marriage – Bruce Llama

The Moonbattery of the Lamestream Snarfle Wife

Bruce — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 22:59:10 +0000

Another day and another Uncle Billy blog. When I read his latest I snorted yoghurt out of my snarfle. Love Lllama had to get the paper lace doilies to clean up.

Consider this caption beneath a pic in the article: “Former Masterchef contestant Sam Gant and wife Celeste prepare for their new venture at South Melbourne Market.” Now for those not in the know, Sam happens to be a woman, a female. So run that by me again! Her wife? And said with a straight face? Puh-leese!

The article refers to her throughout as “Ms Gant”. So what then, pray tell, is her other? And what is Sam? The husband? Another wife? An it? When we totally massacre the institution of marriage, we end up in these idiotic situations. If we can call her partner a wife, we might as well also call her a rock, or a kumquat, or a farglesuvjf.

So, yes, we do refer to the same-sex partner as a wife or a husband, depending on their sex. It’s not hard to understand. How idiotic is that! Oh, and I looked up farglesuvjf – I can’t find it in an English dictionary, it might be Swedish…

We are just making things up as we go along We are just inventing words, and taking older established words, gutting them of their meaning, and adding instead anything we want. This is sheer madness. And even more frustrating is the fact that any media outlet would even succumb to this moonbattery.

Oh such frustrations he has to simply invent words, although I don’t see how calling your female partner a wife is an invented idea. Nor has the word been gutted of its meaning. You know, wife – female spouse. Doesn’t seem too mad to me. Moonbattery on the other hand seems like an invented word.

Just how lobotomised are those in the media today that they simply parrot any PC nonsense as if it were gospel truth.

Lobotomised refers to the act of performing a lobotomy. Isn’t that taking an older established word and gutting it of its meaning?

The mental and moral vacuum found in the lamestream media today is absolutely staggering.

Lamestream? Made up word?

The most important principle we can get out of this is to understand this truth: social engineering is always preceded by verbal engineering.

That’s more or less where I snorted out my snarfle.

By use of euphemisms, half-truths, deception, and by simply making language up as you go along, their job of smashing society becomes so much easier. And the militant homosexualists along with their PC buddies in the mainstream media have perfected all this. So now we can talk about a woman and her wife as if we are talking about 2+2 and what that equals.

Homosexualists? A recently made up word by people who what to simply make up language as you go along. And yes, a woman and her wife is as easy as 1 + 1.

Well, I’m off to polish my snarfle with a damp womble. Have a good day.

Canberra’s Nutters Gather to Protest

Bruce — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 23:10:20 +0000

[SOURCE]

The government in the Australian Capital Territory is about to pass legislation making it legal for same-sex couples to get married in the ACT. It’s an interesting step for an Australian state to make, although the Federal Government may attempt to override the new laws through the courts.

Enter the ACL, those wacky christians issued a media release called “Statement by Abrahamic Faith Leaders of Canberra” – that’s a nice way of saying the Jews, Christians and the Muslims.

Below is a copy of a statement of faith by seven faith leaders here in Canberra that was released today ahead of the ACT Marriage Equality Bill that is expected to be debated tomorrow. Whilst not organised by the ACL, the ACL welcomes the statement by the group.

Goodness me, so the ACL wasn’t needed! Shunned by their own faithful!

Seventy percent of Australians identify with an Abrahamic religion – Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Yes, 70% may identify, but that doesn’t mean that they all agree on everything.

As leaders of several of these faith traditions, we have gathered to share our concerns about the ACT Government’s proposed same sex marriage legislation.

These leaders do no represent the 70% by a long shot, trying to argue from authority that they simply don’t have.

We are concerned for the long-term risks of such a Bill for our society.

You are? What are they? Tell us what those long-term risks are? I bet you can’t.

While affirming the inherent dignity of all human beings,

Except if you’re anything other than heterosexual. You’d sooner sack anyone that isn’t just like you. You’d sooner say that the love I have for my love llama is somehow second rate. Some of you that have signed this media release think that gays should be stoned to death. So much for dignity.

our faith traditions also affirm the traditional concept of marriage between a man and a woman as being for the good of the individual, the family and society.

Yes, I agree. Marriage between a man and a woman is good for the individual, the family and society. So is marriage between two people of the same sex. Everyone should be able to get married. In your particular faith feel free to celebrate marriage in the way you want, and those that don’t believe as you can get married and celebrate in the way they like.

We invite the wider community to join with us in calling for the Bill to be subject to community consultation through the normal Legislative Assembly Committee process.

Oh yes, that’s it, it’s not enough that you think you represent 70% of the population you now want the other 30% to join in and see the world your way. Great way to show dignity to each human being. And while you’re at it why don’t you call into question the legitimacy of the passage of the bill in the duly elected parliament of the ACT. Find a way to delay it so you can start spreading more of your vile innuendo.

