A Vote For Australian Labor Is A Vote For Incremental Homosexual Totalitarianism And Radical Government Over-Reach 

Good news if you like police states because there’s a 50-50 chance Australia will take one big leap towards it at our coming July 2nd election: all you need to do is vote for Labor.

Now, you may be supportive of homosexuality and redefining the only definition of marriage in all history but before you leap at the following proposal, just imagine the day when such a ploy is used against you because, guaranteed, it will come.

Government always seeks more power and while today they target the enemies of homosexuality, tomorrow they will target other enemies…and maybe you will eventually find yourself on their list when it is too late to do anything.

Given that just over 60% of Australians identify as Christians (compared to the 2-3% of homosexuals), will Christians be getting our own discrimination commissioner from labor?

Yeah, didn’t think so.

Here’s the bad news:

Labor has announced it will appoint an LGBTI discrimination commissioner to the Australian Human Rights Commission if it wins government in July.

Senator Penny Wong announced plans in Melbourne on Saturday morning for a full-time, dedicated commissioner to champion the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex people.

She said the move would help ensure LGBTI Australians feel safer and more included in society.

“The commissioner will address structural discrimination, work towards ensuring our schools, workplaces and communities are free from discrimination, continuing Labor’s tradition of removing discrimination and creating a more fair, more equal Australia,” Ms Wong said.

Senator Wong said the person appointed to the job would have a big task ahead of them.

“The simple truth is we’re not equal … and whilst great progress has been made in the fight for a fairer Australia, our fight is far from over,” she said.

“Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and intersex Australians continue to face discrimination in so many areas of their life.

“The impact of this discrimination is real and it can be deadly.”

Senator Wong said discrimination also included state-sanctioned discrimination and reiterated that the Opposition would legislate for same sex marriage in the first 100 days of the next Parliament if elected.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-21/election-2016-labor-promises-lgbti-discrimination-commissioner/7434660

Advertisements

Progressives Claim That “Christians Are Obsessed With Sex” But Progressives Really Are Obsessed With Sexualizing Very Young Children And Having Access To Them In Schools So They Can Teach Them To Experiment Sexually

The is a quote that is often attributed to Joseph Stalin. Before I quote it, I want to explain that it is a controversial quote and that many people get hung up on its apparent mis-attribution to Stalin. This offended response is a nice smokescreen for ignoring what the quote actually says and, no surprises, there’s a good reason for that: the quote, no matter its source, is a hard-hitting truth that exposes the Marxist-Progressive agenda.

Here it is:

“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”

All of this was at one point accurate – the American population was zealously patriotic and largely moral specifically because of their strong Christian heritage and faith.

Three guesses as to what problems America has today?!

Firstly, Christianity is scorned as a curse in favour of false gods, ideologies, and idols.

Secondly, Christian morality has been usurped with relativity and amorality.

Finally, patriotism has been replaced by a self-loathing of all that America once stood for and a welcome embrace of the Communist ideologies that America once fought so hard.

One more thing that is heartily accepted in America and her Western allies these days: teaching young children to become sexually active and experiment with twisted LGBTIQ-endorsed perversity.

Who needs life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Now, how on earth did a culture known as “Christendom” change so quickly and so completely?

Was it an accident? A mistake?

Of course not – a lot of people worked very hard to completely alter America and disconnect the nation from its history.

The same is true in most Western nations and Australia is no exception.

It began early in the century but found its voice with the sexual revolution in the 1960’s. Paraded as “liberation”, it was in fact anarchy that has lead us down the road of faultless divorce, abortion-on-demand, a plague of STD’s epitomised by HIV AIDS, normalising homosexuality, and now the sexualisation of children no older than toddlers.

