Australia’s new Stolen Generation!
When will they set him free…??
- Australian Christian Lobby calls children of same-sex families “the new stolen generation”..!
- Warns that compulsory gay sex classes will be taught in schools…!!
- Warns that christians will be persecuted…!!
Friends of the Prime Minister, the so-called “Australian Christian lobby,” have issued a bizarre statement declaring that same sex marriage could lead to a new “stolen generation,” and would inevitably lead to children being taught the “mechanics” of gay sex acts in school sex education classes.
In a rambling statement, the Lobby’s managing director Lyle Shelton said that Kevin Rudd’s overnight change-of-mind ignored the consequence of “robbing children of their biological identity” through “same-sex surrogacy” and what it calls “other assisted reproductive technologies”.
“Marriage is not just an affectionate relationship between two people regardless of gender,” Mr Shelton said. “Marriage has always been about providing stability and biological identity for children wherever possible.
“What Mr Rudd has not considered is whether or not it is right for children to be taken through technology from their biological parent so that ‘married’ same-sex couples can fulfil their desires.”
Mr Shelton’s concerns over same sex marriage range beyond his fear of robbing children of their identity.
He also fears potential backlashes against the church.
“Wherever same sex marriage or equivalents have been legislated, Christians have been pursued by activists,” he said.
Look out Christians. We’re coming to get you!
“Christian businesses have been closed down, public servants and even pastors hauled into court and fined for exercising their conscience,” said Mr Shelton.
“No government has the right to create these vulnerabilities for the church-going twenty per cent of the population in order to allow the point two per cent who will take advantage of this to redefine marriage,”he said.
But not every Christian sees it that way. Reverend Ben Gilmour, a minister at Paddington Uniting Church in Sydney, describes Mr Shelton’s comments on the so-called new stolen generation as “fear mongering”.
“I think that that kind of statement really victimises any child who may not have been brought up in a heterosexual marriage,” Rev Gilmour told The Gutter Trash.
“It’s an abusive thing to say.”
Rev Gilmour said Mr Shelton’s comments about churchgoers being “vulnerable”were laughable.
“I think the argument of playing the victim is a bit rich,”he said.
“I would say there are lots of Christians who do not support the ACL. My community in Paddington would say they don’t support it.”
The ACL appears to have developed an unusual PR policy of linking same sex marriage to other social issues.
In a statement last year, it said smoking was healthier than gay marriage.
It concluded its statement today by saying that “all major Australian church denominations officially oppose same sex marriage.”
God bless them.
theguttertrash.com 
Cranks like the ACL have disproportionate representation.
They’ve really outdone themselves, for sheer hysterical, godbothering repulsiveness, this time though.
A big FUCK YOU! to the Australian Christian Lobby…
The question is though Boss, why does Julia Gillard feel that she needs to have them “onside?”
We all know that cuntface Abbott would pander to them, but why an atheist spinster…???
I don’t have a reasonable answer to that, reb.
I’d hazard to say it’s focus group based (?)…although, as I said, the ACL don’t really represent a majority of sane voters. They’d only get traction with the loons who believe in twisted literal interpretations of The Book Of Lies; and those who have far too much concern with the actions of people they have never met whose actions have zero influence upon their own ugly, judgemental, bigotry.
Why she’d be worried about breaking a promise to the ACL, when she’s demonstrated a willingness to break many promises to other, far more credible ‘groups’, is beyond me. I’d have thought that the ACL was one lobby group worth spurning. They have their heads up their arses and most reasonable people are aware of that.
She is to be commended for declaring her Atheism. Not too many pollies I know of have the cojones to do that. It’s more common for them to ‘pretend’ to be religious.
However, when you juxtapose her self declaration with her pandering to the ACL, it certainly does make the bile rise.
Just another dumb stance on her way to political oblivion, I’d suggest.
Did I mention…FUCK the ACL! & FUCK BOB SATANMARIA!…? 😉
As for cuntface…well, we can all look forward to his fantastical influences & despicable social conservatism in the near future.
If he does lay it on too thick, he’ll piss off more average joes than he appeases.
Jools is more concerned with losing the Muslim vote in western Sydney. God botherers of all persuasions are pathetic.
‘The main Islamic organisation, the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, has backed an election day poll on gay marriage – but also questioned the right of non-believers to cast a vote on the ”religious institution” of marriage.
‘Keysar Trad, the assistant secretary of the Federation of Islamic Councils, said: ”Let’s have a referendum but a referendum of this nature is a little strange if people who don’t believe in God are allowed to tell people who do believe in God about a religious matter.
”Marriage is a religious union under God, it has always been and should always be. God sets the rules, not Parliament.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/muslims-join-christians-on-gay-marriage-referendum-call-20130430-2iq99.html#ixzz2Tv6nCWb9
“If he does lay it on too thick, he’ll piss off more average joes than he appeases.