Imam Adama Konda, Canberra Islamic Centre

Islam – founded by a goat herder and child sex abuser.

Arnold Cummins, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Founded by a man who transcribed the holy book from brass tablets with magic glasses. Both which then disappeared.

Pastor Sean Stanton, Australian Christian Churches, Canberra

Believe that the bible is accurate.

Bishop Trevor Edwards, Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn

Marriage is so important that the church was established so the King of England could have a divorce to marry another women.

Pastor BJ Hayes, Canberra National Adventist Church

Will throw you out of their church if you are gay.

Monsignor John Woods, Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn

Thinks that bread can turn into their god so you can eat him.

Rabbi Shmuel Feldman, Rabbi for Canberra and Region.

Should apologies for inflicting this bunch of nutters on the rest of the world.

Apparently they couldn’t find anyone from the Satanist Society.

Gay Marriage is Harmless, Unless you’re a Homophobic Bigoted christian.

Bruce — Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:43:34 +0000

[SOURCE]

The Australian “We hate the Gays” Christian Lobby has re-published a whole article on the question of whether same-sex marriage is harmless. They got the article from News Weekly. You can’t access the article on News Weekly unless you sign up for an account and they want money for that. News Weekly is run by the National Civic Council who among their aims have this:

Rigorous education which
- Values the acquisition of knowledge as well as the processes of learning and promotes intellectual excellence and disciplines (such as history and philosophy) abandoned by influential educational theorists; and
- Provides the base of knowledge necessary for every person to participate fully as a member of society.

They also have these rather silly statements:

The integrity of the individual, including full legal protection of the right to life for all human beings from fertilisation to natural death.

Judeo-Christian values which provide the cement to hold our society together in opposition to the prevailing view which rejects the concept of the common good and makes the difference between right and wrong, truth and falsehood, a matter of personal preference only rather than objective reality.

Divorce. Opposition to easy divorce laws.

The family. Support for policies which enhance intact families, rejection of lifestyles which undermine family values.

So it’s not hard to write them off as another bunch of christians fundamentalists.

Any way, on to the question of the day…

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: IS IT HARMLESS?

Good questions, lets see what

by Patrick J. Byrne (re-published with the permission of the author)

has to say on the subject.

Same-sex marriage fundamentally changes not only the legal definition of marriage, but all the social, educational, economic, legal and religious institutions that service and support marriage, family and children.

Really? How do you figure that? I’m pretty sure that couples wanting to get married and who are of the opposite sex will still be able to do that. A fundamental change would mean that everyone would have to get married to something different, like a goat, or an alpaca. Marriage Equality simply allows same-sex couples the right to marry. You should really consider it a tweak. I look forward to your reasoning as to how this ‘fundamental’ redefinition changes social, educational, economic, legal and religious institutions that ‘service’ and support marriage as it is.

Schools: If marriage is redefined in law, it would be legal to teach same-sex marriage, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual issues in schools. In fact, the courts may invoke anti-discrimination law to force these issues into schools.

I’m not at all sure what ‘legal to teach same-sex marriage’ is all about. Just explain to me what teaching about same-sex marriage actually means, and why it would be a bad thing. And believe it or not lots of places already have curriculums that include issues on sexuality and the sky is still in the sky. Your claim that the courts may invoke a way to force the issues into schools is a bit of a furphy really. I guess you really just mean into good christian schools. And so what if schools do teach it? Those schools no doubt have a gay population and their rights should surely be included and not excluded, after all your NCC actually wants rigorous education.

The Australian Education Union’s policy declares that “homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and intersex need to be normalised” in education.

You do know that being GLBTI is normal, right? It’s not a surprise. Refer to the rigorous eduction statement above.

In 2006, the NSW Attorney-General’s Department produced a Learn to Include: Teachers Manual for primary schools. It provides a range of resources for teaching about same-sex parents in primary schools.

Oh, I wonder if that’s legal. I bet the AG knows a thing or two about the law. There’s a certainly reality to the manual. Whether you like it or not, same-sex couples have children and guess what, they send them to school. So rather than have the teacher freeze in shock when discovering that one of his students has two mums, a manual will show them the correct response. You could always use the christian manual when dealing with gay parents and ask the child brings them into the playground during playtime so that they can be stoned to death.

Children: Same-sex marriage will greatly affect future children, denying many their birth right to their true biological identity.

Already many people go out of their way to discover who the donors are. It’s utmost in the minds of many eager parents to actually keep track of the biological parents, and that’s just the straight people. Sure, some parents like to hide this sort of facts, but they’re pretty rare. I think most of us these days understand the need to know the history of our beginnings. As to the notion that some right is being denied, I’m not sure what right this is that you refer to or what it even means.