Consider the following article by Jennifer Oriel:  

There are few forms of predation that offend our common morality more than child sexual abuse. During the 1970s, paedophile groups capitalising on the sexual liberation movement sought to redefine their exploitation of youth as an expression of children’s sexual rights, self-determination and autonomy. Groups such as the North American Man/Boy Love Association claimed children were sexual beings and sought to repeal age of consent laws to liberate their sexuality. They were welcomed by fringe elements of the neo-Marxist minorities movement that advocated sexual libertarian ideology under Queer and “sex positive” politics. Today, the discourse on children’s sexual rights and the belief they are sexual beings are invoked to justify school programs that sexualise youth at ever younger ages.

The Andrews’ Labor left government in Victoria invokes neo-Marxist rhetoric to defend questionable school programs that encourage the sexualisation of children. The Safe Schools Coalition (SSC) and Building Respectful Relationships programs were introduced using minority politics as the rationale. In each case, a state-designated minority group and political cause are aligned in a program of social change that uses youth as change agents. Program designers create a health case for government funding without causal evidence to validate a relationship between program activities and core objectives. The Safe Schools program was created for the minority group LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex) for the cause of anti-bullying with the stated objective to improve health outcomes.

The program encourages young people to become change agents for the cause of sexual ­diversity. When the program was criticised by conservative Senator Cory Bernardi, Labor leader Bill Shorten accused him of homophobia. After community outrage following revelations that program co-founder Roz Ward designed Safe Schools as part of a Marxist social change strategy, the liberal coalition withdrew commonwealth funding beyond 2017. Despite the Marxist objective of the Safe Schools program, or perhaps because of it, Daniel Andrews continues to defend it. His education minister James Merlino vilified politicians concerned about the hard Left’s indoctrination of children, calling them “bigots”. 

Unfortunately, the SSC debacle is not isolated. It has transpired that the Andrews government has produced another school program that sexualises children. As with the SSC program, Building Respectful Relationships (BRR) began with a state-designated minority group, women, aligned with the important cause of domestic violence prevention. The case for government funding was again framed as a health imperative, namely, the prevention of violence against women. And once again, the program was introduced in schools without causal evidence linking its exercises to the stated objective. Like Safe Schools, the BRR program promotes a radical agenda divorced from its stated program objective. It promotes the sexualisation of children by inculcating techniques and beliefs centred on the premise that children are sexual.

In the program instructors are encouraged to sexualise children, and children to sexualise themselves and their peers. They are asked to view highly sexualised personal ads and write their own, discuss transgenderism and anal sex. Program authors acknowledge that one exercise may cause “disassociation” in children. Sexualising and inducing a dissociative state in children are methods of paedophilic predation. They are not methods of domestic violence prevention. It is increasingly common to find the sexualisation of very young children promoted as part of sex education in schools. In 2009, the United Nations produced International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education. The first iteration met with controversy after conservatives revealed it sexualised prepubescent children by promoting masturbation.

NGOs have joined the UN in a push for radical sexual programs aimed at youth under the auspices of sexual diversity and sexual health. The International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) claims that “the taboo on youth sexuality is one of the key forces driving the AIDS epidemic”. In fact, the premature sexualisation of youth, especially the exploitation of girls for prostitution, have been key drivers of HIV transmission in Southeast Asia and Africa for ­decades. Despite the fact, the IPPF asserts repeatedly that “young people are sexual beings” and criticises the Catholic Church for imposing barriers on young people, denying “pleasurable and positive aspects of sex”. Its solution is comprehensive sexuality education, which it describes as perhaps “the single most important gift that parents can offer to their children”.

The Netherlands government promotes comprehensive sexuality education in what some call the Dutch model. Under the Dutch model, schoolchildren begin sexual programs at four years of age. Modules for young children include “what feels nice” and “does bare make you blush?” Lessons marketed under the “Spring Fever” package include “being naked”, a module that explores nudity, undressing and being in the bath. It is unclear why any adult would solicit an account of how a child undresses or why the Dutch state would mandate such discussion in schools. CSE advocates defend their programs with studies that indicate efficacy, but mainly in comparison to abstinence programs.

