientations are the norm and choosing one sexuality is discriminatory. A childhood that is more confusing than ever before, where feelings and crushes etc are misinterpreted and children sexualised before even entering puberty.

Where children have sexual reassignment before they even really know what sex is.

[Neferti]

I read something, recently, where you can now entitle yourself as:

Mr
Mrs
Ms
and Mx

What happened for being a Miss before getting married? They didn't even mention Miss.

Mx being somebody who doesn't know what they are. Leftards, again.

I am a divorced female. I call myself Mrs IF ever asked ... otherwise ... I am NOT a Ms or a Mz.

When introducing myself I say I am "Jane Blogs" (wink wink .... Joe Blogs is my ex). When filling out forms I ignore the "title" bit. However, IF they insist, I am Mrs Jane Blogs (Joe died eons ago). LOL

[Black Orchid]

I couldn't care less whether I am called Ms or Mrs. I am divorced so am technically not a Mrs. Well that's the way I see it.

Gordy mentioned at OzPol that when he filled out his daughter's sports application the choices were:-

Male
Female
Undetermined (I think it was)

Absolutely bark raving ridiculous!

[Outlaw Yogi]

Just thought I'd update you on current terms/phrases ... the Left wing has beeen redefined as "Regressive/s".
About time too. It's a point I've been making for years now.

[Outlaw Yogi]

On the titles issue, I've been waiting for someone to refer to themselves as Ms Soandso, so I can reply Dear Mizz Soandso ....

[Neferti]

I couldn't care less whether I am called Ms or Mrs. I am divorced so am technically not a Mrs. Well that's the way I see it.

Gordy mentioned at OzPol that when he filled out his daughter's sports application the choices were:-

Male
Female
Undetermined (I think it was)

Absolutely bark raving ridiculous!

Stupidity, thy name is LW progressives.

When I had my daughter, I gave her toys that both boys and girls could play with ... cars, trucks, dolls, Lego, etc. I had a friend who had a little boy the same age, she did the same thing.

One morning when my friend and I were having "morning tea" at my place, the two kids were down in the playroom. We listened and they were playing Mother and Father or something. The conversation went something along the lines:

Boy: Well, I am off to work now. See you tonight.
Girl: OK, have a good day.

They were about 2.5 at the time.

Also my daughter got a little red/blue walker thing, containing building blocks. Similar to this:



When my Mother came to stay and bought her the first "baby doll", she immediately cleaned out this walker thing and deposited the baby doll in it. She would have been all of 18 months.

Schools giving children the "opportunity" to actually DECIDE what sex they are is absolutely ridiculous. I expect that we will have a LOT of screwed up individuals in the not too distant future.

[Black Orchid]

Just thought I'd update you on current terms/phrases ... the Left wing has beeen redefined as "Regressive/s".
About time too. It's a point I've been making for years now.

I have always thought of them, and referred to them, as Regressives because that is what they are!

[Rorschach]

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

by John Elsegood

News Weekly, October 8, 2016

In a recent visit to Perth, Liberal MP Kevin Andrews warned that those opposing traditional marriage were engaging in an emotional campaign of vilification of those who sought to defend marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Mr Andrews, the Member for Menzies (Vic), who has held many senior portfolios, including Defence, Social Services, Immigration and Employment, was in Perth for a Christian Heritage seminar and for a fundraising event for Peter Abetz MLA.

Mr Andrews argued that public policy needed to be founded on good principles and rationality.

“Essentially there are two competing views about marriage. The first is as a protective institution, especially for children, but also for adults, and society generally. The second view sees it as an affectionate relationship between individuals.”

While arguing that the two models were not polar opposites, he said it was the former that should have primacy with policymakers.

Mr Andrews said there was overwhelming evidence that traditional marriage produced the best model for society and that it was a pre-political institution. “Traditional marriage has remained the inspirational model for most people and was the most reasonable for social institutions, such as the state, to deal with to promote social stability,” he said.

Mr Andrews warned about changing marriage from being a union between “a man and woman” and substituting “two people”.

Marriage is more than just love between two people yet attempts were being made to remove the concepts of motherhood and fatherhood from the law, governance and administration in favour of “parenthood”.

Journalist Paul Kelly wrote: “Once enshrined in law, the education systems, of primary schools upwards, will teach your children the ideology of marriage equality, namely equality of homosexual and heterosexual unions, as the foundations for cultural norms.”

Mr Andrews said Kelly was right when he argued that “once the state authorises same-sex marriage then religions will come under intense pressure and another campaign based on further application of marriage equality will begin”.

Indeed, pro-polygamy adherents may question why a line should be drawn at just “two-person” marriage.

As Mr Andrews noted, the notion that law should not intrude into areas of common public morality has been undermined. What was once “permitted” has become a “right” with demands of protection by law.