Not only will it result in more children being born of donor conception and surrogacy, but the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual (GLBT) lobby is campaigning to have the birth certificates of children adopted by same-sex couples to be changed to record the same-sex couple in place of the biological parents.

It won’t result in more children being born. Gay people are already doing the children thing, they really are. They achieve it in many ways, its true that it will make it easier, but I don’t expect to see a sudden burst of millions of children being born into same-sex families let alone somehow being denied something.

There’s no issue with a birth certificate reflecting the names of the parents, it prevents all sorts of misunderstandings. There’s other ways to address the record keeping of the donors. And seriously, names on a birth certificate is a reason to stop gay people from getting married?

The Australian Human Rights Commission has recommended — in the interest of same-sex parents — that birth certificates should be open to recording any of the “birth mother, birth father, lesbian co-mother or gay co-father”

There you go, a way to record the relevant information on the birth certificate. Unless you really have no ability to change your thinking and think that somehow a birth certificate with more than a few lines of text on it is really too hard to handle what exactly is the issue here?

This stands in contrast to Article 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which says: “The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.”

No it doesn’t contrast Article 7 at all, in fact it goes further to make sure that all the relevant information is recorded. It’s also interesting to note that the word ‘parents’ doesn’t exclude same-sex couples.

While the GLBT lobby wants to replace biological parents’ names on birth certificates with the names of same-sex partners (“psychological” parents), there have been three inquiries into the rights of donor-conceived children to know their “biological” origins. These inquires were by: the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry (2011), the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) and the NSW Legislative Assembly (2012). 9, 10, 11.

All three inquiries recommended that donor-conceived children should have a right to access their biological mother/father.

Yes, that’s right. It’s why we have inquiries. You seem to be of the mistaken belief that somehow same-sex couples willingly want to hide the biological details of their children’s parentage. I think you’re probably out of touch there. In fact, lots of couples I know go to extraordinary lengths to include the biological parents in the lives of their children. Sometimes the donor doesn’t want any involvement, sometimes they do.

Businesses will also be affected by same-sex marriage, particularly those associated with wedding services — photographers, caterers, function hire places — and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Same-sex marriage law greatly increases the reach of anti-discrimination law.

In the U.S. state of New Mexico, where same-sex marriage is legal, the state’s supreme court last month found photographer Elaine Huguenin guilty under the New Mexico Human Rights Act of refusing to provide her services to a lesbian couple’s wedding.

Two weeks after legislators in the U.S. state of Oregon passed a same-sex marriage law, a local maker of old-fashioned wedding trolleys was forced to shut down his business after being hounded by the GLBT lobby for refusing to supply a lesbian wedding function, according to the Baltimore Sun (December 25, 2012).

The paper noted, “Wedding vendors elsewhere who refused to accommodate same-sex couples have faced discrimination lawsuits — and lost.”

In Europe, a draft piece of European Union law known as the Equal Treatment Directive will, if passed, drastically increase pressure on business, particularly in countries recognising same-sex marriage. It will force businesses to provide goods or services that contravene their consciences on threat of being hauled before the courts if they don’t.

So basically you’d be pleased if a business that thought black people should use the rear door to get into their shop is ok? You would be happy for a business that believes a child with a disability is the result of the sins of her parents and therefore shouldn’t be served in a café? It’s really easy, if businesses want to thrive they serve everyone. It’s actually what they already do. They don’t ask their customers if they’re divorced, a muslim, a jew, a christian or any other arbitrary system of discrimination, so why is it OK for a business to discriminate based on the sexuality of the customer? Short answer, it isn’t.

Churches will gain only temporary exemptions from involvement in same-sex marriages, at best.

Churches already have a raft of ways of only marrying the people they want. That won’t change. The real question is how will a church refuse to marry a couple of their loyal members who are gay? That will be interesting. In any case, marriage is a civil right, not a religious right. Maybe it’s time to take the act of marriage out of the churches.

The whole article is based on nothing at all. It doesn’t stand up to any sort of scrutiny. Doesn’t matter how many footnotes you can stick in, a bit of common sense shows your article to be nothing more than more christian clap-trap that is still driven by the fear that the whole world will turn gay if you even consider that people like me are normal.

So after all that, to answer your question, is it harmless? The answer is yes, you homophobic bigoted fuckwit.

France is at War with the militants homosexualists!

Bruce — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 05:36:33 +0000

[SOURCE]

Oh goodness me! France has allowed teh gays to get teh marriage. You know what that means? Let’s ask Grandpa Uncle Billy:

If you want to know what the end of freedom looks like, simply look at France. With the ruling elites aligning themselves with the radical homosexualist agenda, they have declared war on their own citizens. Things are very dark right now in France, all because the militants have gotten in bed with the powers that be.