There is a more moderate middle path that provides children requisite knowledge in biology, safety from violence and mutual respect without encouraging their sexualisation in activities that resemble grooming. The sexualisation of childhood by governments and NGOs should be a source of broad community concern. The state has no business interfering in childhood by conditioning children’s sexual responses. As a whole, parents remain the best arbiters of their children’s morality and guardians of their development. Australian children are ranked 14th in literacy and 19th in mathematics according to OECD reports. Governments should take remedial classes in teaching kids the basics of reading, writing and arithmetical instead of indulging messianic pretensions to parenting by proxy.

Even if Stalin never said it, I am saying it and I am saying that the Marxists clearly took its advice and have successfully weakened America and the West, perhaps fatally.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/14/ben-carson-cites-stalin-gets-quote-wrong.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/protect-kids-from-marxist-sexualisation-programs/news-story/2d4f796c2c53c26c22320df709719f7a

Good News: Target Beginning To Pay For Promoting Insane Transgender Toilet Policy

When you want to do something stupid, you will pay a price.

Here’s to hoping Target keep on paying and change their foolish policies back to ones that actually protect employees and customers instead of encouraging perverts, molesters, and rapists to access women and children.

Read it and smile:

After more than 1.1 million people pledged to boycott Target, celebrities and corporations alike are having second thoughts about crossing Americans on such a consensus issue. The decision by the retail giant is not only sparking massive backlash, but it’s helping the country get a real picture of the controversy in North Carolina. It’s also shown liberals that without the big media’s cover, twisting the facts of the law, they’re all by themselves. There’s even more evidence of that this week, as more singers are keeping their concert dates in North Carolina than canceling them. Even more telling, not one business has threatened to leave the state after seeing what happened to the retail giant — which has taken a $2.5 billion hit since letting grown men in women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. After executives announced the change, shares dropped 6 percent in just 10 days.

And the rest of the market is taking note. Rockers Cyndi Lauper and Mumford and Sons refused to cancel their stop in the Tar Heel State, and instead promised to donate the proceeds to LGBT organizations. This is what happens when you stand up to bullies! They leave. And the same thing would have eventually happened in Indiana, Georgia, and South Dakota if those governors would have had the courage to stand up for religious freedom. Most country stars, meanwhile, never abandoned fans in the first place. One of the biggest names on the scene, Florida Georgia Line, never hesitated. “We love North Carolina and our fans there, so we’re gonna play. We are going to be there for sure. For sure.” Scott McCreery, Cam, and Chris Land didn’t blink either. “I think there are bigger things in the world to be thinking about,” Chris Jansen told reporters. “So I think you can kind of get where I lean on that subject, right? You have to perform for the fans.”

For Target, the bad news keeps piling up. Employees are going public with their concerns — not just about the company’s agenda, but about their job security. If the financial losses keep up, “I’m worried that it will cost jobs. I’m wondering if they care about families or they care about families of team members that lose their jobs,” one said. Even more problematic, the clash is dragging down Target’s image. The negative feedback is already damaging the company’s brand, Forbes warns. “The number of people who said they would consider shopping at Target the next time they needed something from a department store dropped from 42% to 38%, as measured by the YouGov BrandIndex.” And that’s just in a week and a half!

Making matters worse, a woman’s video chasing a stalker out of the underwear section of a Florida Target store is going viral. As most Americans know, these incidents are only going to increase, as shoppers find more men in restrooms and changing rooms. Of course, as AFA’s Tim Wildmon points out in USA Today, “There is a simple solution to this controversy for Target. Gender-specific facilities (men’s bathrooms/fitting rooms, women’s bathrooms/fitting rooms) would be maintained, and a single-occupancy, unisex option would be provided for the transgendered community.” Clearly, Target is more interested in making a political point. And now they’re paying for it.