“Rights are now being increasingly asserted for groups as opposed to individuals. Moral judgements against a group are now being deemed unlawful and punishable. Laws of defamation designed to protect the individual have now been subsumed by new star chambers seeking to protect group rights,” he said.

Mr Andrews’ warnings are timely, particularly in the vicious attack on traditional marriage. Even a constitutional conservative senator, Dean Smith (Liberal, WA), has argued that he cannot support a people’s vote as he claims that it will create a precedent for popular votes on tough questions.

Oh, really? There have been only three national plebiscites since Federation (1901), hardly excessive. But does it matter if there are more?

The first two (1916–17) were both important, relating to conscription in the Great War and twice the public opposed the government so Australia, rightly, had an all-volunteer force. The third, 1977, was related to a choice for Australia’s national anthem, with Advance Australia Fair emerging as the preferred model.

As marriage pre-dates the state, any attempt to redefine marriage by way of a parliament majority only can expect public resistance. Traditional marriage is the accepted institution of the people and they rightly expect a say, as the government promised in the 2016 federal election. Indeed, it was only a short time ago that Smith, Shorten and Greens leader, Senator Richard Di Natale, were all in favour of the people being consulted. Verily, they are a confused and fluctuating troika.

Smith, in particular, should listen to the words of his Liberal lower-house colleague, Andrew Hastie (Canning, WA): “Where Smith invests authority in the parliamentary sovereignty, I choose to invest it in the people.”

The fact is that plebiscites are provided for in the constitution and we have every right to use them. There is even an argument that Australia should have citizen-initiated referenda, as well as those proposed by the Parliament, thus following the example of Switzerland and many U.S. states.

Meanwhile the attacks on freedom of speech and assembly continue. Recently same-sex marriage advocates threatened violence and caused the cancellation of a Christian gathering at the Mercure Hotel at Sydney Airport. Hotel staff were subjected to a barrage of intimidation and abuse. And Dr David van Gend, a Queensland GP and pro-traditional marriage advocate, has had his recent book on marriage, Stealing from a child, “spiked” by the printers.

Of course, the silence of the same-sex marriage leadership on such tactics has been deafening. Easier to pontificate about imagined suicides if a plebiscite is held than rein in actual acts of social and cultural hooliganism!

[Outlaw Yogi]

There was a really good letter to the editor in the Australian a couple of days ago.
Its theme was that a good society creates laws to protect minorities from mob mentality.
It mentioned that we have laws allowing consenting adults to make their own decisions, and laws to protect non consenting minors from the decisions made by consenting adults.
And the crux of it was that allowing same sex marriage abrogates our duty to protect non consenting minors, because minors are not the decision makers regarding decisions by consenting adults affecting their lives.

Now it's pretty clear the sexual deviant lobby and its Fabian Society supporters intend to force their perverted agendas on society.
First they told us most of us support same sex marriage. When given an opportunity to test the claim and potentially achieve their goal via plebiscite, they sabotaged the process. Making it blatantly obvious they don't believe their own propaganda or that society as a whole should have a choice on a matter fundamental to society itself.


Becoming aware their current method to advance their perverted agenda is doomed for the near future, they sought to brainwash school children with their poofy propaganda under the guise of anti-bullying programs, exposed as little more than heterosexuality demonisation schemes.
So now they've changed tact and are now introducing male demonisation schemes via compulsory 'Male Privilege' courses in school curriculums. Supporting material explains the need for a feminist perspective because males are dominating and females are victims.

On the front page of yesterday's Weekend Australian is a promo regarding a feature/article on Donald Trump with Trump dressed as Uncle Sam and the caption "We are witnessing the decline of a civilisation". Insinuating that support for Trump or Trump's success is or will be a cause for the decline of Western civilisation.

But they've got it backwards. Support for the likes of Trump, Hanson and Le Pen are symptoms of our civilisation in decline and a public backlash to it.
The Fabian society and its left wing comrades in sabotage portray themselves as progressive agents of change, but in reality they are deliberately destroying our civilisation in the vain belief they can usurp democracy and take control.

Their ultimate agenda is to enforce left wing fascism, but in doing so they legitimise right wing fascism.
And that's when we get to don our jack boots, criminalise their perversions, wipe our collective arse on their warped doctrines, smash their parasitic institutions and give them occupations involving work.

[AnaTom]

.

Their ultimate agenda is to enforce left wing fascism,

I agree totally.

Homofascism and Islamofascism has held our government by the fascinators for some years now.

Erotic Homofascism.

Labor ghouls, and now Liberal ghouls are infatuated with their demonic like power. Fascist power like socialist power tends to grab the prone, hence even adults so-called get assuaged by them both. A polarised government is what results, and a paralysed one too.

The little kids have small chance against big ideas of adults, who's primary concern is fascist re-enforcement of alleged claims.

Like the wholesomeness of Homosexuality.

A mental illness brought on by psycho-trauma I reckon, and lately trends and memes.