It sounds really really bad. Millions being thrown into prison, not a safe place to go at all! All those people being deprived of their freedom! There’s a war going on, the government is locking them all up!

“There is now a first victim to deplore. His name is Nicolas, a 23 year old student from Angers, who was arrested while peacefully protesting against the absurd re-definition of marriage and family by his country’s government. He has now been sentenced to one month of imprisonment for ‘rebellion’.”

“Rebellion.” Did you get that? All dictatorships of course hate any form of resistance and disagreement to the state. He continues, “This judgment apparently is intended as a clear message to all citizens that still dare to oppose the new gay-fascism: we are not going to listen to you, nor engage in any rational argument about the meaning of marriage and the family, but we will simply put you in jail. Dissident opinions will be silenced at all costs.

Wait on a minute… first victim? I can see why Grandpa Uncle see this is a dark period. Of all the protests a person is locked up! There’s so much to worry about. There must be millions more waiting…. so, let’s just test how this peaceful protester, Nicolas Bernard-Buss ended up doing two months for rebellion.

Firstly, the word rebellion and the offence translated from this website:

Is an act of rebellion the violent resistance to a person holding public authority or discharging a public service mission acting in the exercise of its functions, to law enforcement, the orders of the public authority, decisions or judicial warrants.

So, for his peaceful protest he was charged with violent resistance. He probably threw a few punches.

What else about our new peaceful protester against the militant gay lobby?

It seems this (translated from French):

The militant anti-gay marriage movement founder part of “watchers” was sentenced Wednesday, June 19 by the 16 th of Paris criminal court to four months in prison, two suspended for rebellion and provision of an imaginary identity, and a fine of 1,000 euros for denial of his DNA and fingerprints.

So the peaceful protester was violent, gave a false identity and refused to provide his DNA and fingerprints and he’s described as militant. A militant peaceful protest I guess Grandpa?

Billy Billy Billy.

Young Nicolas is now in prison for standing up for what is right. You may well be next.

Well no, he’s been locked up because he gave a false name, refused to provide his fingerprints and something about violence. Millions of cases are no doubt waiting to be tried and the French government are busy building new prisons to house all those charged with ‘peaceful’ rebellion and France with be a homosexual paradise.

But I guess the truth doesn’t work too well for you does it Billy.

Pell Thinks French are Better

Bruce — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 23:37:43 +0000

[SOURCE]

George Hell, his grub of the most high in the catholic church has been crowing like Â a chook that needs its head cut off as it’s stopped laying. Â He likes that some French folk are against marriage equality.

France is different, known for its food and wines, beautiful countryside, and the French Revolution (1789) with its principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, which changed the world. The French think differently. They love ideas.

Really? Â That’s an opening line? Â The French think differently? Â To what, dolphins? Â Last time I checked Australians loved ideas too. Â Australia also has food, wines, beautiful country side and the Eureka Stockade. Â Ok, I’ll give you the French Revolution, but only because people lost their heads.

The Minister for Justice let the cat out of the bag when she told the cardinal that “what is at stake is a reform of civilisation”. He agreed, saying the change would redefine humanity, the roles of men and women and procreation.

You want us to take you seriously. Nice Frock

How will it redefine humanity? Â How would theÂ redefinitionÂ of marriage to include all couples change the role of heterosexual couples having babies? Â It simply won’t. Â Gay couples already live together, have families and generally get on with everyone else. Â Most of them already call themselves married. Â Simply changing marriage rites to include them will not bring the world to an end. Â What it will do is call into question the authority of men in fancy dress living in luxuriousÂ accommodationÂ while spouting bullshit.

He made no appeal to Bible teaching, saying the issue touched the nature of human life. Unlike us, who concentrate on the small number of couples who would enter homosexual marriages, or the short-term practical consequences, many of the French from both sides of the fence realise basic issues are at stake. They know ideas are powerful and will be taught in schools to the next generation.

Does Hell think only the French teach powerful ideas to the next generation? Â I guess what he’s saying is that schools will probably include in their classes information about people being diverse. Â That rather reflects reality.

Â On November 17 hundreds of thousands marched through the streets of Paris and a dozen other cities supporting traditional marriage.

As is their right. Â But rights are not determined by the size of crowds. Â My rights, and your rights are not up for the popular vote. Â Most Australians are not catholic, therefore we should legislate that catholics are not entitled to get married.

The uprising was led by a gossip columnist Frigide Barjot, the socialist Laurence Tcheng from a movement called The Left For The Republican Marriage, and an atheist homosexual Xavier Bongibault, founder of a movement called More Gay Without Marriage.