Who knows how many innocent victims will also pay? That’s the sobering question Kaeley Triller asks in a compelling piece for The Federalist. She’s a rape survivor who says her “heart starts to race” just reading about these reports. “They can’t be serious. Let me be clear: I am not saying that transgender people are predators. Not by a long shot. What I am saying is that there are countless deviant men in this world who will pretend to be transgender as a means of gaining access to the people they want to exploit, namely women and children. It already happens. Just Google Jason Pomares, Norwood Smith Burnes, or Taylor Buehler, for starters… Do these companies know,” she asks, that more than 99 percent of single-victim incidents are committed by males? That they are experts in rationalization who minimize their number of victims? Don’t they know that insurance companies highlight locker rooms as a high-risk area for abuse that should be carefully monitored and protected? Don’t they know that one out of every four little girls will be sexually abused during childhood, and that’s without giving predators free access to them while they shower?”

As a mom, she says, what about her rights? “What of my right to do my darndest to insist that the first time my daughter sees the adult male form it will be because she’s chosen it, not because it’s forced upon her? What of ouremotional and physical rights?” All too often, they take a backseat to the radical ideology of the Left. Read why in Peter Sprigg’s new piece for the Tulsa World.

http://barbwire.com/2016/05/06/stock-awe-shoppers-dump-shares-target-blitz/

Dear ABC, Crowdfunded Illustrated Homosexual Fairytails Are Not Headline News But The Dangers Of The Homosexual Lifestyle Sure Are

If I successfully Crowdfunded a fifth leg for my dog, it would no more be “news” than this joke.

What would be news however is an LGBT Aesop-styled fable about the massively increased prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases in the LGBT community. Or drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and suicide.

I mean, if your are going to try and pawn homosexuality and other abnormal, dangerous and destructive desires and disorders onto the general public, at least be honest about what is under the hood.

I’m loath to post any of this propoganda masquerading as “news” but there is one important comment which sums up the key problem here:

“The conflict does not arise from a coming out story or someone struggling with their sexuality or a disapproving parent. In this utopian kingdom, sexuality isn’t questioned,” he said.

Ah utopia! Y’know, the key underlying promise of Marxism/Humanism/Atheism.

Otherwise know as a “lie”.

So these authors are under the insane delusion that total sexual anarchy is actually the gateway to utopia – a place where nobody asks any questions or, at least, the wrong type of questions. Just like in Communist countries! 

The threat of the gulag seems to have that effect on questioning types.

With that disturbing lie exposed, let’s consider a very contrary reality to this delusional LGBT fantasy: the massively increased prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and suicide in the LGBT community are all equally high in all the homosexual-friendly cities of the world including San Francisco, Rio De Janiro and Sydney. 

The LGBT lobby are so eager to represent homosexuals as victims that they will overplay their hand and confess the reality that homosexuals still turn to drugs, alcohol, and suicide even when they are embraced, supported, and celebrated.

Regardless of location, consider the following cited article by Matt Slick that clearly identifies homosexuals as victims but most importantly, victims of their own dangerous lifestyle choices and sexual practises:

Okay, so now that we have something to work with, let’s take a look at homosexuality and see if it is beneficial or harmful to society. Let’s start with disease and see what the statistics teach us.

Disease

2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection: “Men who have sex with men [MSM] remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections. While the CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Young MSM (ages 13 to 29) were most severely affected, representing more than one quarter of all new HIV infections nationally (27 percent; 12,900 in 2009).” (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html)

“A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection.” (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm).

25% of HIV infected in U.K. unaware of their infection: “Of the estimated 86,500 people living with HIV in the United Kingdom, about 25 percent are not aware they are infected, the Health Protection Agency said recently.” (The Body, thebody.com/content/art59714.html)

Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others, especially when you note that in both the U.S. and U.K. large percentages of HIV infected people don’t know they are infected. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.

Financial Impact

$12.1 Billion annual cost in US: “Future treatment for the 40,000 people infected with HIV in the United States every year will cost $12.1 billion annually, a new study showed.” (msnbc.msn.com/id/15528984/ns/health-aids/t/new-us-hiv-cases-cost-billion-year/)

$1.5 Billion Cost for 2001 in Canada: “June 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia–HIV/AIDS cost Canadians more than $2 billion in 1999 in direct and indirect costs. Health care costs accounted for about $560 million; prevention, research and supports to AIDS victims for about $40 million; and lost economic production due to premature death and disability for nearly $1.5 billion.” (gpiatlantic.org/releases/pr_cost_aids.htm)

The financial drain on society due to the medical costs of HIV is huge. The greater the impact, the more damage it does to the society’s financial stability.