I think he’ll have Howard somewhere in the background imparting his “wisdom” like some sort of Yoda figure —– “WorkChoices my son, don’t go there, fraught with danger it is…”
‘If he does lay it on too thick, he’ll piss off more average joes than he appeases.’
He’s unlikely to be obstructionist and out of sync with public sentiment.
El gordo, makes a good point, which may explain the pandering to the ACL.
Perhaps the PM is actually pandering to a larger Religious Conservatism? which would certainly include the (arguably more) social conservatism of the muslim community. Real Politik.
Howard always struck me as a religious pretender; he was a pragmatist. Abbott, however, is the real McCoy; a fair dinkum believer in fables & stone age morality.
If Abbott is shrewd, he will keep his godbothering well hidden.
If he publicly exposes its stupidity too often, I doubt that it will be a net positive for the Coalition.
None of Abbott’s family are practicing catlicks, as his daughter Bridget explains.
“A lot of people when they think of Dad becoming prime minister, they think his policies are all going to be reflective of his faith but we’re his children and we have grown up with it so I guess we reflect it but he has never forced it upon us, never said you have to do this because of what I believe in so I don’t think Australia should think that is how it is either,” Bridget said.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/tony-abbotts-daughters-bridget-and-frances-speak-about-claims-their-daggy-dad-is-a-misogynist-and-more/story-fncynjr2-1226609192816#ixzz2TvCEbQvL
I don’t like the way that higher echelon MP’s roll out their families as character witnesses. It smacks of stagemanaged spin & the apparent necessity to address some perceived lack in the eyes of the public.
I see Abbott’s use of his wife & daughters in this manner as precisely that, writ large.
This is a mob of loons. If Abbott has any political sense he will distance himself from them and figure out how to allow enough of his MPs to vote for marriage equality now and have it passed.
It will be a hot, defining issue in the next parliament, and won’t be stymied by a political hypocrite like Gillard. The next ALP leader is likely to adopt a position of rationality on it.
” I don’t like the way that higher echelon MP’s roll out their families as character witnesses.
It doesn’t bother me too much. An ALP politician once advised that people only vote for politicians they would be willing to have as neighbours.
Families make politicians appear human, normal.
Yes, Tom, but it’s unconvincing & transparent.
How many families are gonna do anything other than spout pleasantries?
It’s meaningless.
Honestly toilet, the monk is a nice bloke and his wife and daughters are rational, intelligent people.
Even though his staffers have instigated these family scenes, the electorate still think he’s shit.
Hi there people. Back to bring you more fact and evidence, rather than the usual ad hominem arguments pervading here.
http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage … The *real reason* why homosexual activists are pushing for gay marriage.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640/ – study of gay parenting by Associate Professor Mark Regnerus (and a study by Associate Professor Loren Marks)
http://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/ssmsub20130301 – study of effect of recognition of same-sex marriage by Dr Patricia Morgan
http://pfox.org/ex-gay-questions-answers.pdf … Homosexuals wouldn’t carry out further hypocrisy by mistreating or lacking empathy towards former homosexuals, would they?
Slanted much?
🙄
Hilarious sources, all coming under the umbrella of PantswettersRUs.
No actual convincing, non-partisan argument which in any way, other than nervous prognosticating, justifies the paranoia & resistance from predictable quarters towards same sex marriage.
A quick Google of the various mastheads associated with those links illustrates the origin of the tripe.
Fuck their god.
God is not good or great and only vacuous individuals have faith in this entity.
Amen…
“No government has the right to create these vulnerabilities for the church-going twenty per cent of the population in order to allow the point two per cent who will take advantage of this to redefine marriage,”he said.
These Fuckwits™ just don’t get stats do they … what about the 76% … the majority … duh!
Hypocrisy writ large as usual …
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I see G found its way back here … 😯
“It will be a hot, defining issue in the next parliament, and won’t be stymied by a political hypocrite like Gillard.”
The outer suburbs barely even think about the topic. Someone just should get it done early in the term and stop wasting time on more debate.
What pisses a lot of people off is the continued debate on matters they dont give a toss about and not on matters that affect them.
What pisses a lot of people off is the continued debate on matters they dont give a toss about and not on matters that affect them.
Yep, like the NBN … just get it done …
(I went on a very long and soul-searching journey, and discovered that neither Adam nor Eve were without a single-parent origin and upbringing, so two our fathers or our mothers is bound to be ideal, just as it has been since the day dot, with Our Father Who Art and a Mother Mary Full Of; and that Jesus was of the opinion that marriage didn’t exist in Heaven because there were only unisex angels to dance the primitive fandango with one another on a head of a pin. Otherwise, that Life on Earth, perhaps including an interface of the earthly with a Holy Rib and/or a Holy Spirit Come Down, doesn’t really mind how the helices of inter-relationship and (re)generation happen, or who does the living, and perhaps rearing, of (more) life(s). So, basically, it’s up to us how we think and act about these matters. And, having thought about them, there’s really only one big-picture conclusion to draw, despite the ACL’s apparent obsession with the anathematisation of diagrammatic micro-mechanics. Although, I’m not really sure about some of the more esoteric of the Biblical renditions; I’d probably need much better diagrams than those generally provided to reach a fuller understanding. And, that’s all I have to say about that, before moving on to discussing the programmatic specificity of persistent leadership speculation consequent upon epiphanic ruminations with and without a My Left Foot’s Last of the Mohican’s Honest Abe Lincoln’s change in position.)