Not everybody wants to get married, and that’s ok. Â But why would anyone stand in the way of others getting married? Â That simply makes no sense. Â Then there is the ‘uprising’ issue. Â It’s a bit of an insult to the many millions of people who do rise up against their government and suffer for it. Â Think of the middle east as the latest example. Â In this case people marched to protest, the government was not overthrown, and the army was not dispatched to quell the masses. Â It isn’t an uprising.

The feminist philosopher Sylviane Agacinski, wife of a former socialist prime minister, strongly criticised those who claim sexual differences are not founded in nature, but simply ways of thinking, cultural constructs.

There’s a call to authority. Â Not happy with allowing a woman to be able to stand in her own right, Hell has to mention that she is married to a former French PM. Â It’s very important to him. Â She’s a philosopher and everything! Â How impressive. Â But she was also married to a man who was the PM. Â And look, she strongly criticises sexual differences, probably doesn’t support marriage equality!

The Chief Rabbi of France, the mufti and even the foreign spokesman of the Russian Orthodox Church joined the fray to defend marriage.

There’s a line for you. Â The rabbi is capitalised, the Russian is, but the mufti isn’t. Â Not even a mention of his mosque. And now it’s a fray. Â I love a good fraying.

All the parties know what is at stake.

When are you going to articulate exactly what is at stake? Â Grand words, but nothing at all about how things will change if gay couples can get married. Â In fact, apart from filling space, just what was the point of the article?

Must be a quiet news day.

Spink Thinks Satan Plays Football

Bruce — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 01:12:29 +0000

[SOURCE]

Cameron Spink, born again christian, sole author of the Resistance Thinking website and a married man who protests way to much about gay people has been at it again, blogging about stuff that he really should keep quiet about least people seriously question his own sexuality.

The AFL has always attempted to be the more progressive of the football codes. It is like the hipster who tries so hard to be popular. So in a new attempt to show how progressive and inclusive they are on a social issue a â€œgay pride gameâ€ is being suggested. Sydney v Hawthorn (the two grand finalist’s from this year) is being touted as a â€œgay pride gameâ€

This is a good thing. Â It’ll help some young people come to terms with their sexuality and might even help some people understand that sexuality is diverse and be should be treated with respect.

One might be forgiven in thinking that the AFL is overcompensating for the fact that not one single player has ever â€œcome out of the closetâ€ and admitted to being a homosexual. Being that there are over six-hundred players in the AFL it is entirely possible that a few players are homosexual. Yet not one has put up their hand and outed themselves. If the AFL is so inclusive surely there should be somebody who’d be willing to tell the truth. After all, the other football codes have had players revealed to be homosexual of their own volition, why not the AFL?

That’s a good question. Â Of course there are players who are gay. Â Why don’t they declare this publicly? Â Could it possibly be that the environment is not conducive to being gay. Â It’d be great if the AFL made attempts to discuss that issue, much like they do with other forms of vilification. Â The fact that not a single AFL player has declared their sexuality shows that the AFL needs to do more work.

It may be that there still is some animosity against homosexual players in the AFL. So despite the organizations attempts against â€œhomophobiaâ€ they are failing to make an impact. Of course my hope is not that they succeed in such a venture but that they reassess their ignorant encouragement of something that they obviously have very little knowledge about.

Ignorant encouragement? Little knowledge about? Â This coming from a christian who bases his life on a book written over 2,000 years ago about imaginary figures. Â Spinksy thinks that it’s ok to hate gay people because that book says so.

Indeed, it is disturbing how the AFL is getting involved in a social issue (even more disturbing that they have got this issue so blatantly wrong) of which they have no right to have an opinion about. Furthermore they are propagating a destitute lifestyle through aggressive tolerance.

The AFL is in a strong position to be involved in social issues. Â They have the opportunity to be great role models to young people. Â To show acceptance and inclusion for people from all walks of life. Â Of course they should have an opinion.

I’m pleased to report that my lifestyle is not destitute, far from it. Â Aggressive tolerance? Â Whatever that means. Â What is important is that I’m able to move around the community, participate and enjoy life without fear. Â There is nothing wrong with having sex with someone of the same-sex. Â There really isn’t. Â To say that it’s a destitute lifestyle is a clear indication ofÂ internalisedÂ homophobia that Spinksy should be seriously looking at with the assistance of some professionals.

There are a group of advocates behind these changes in the AFL (beyond Demetriou and his staff). One such person is Jason Ball, a player in the Yarra Glen Football Club, who has been campaigning for change. No surprises why he is one of the instigators of change. Ball is a homosexual who believes players at AFL level need more support if they are going to announce their same-sex attraction.