Mental Health

How is the mental health of homosexuals and lesbians? Does it have the same bell-curve as the rest of society? No, it does not. Take a look at these statistics and note that the mental health issues are not due to social pressure and rejection by the majority of society who considers homosexuality to be aberrant.

” . . . homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com . . . the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle . . . the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual . . . While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark–the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality–both die on average in their early 50’s, or in their 40’s if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s.” (onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614)

73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. 70% percent said they believed that the homosexuals’ problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization. Study by Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110-111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker).” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Sexual Molestation

Higher sexual molestation with homosexual parents: “A disproportionate percentage–29 percent–of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent. . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.” (P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772″ (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php).

Certainly, no one wants children molested by adults. (Unfortunately, pedophilia is now being pushed as another ‘sexual orientation’ see http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517). Society needs to protect its children–not subject them to sexual pressures and molestation. However, the homosexual lifestyle clearly presents an increased threat to our children.

Sexual Promiscuity

Sexual promiscuity helps support the spread of disease. What are the promiscuity statistics of the homosexual community? Shockingly bad!

28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: “Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexuals. “There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216, McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253, Wiederman, “Extramarital Sex,” 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)

Does anyone think that such mind-blowing promiscuity is healthy for any society, especially when the homosexual community is particularly subject to HIV infection? Homosexuals are members of society, and their behavior, which is a manifestation of their “orientation,” is extremely dangerous. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-12/promised-land-long-overdue-lgbti-fairytale-comes-to-life/7320074
https://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous

Gender Theory Is Queer With 58 Varieties And Counting

When I play football (the European variety, that is), my favourite way to score a goal is to stand directly in front of the goals about twenty meters out, take my harpoon and fire it into a blimp, ride the blimp to China, set up my tent on the beach and write out copies of famous quotes while digging in the sand with my toes.

What I wrote just then was not only stupid but a direct and intentional insult to anyone who knows even the rudiments rise of football.

In the same way, gender theory takes something that every human being ever – the most decorated to the most stupid – has understood perfectly well and shreds it into meaningless.

And if you don’t agree with gender theory, then you are responsible for the incredibly high rate of suicide among the community of people who define themselves by ridiculous and fabricated definitions.

Like with all Leftist creations perversions, gender theory demands that the majority of normal people submit to not only the minority but such an insignificantly small and confused minority that it breaks new ground, even for Leftists.

And like with all Leftist endeavours, this select group of people who constitute the transgender community serve as no more than worthless stepping-stones on the way to defeating their ideological enemies, namely God and anyone who stands with him.

Clearly, God always wins but he frequently lets people endure the consequences of their stupid choices and the contemporary West is no different – and boy are we beginning to endure but I think we ain’t seen nothing yet.

It might seem harsh, even unloving, to say that abandoning the God-given, intrinsically defined boundaries of biological sex is “stupid” and the only response I can offer is: no, it’s not.

While the Left prattle on about how they are the most caring, understanding, tolerant bunch around by highlighting various duped groups like the allegory mix of the LGBTIQ community, I’m going to point to the greater majority of people who don’t make up some special interest group and say that I care about them.

My 97% beats the Leftist selective and frankly intolerant 3%.

Of course, I’m really just messing around here because I actually care about the LGBTIQ community more than Leftists, who are using them to win the culture and gain political power. I want them to know Jesus, the only person who can help any human being.

Personally, leading confused people into greater confusion comes squarely under the definition of contempt and hatred but hey, that can be deconstructed too I’m sure.

Like the parent who cares enough about their child to say “no” and not give into every dangerous and foolish demand, I agree with God and say “no” to the demand to deconstruct and redefine essential realities and institutions including biological sex, sexuality, and marriage.