(Scratch My Left, and insert My Beautiful Laundrette’s, please, Tom Waterhouse.)
Awesome…
It appears atheists keep ungodly hours.
At Dawn They Sleep…
But Not Forever …
BTW … I haven’t seen a comment from you on Australia’s New Stolen generation?
here’s a couple of questions for you
1. What are your thoughts on gay marriage?
2 Are you happy with the concept of gay parenting?
As though this issue is somehow coupled in with Leftist Catholic hate, TB has “insisted” that I submit an opinion on this issue. I generally avoid this topic because to me the fight is irrelevant.
When I married Mrs Sancty, the Government had nothing to do with it. Their approval/sanction or otherwise had absolutely no bearing on the commitment I was making to Mrs Sancty. I would have made the same commitment whether it was state or church sanctioned or not. So I don’t fully understand why the issue is so important to the gay community or even those opposed. It is a far bigger and more personal thing than that.
I don’t get homosexuality, but it’s not really for me to get. If one bloke feels attracted to another bloke both sexually and emotionally in the way I am to Mrs Sancty, and wants to make the same lifelong commitment that I have, then do it. You don’t need a Government or Church to say that’s ok. It’s kind of nice if your friends and family do but in a free country, even that’s not a be all and end all.
Gay parenting is a slightly different issue. I have a mental picture that parenting is so important it requires both a father and a mother to be achieved perfectly. But the world isn’t perfect. There are single parents, abusive parents, addicted parents, even largely absent parents. How in a world like that can I possibly be pragmatically opposed to gay parents? Does it fit my ideal view of the world? No. My little girl has hip dysplasia (it’s cureable) and as I held her crying between 3am and 4 am this morning (to give Mrs Sancty a chop out) and then handed her over it was patently clear the importance to a child of a mum. Similarly, especially with Li’l Sancty who’s 2yo, there are occasions when it is equally obvious the importance of a dad. It isn’t about gay rights or women’s rights or men’s rights. It’s about children’s rights. Parenting is a privilege, being properly parented is a right.
That said, it is an imperfect world and if we’re going to get into the business of deciding who should or shouldn’t be afforded the privilege of parenting, then the focus should really be directed towards the abusive, the absent, and the addicted. Sexuality as an issue is so relatively small it’s irrelevant.
Very well put Snacty, even though I have an opposing view.
Thank’s, James …
I think having two loving parents, whether they be hetero or homosexual, trumps all.
ie. A dysfunctional mother & father isn’t great, presumably.
Gender has fuck all to do with it, imo.
I’m with toilet on this.
When I married Mrs Sancty, the Government had nothing to do with it. Their approval/sanction or otherwise had absolutely no bearing on the commitment I was making to Mrs Sancty.
I think the government should have everything to do with marriage. Take marriage out of the church’s hands and into a secular registry office. The church’s approval/sanction should have no bearing on any decisions or commitments that people make to each other.
…It isn’t about gay rights or women’s rights or men’s rights. It’s about children’s rights. Parenting is a privilege, being properly parented is a right.
Yes, I agree.
Although children’s rights seem to be forgotten by much of the world and some adults believe their rights are more important than those of their children. There’s a long way to go, supposedly the most intelligent and superior beings on the planet, yet we’re still fighting for human rights…children’s rights…animal rights.
http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp
Elaborate extrapolation is non-requisite in inferring that public toilet will be immediately dismissive of oppositional arguments. Regardless of the veracity, fortitude or indubitability of such arguments, public toilet will be indeed illustrate biased predecision and parochiality in responsiveness. public toilet’s inexorableness appears axiomatic despite presentation of fact and evidence, even that of a scientific rigour.
“Prognostication” is significantly and necessarily aspectual of comprehending the enormity (the original meaning of this term intended) of homosexuality and its consequences (inclusive of homosexual marriage) as presentimental. The incapacity to perceive the imminent accedence of various sexual aberrations and the conduciveness of homosexuality with regard to this accedence is a reprehensible blight of character. Similarly, the incapacity to correlate homosexuality with various sexual aberrations is indicative of an inexistency to predict odious and deleterious practices, philosophies, lifestyles and so forth, of which their effects will be irreversible to society.
An article by Assistant Professor Robert Lopez who had been brought up by gay parents: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/