Ball has done a fantastic job by role modelling his own experience in coming out. Â You know what? Â His team mates at the Yarra Glen Football Club didn’t care, they did change the way they useÂ vilifyingÂ terms about gay people as suddenly they had a bit of empathy. Â They understood the impact of their words.

Apparently it is not enough that the AFL is openly hostile against anybody who questions their inclusive policies. I remember when doing a coaching course a couple of years ago there were sections outlined in the brochure that specified that coaches must remain impartial and make no comment regarding the sexuality of any player.

The AFL is not openly hostile at all. Â They are insistent that players, coaches and administrators follow their policies, but they don’t simply toss out those that question. Â They encourage them to change. Â Not hostile at all. Â It also makes sense to remain impartial. Â It’s about playing football, and people should respect each other for their ability to play the game, not use race, sexuality or religion as a form of abuse.

It must be said that there are issues at club level regarding derogatory terms. The use of the word â€œgayâ€ is abused. Yet since the â€œgay rightsâ€ movement has contorted and abused it already I feel no sympathy towards those who argue for the “homophobic” comments like â€œthat’s so gayâ€ to stop at club level. If they are offended by hearing these comments then I am offended by their very offence.

Spinksy has no issue with verbal abuse levelled at gay people. Â A complete lack of empathy on his part. Â In fact, he says that he’s offended because people object to vilification based on sexual orientation. Â How very christian of him.

Yet for some this is not enough, they seek to for the full acceptance which would be established by AFL players being open about their sexuality. Much like the same-sex marriage debate it is not equality that is at stake for these people but acceptance.

Yes, acceptance. Â The ability to take your same-sex partner to the Brownlow medal thingy, acceptance to hug and kiss your same-sex partner in public, and then acceptance for the supporters to bring their partners to games to enjoy each other by doing what couples do. Â Kiss, hug and share the love.

I am convinced that a complete acceptance will be forthcoming in the AFL very soon. They went astray so long ago that their progressive-leaning has become obvious to all. If we are to look at Paul’s condemnatory comments in Romans 1 one can’t help but feel that the AFL are breeding supporters and administrators who are â€œapprovingâ€. We must not be complicit in the encouragement of sin.

Does this mean that Spinksy will be giving up football? Â He’s a big footy fan you know. On his personal blogÂ he posts lots of Â football stuff.

We must pray without ceasing that God will shine through the lies of Satan and touch those enslaved by sin, as we once were.

That’s it. Â Pray. Â Pray the gays away. Â It makes him feel better to pray and not do somethingÂ practicalÂ like take his support away. Â Remove all AFL blogs, start a Facebook page to force the AFL to stop what they’re doing. Â Why doesn’t he? Because he doesn’t want to give up football.

There are people within the AFL fraternity who believe that it is an imperative to quash all â€œhomophobiaâ€ and â€œbigotryâ€.

It’s not limited to the AFL, people the world over want to stop homophobia and bigotry. Â Spink shows exactly the sort of hatred that needs to stop. Â He is suggesting that gay people are ‘enslaved by sin’ and that satan is responsible for that. Â He is actually suggesting that satan is behind this push at the AFL to address homophobia in sport. Â What’s his answer? Â Pray.

The signs point to a more aggressive push to normalise homosexuality. We must speak clearly that we were designed as heterosexuals and this is a very powerful thing. Let none diminish its significance.

I’m not designed as a heterosexual. Â I’m not designed as a homosexual either. Â My sexuality is but a small part of me. Â There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to be more accepting of others. Â Sexuality has a big range of ‘normal’. What isn’t normal is pretending that somebody (or something) designed you.

I don’t care whether Spinksy thinks he’s designed. Â He believe what he likes. Â I do object to christians like him that pretend that they have all the answers, but more specifically I object to their attempts to force their beliefs on the rest of the world. Â A world which simply doesn’t agree with their mindset. Â Spink and his ilk attempt to control others by forcing their world view on us. Â They do this by pretending that they alone have the truth. Â No amount of common sense approach will work with them. Â The radical fundamentalists think that being gay is the work of satan. Â How bad is that? Â From this work of satan, they then extend that to block any attempt to treat GLBTQI people as evil that must be saved. Â When you tell them every so politely to fuck off they get offended and claim that their right to practice their religion is being infringed.

I don’t care who Spink has sex with, nor do I want to change that. Â I don’t want him to marry a man. Â I don’t care that he might have some internal dilemma about his god and his sexuality. What I do care about is the impact homophobia andÂ bigotryÂ has on me, my love llama,Â my friends, Jason Ball and every man at the AFL that may not be freely able to fully be part of the team. As role models, the AFL players can have an impact on young people, and if through their actions a Pride Match helps, then even the likes of me that hates football will get behind it.