I say that “no” specifically because no matter how much you want to be a boy, if you aren’t one to begin with then it’s not in anyone’s interests to pretend that you are.

Note that I never said I had the power to stop Leftists from giving this cultural trainwreck their all and doing serious damage to society (I can’t stop Iran or North Korea from their evil machinations either) but I am saying that I won’t bow the knee. I won’t bow it to the individual, for whom I care, nor to the agenda-driven groups and organisations that really just represent the worldviews competing for dominance in the West.

If what I’m writing here isn’t resonating with you, perhaps reading the below article from the Australian will bring back mental clarity:

What’s the deal with kids these days? With 58 gender categories to choose from, sexual and gender identity are part of the Zeitgeist.

Ask Josh Han, the queer officer with Sydney University’s Student Representative Council. “It’s about deconstructing ­societal views of what it means to be a man or a woman,” he says. “If you only have two genders, there are limited interactions. But if you have a diversity of gender identities you don’t have these closed categories. It means you can have way more than 58 gender categories.”

Among those 58 ­options, f irst listed on Facebook, are bigender, gender questioning, gender variant, pangender, intersex and 26 versions of trans, transgender and trans­sexual. Plain old male and ­female didn’t make the list.

But don’t think for a moment that Han is part of a fringe movement. At campuses across the country students are campaigning for gender-neutral bathrooms and official records to state chosen, not birth, names.

Kyol Blakeney, the president of Sydney University’s SRC, says these are important issues. “A lot of people who transition have a chosen name that is different to their legal name. If they go to class and their legal name is called out it can be horrifying for them.”

Ditto on the prosaic business of going to the bathroom. “For a queer person or a trans person to use a male bathroom can be a ­humiliating or dangerous exper­ience because of physical and verbal assault,” says Blakeney.

Signs of gender fluidity are everywhere. Former Kardashian clan patriarch Bruce Jenner transitioned into Caitlyn on the cover of Vanity Fair this month. A Gucci advertising campaign on The Australian’s website features gender-unspecific models. And, as revealed in today’s The Weekend Australian Magazine, children as young as six are telling their parents they no longer identify with their assigned birth gender.

Sarah Maddison, a gender studies expert from the University of Melbourne, argues it’s not a trend. “We’ve seen over the past 40 or 50 years an absolute transformation in how we think about gender and sexuality,” she says.

“Is it that more people are coming out and identifying with ­diverse gender identities because it’s of the moment? I suspect the more likely scenario is that these young people have always been lurking in the shadows.”

Toby Miller, the Sir Walter Murdoch Professor of Cultural Policy Studies at Murdoch University, says one only needs to look to Andy Warhol’s Factory and David Bowie’s Diamond Dogs days to see the current fashion for gender complexity is nothing new.

And there are indigenous cultures in Asia and the Americas “that have several different ways of categorising genders and in-­betweens”.

There is no doubt, however, that social media and reality TV are driving the trend. “Reality TV has been intrinsic to normalising some of these ideas,” Miller says.

And the ubiquitousness of ­social media means anyone who feels different can easily find a tribe to identify with on Facebook. But is it narcissism or hyper-indiv­iduality? Not at all, says Blythe S Worthy, the women’s officer with Sydney University’s SRC. “That is almost saying it’s attention-seeking. That is not the case; it’s an identity issue.”

Karen Brooks, an honorary senior research fellow with the Centre for Critical and Cultural Studies at the University of Queensland, is not so convinced.

“It’s a way of making ourselves more interesting,’’ she says. “Like tattoos and body piercings, the search for individuality is almost the new conformity.”

And you thought my football story didn’t make sense?!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/gender-identity-a-puzzle-with-58-varieties/story-e6frgcjx-1227446403200

When Homosexuality Met Feminism

I can understand why people just give and support the homosexual lobby and their demands.

They are playing the long game and and its wearisome. The Marxists refer to it as “the long march through the institutions of power” and it’s really beginning to pay off and homosexuality is legally deemed the equivalent of marriage and feelings about “gender” become the same thing as biological sex.

The long march through the education system has led to radical social change instituted through government and the legal system.

Now, the Judeo-Christian foundations of our nations are being increasingly substituted with moral relativism and we are at the point where there are enough people in academia to back any claim, no matter how ridiculous or contradictory.

Organisations like Australia’s tax-payer funded news and media organisation, The ABC, are filled with individuals and groups who wholeheartedly agree with this radical Marxist doctrine of social upheaval.

At every opportunity, they post stories and commentary that gives a voice to minority groups like the LGBT community as though they were in fact a significant majority of the population.

They are so blatantly onesided and bold in their distortion of truth than reading their ongoing propaganda can be draining and intimidating, especially when presented through disturbingly biased and manipulative formats such as their “Fact Check” articles.

Their most recent claim is that after a rigorously honest look at the facts, there can be no doubt that homosexual parents are equally as effective as parents in comparison with the biological mother and father of a child.

They tell us these are the facts so this must be the last word on the matter, right?

Should we even bother to try and rebut this anymore? Certainly we should and I will continue to but not here. Many others do a splendid job of that elsewhere.

This stems to the fight between worldviews so it’s better to go straight to the root.

Simply, humanism’s antichrist foundation hates the creator but like the creation and it consequently crosses itself in paradox as it tries to keep its cake and eat it too.

Humanism’s worship of science as the only means to know anything crashes headlong into its postmodern deconstruction of known reality into a buffet of relativity, producing an affirmation and celebration of homosexuality over and against the biological impotence of homosexuality.

And that’s just where the rabbit hole begins…

Consider humanism’s massive contradiction of homosexual marriage and parenting in light of feminism.

The claim that two men can parent a child as well as the biological mother and father leaves a dent in the central tenant of the feminist ideology, which claims women are not only equal to men but must necessarily participate in every level of society to achieve equality.

Apparently that does not extend to marriage and child-rearing where women aren’t actually required at all because, as the religiously humanist ABC attests, two men can do the same job.

So which is it? 

If you are willing to deny the sacred bond between mother and child and say that dad and his male partner offer exactly the same thing, then the logical implication is that men could do the same job in something so trivial as a company or in government and so women aren’t needed there after all…especially after all that complaining about women’s rights and equality.

It all becomes very confusing when you add in “gender”, which means that if you feel like a woman and “identify” as one, then you are one even if you have a penis and testicles.

Would feminists be happy with a company full of people who identify as “women” who all happen to have penises? Or if the government was full of these same penis-equipped “women”?

Feminism seems to rely pretty heavily on a fixed conception of women being women, even though it deconstructs the role of women. Gender, on the other hand, goes super-postmodern and deconstructs the idea of “women” into a feeling and a choice. 

Even if we stick to simple, clearly defined identities based on the archaic idea of different yet compatible biological sexes, can a mother ever teach a son how to be a man and fulfil the desire of a son to have relationship with his father? Can a father do this for his daughter?

If a woman identifies as a man and is in a lesbian relationship, can she teach her son how to love and respect women and how to stand against the natural tendency of men towards either passivity, aggression, and often both?

Is it fair to say that there are actually concrete differences between men and women and that men can’t identify with some things women experience and vice versa?

Or do I, as a man, have the right to talk to women about their periods, their pregnancies, their emotions, their longings, and their weaknesses as though I am a woman because I identify as a woman?

Back to the topic of marriage and raising children, what if there were people out there who refused to identify dangerous lifestyles as dangerous? What if instead, they identified the proven standard of history – a husband and wife for life – as just one inconsequential option among many choices and combinations? 

What if, because of this crazy deconstruction of society through relativism, the vast majority became subject to the insignificant minority, even against the best interests of society as a whole?

And what if, no matter how you identify things, you will one day be accountable for what actually is, not what you feel or want or wish?

This post didn’t end up where I thought it would – just writing about this stuff seems to do that so imagine, if you can, where a society that practises all this will end?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudi_Dutschke

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-24/same-sex-parenting-fact-or-fiction/6616352