Communicating with Spink is difficult. Â He doesn’t allow comments on his blog, but you could shoot him an email atÂ admin@resistancethinking.com. Â Maybe you can leave a comment on his personal blog atÂ http://cameronspink.com/. Â Let him know that you don’t care too much for his attitude.

The time for fairy tales has come to an end. Â There is no god, there is no satan. Â There are however people with a huge diversity. Â They deserve respect. Â We must speak clearly that we get one life and we need to share widely how powerful acceptance is. Â Let none diminishÂ another’sÂ significance.

Leeds likes Cocks that Crow

Bruce — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 05:08:37 +0000

[SOURCE]

Leeds is a homophobic twat who actually thinks there is such a thing as gods. Here’s a really good example from some of her recent blogs that shows how easy it is to look stupid when carrying on about the god bullshit stuff.

Her blog starts with this blessing:

Blessed are you G-D King of the World Who Gives the Rooster to understand the difference between day and night

Quaint.

B”H

She always starts her blog with the letter b and h, it means ‘with gods help’. It would seem that her god isn’t helping, that would be because there is no god.

This is one of the first brachot (blessings) we say in the morning. Why you might ask would we thank and bless Hashem for giving a rooster the understanding to herald the break of day after the night? On a very simple level it is an allegory for light and darkness and the eternal struggle between the two conflicting elements. If such a simple creature as a rooster can understand the difference between night and day and vice versa, how much more so can the human who is of a far superior intellect – an intellect that is more complex and rational as well as emotional, understand the fine lines between right and wrong.

On a very simple level, I don’t know what she means by the eternal struggle between two conflicting elements. Â Light and dark? Â I think she’s probably suggesting something more along the lines of good and evil. Â However, there is no ‘struggle’ between them. Â It’s only us humans that ascribe the terms good and evil to things that happen around us. Â Nature and even roosters have no concept of good and evil.

Roosters, I suspect have no idea about the difference between night and day, not even if they are vice versa. To then attempt to connect the instinct of hens and roosters to that of people knowing the difference between right and wrong is stupid. Â It’s a bit like saying the door is open therefore windows are evil.

Some of my blog posts are controversial and extremely confronting. They are meant to be. If it makes some people re examine their whole emotional and psychological paradigm and think about consequences of their life styles it is worthwhile.

Her blogs are crazy. Â The only person that should be doing the ‘re examine’ is Leeds.

Many people have and do call me ignorant and stupid. They have suggested all sorts of physical abuse should be coming my way in order to enforce their viewpoints as right. I find that very ironic and indeed a little frightening that such violence without reason be directed towards me and my son.

There may be something in it if people tell you that you are ignorant and stupid. Â Perhaps you should do some reflection on that. Â Threats of violence are not laughing matters. Â Everyone should feel able to express themselves without fear of violence. Â Whoever does such a thing needs to be told to stop. Â On the other hand, I note that no harm has come to her.

We have never threatened you or any person of gay or lesbian lifestyle. I find ironic that my lifestyle is so threatening to you. I, for one, find violence is an extremely simple and primitive response to any sort of stimuli.

While there may not be any threat of physical violence from Leeds, she certainly goes out of her way to antagonise those who are not straight. Â She’s great at vilifying others for their sexuality. Â Just look at her recent blog about goats.Â She actually suggests that a way to ‘cure’ Â homosexuality is to let gay people roll around in goat shit. Â She uses the word ‘pish’ Â as a way to hide her vulgarity, as if to make it sound nicer. Â Her idea is that because two gay guys smell like goat shit they’ll be sworn off wanting sex with each other, then she would introduce them to a luxury hotel room with perfume and chocolates, every time they see a woman they would then be rewarded with a chocolate. Â This would re-enforce that sex with women is good. Â It’s really a very vilifying blog that, even if it is a joke, shows the underlying intolerance she has to think that people’s sexuality needs curing and it can be cured by doing horrible things. Â Like rolling gay people around in goat shit. Â If Leeds could she would introduce aversion therapy. Â She would force people to ‘change’ their orientation. Â She makes a threat to the well-being of gay people. Â Very clearly she does that. Â Aversion therapy has been discredited around the world, and here she is making light of it. Â Yes, how funny to suggest rolling people around in shit, that’s really funny.

Or look at this blog to get an idea on her contempt and intolerance of gay people.

A certain Michael Barnett offered his nether regions to Michael Danby a politician to ‘kiss’ and then stated the pleasure is reserved for his male partner. Gross. I am sure Michael Danby would not be in a hurry to take up the offer. It just shows how crude and the inelegant depths our social interactions have sunk to in these days of anything goes.

Barnett actually said this:

I wish Danby would just say that he doesnâ€™t give a rats arse about gays, that they can go to hell and that his political career, fueled by the Jewish vote, is the only thing important to his overgrown ego.

Danby, Iâ€™d tell you to kiss my hairy arse, but that pleasure is saved for my partner.

He’s talking about Danby and the way he supports Israel and not gay issues. Â He also is not offering or even asking Danby to kiss his hairy arse. The expression is a not so polite way of expressing displeasure and telling Danby to go away. Â She’s not being asked to kiss the hairy arse, and while it may not be for her each to their own. Â Whether or not Danby likes his arse being kissed, or if he likes kissing arse, we don’t know. Â Nor does it matter. Â To re-write this in a language for Leeds to comprehend…. “Danby, I’d tell you that your attitude is wrong and I’d wish you’d take it and go away. Â Pleasures in life are reserved for my partner and you should respect and support that, just like you do the rights of Jewish people to support Israel.”

The stark contrast between Barnett not offering his arse for kissing and Leeds suggestion that he be rolled in goat shit shows her level of inelegant depths she is prepared to sink to

Michael is certainly no Oscar Wilde and never will be. He is too crude, too unintelligent and frankly vulgar. Such a person cannot discern the subtleties of elegant and proper living.

This from a woman who wants to spread shit over gay people, that’s not crude and vulgar? Â ToÂ actuallyÂ suggest it’s a way to ‘cure’ gay people is unintelligent andÂ intolerantÂ Â It’s also fair to ask how intelligent you have to be to suggest that roosters crow when the sunrises and that they display some sort of chicken intelligence.

I have far more respect for people who can make their point without having putting it in the most vile and filthily perverse terms. I prefer funny people, people with a sense of humor that is not based around certain bodily functions or is at least sharply observant and funny at the same time.

Make your own comments about that statement. Â Think about pots and kettles.

Back to the rooster blog.

No one has put forth a rational and well thought out argument for same sex marriage. It is all emotive BS. That descends into the depths of personal abuse and ad homenim attacks that do not argue rationally or coherently before the above.

What a load of rubbish. Â There are plenty of good solidÂ argumentsÂ out there for marriage equality. Â It may not be for everyone, but to continue to deny marriage is to ignore the real desire of people to have their relationships valued and endorsed by society.

If a rooster, an instinctive creature is aware of the of the exact boundary of day and night, how much more so should we not be tuned to what is appropriate behaviour and what is not.

And there we have the final stupid statement that had be laughing out loud.

The first bit is right, the rooster is anÂ instinctiveÂ creature. Â It’s all outright dumbness afterwards. Â A rooster is not aware of the passage of time. Â It has no concept of the boundary of day and night. Â The boundary of day and night is elusive even to humans. Â When does day start? Â When the sun rises? Â When is that? Â Is it when the first part of the sun touches theÂ horizonÂ or is it when the first part of daylight starts an hour before we seen the sun? Â Is it when the last star disappears? Â Where is the exact boundary? Â A rooster certainly doesn’t know the exact time of sunrise. Â To suggest that a chook crows when the sun is up at the exact moment is to simply ignore the fact that roosters crow all the time for a whole range of reasons. Â Sometimes the chook might not crow at all. Â Does that mean it’s still dark? Cocks crowing at dawn is not because the sun has come up, unless you happen to be doing bad TV cartoons.

Leeds is not as smart as a cock as she doesn’t know what appropriate behaviour is. Â She needs to study cocks more.

Cameron Spink on Sex

Bruce — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:48:59 +0000

[SOURCE]

Spinksy, Spinksy, Spinksy, you really need to get out and live a little.

When Emma and I announced our engagement there were friends and family who responded in shock because we weren’t living together and presumably hadn’t slept together (these presumptions were correct). Hence some people raised with Emma their concerns about how ignorant we would be about our sexual compatibility (they never seem to raise these issues with me for some reason).

Poor Mrs Spinksy – she could have married a dud root.

I stumbled across an article today by sex therapist Matty Silver who outlined her thoughts on couples who have â€œmismatch[ing] libidosâ€. The idea that both parties should have equal â€œsex driveâ€ is at the heart of this idea of sexual compatibility. Silver’s solution to unequal â€œsex driveâ€ is good communication. And she is right, to an extent. However, her work with couples in regards to sexuality presupposes that love is merely â€œneurotransmitter phenylethylamineâ€¦.. combined with dopamine and norepinephrineâ€ to create â€œpleasingly positive feelings towards each otherâ€ Â We must be aware of our preconceived notions of what love is. It is neither defined by science nor should it be relegated to gushy feelings. Both strip love of its power.

Preconceived ideas, yes, you should be aware of them. Â How easy is Spinksy to throw out the science of love and the reality of how we feel love. Â He must have a really good basis for doing so! Oh, and you don’t stumble across articles like this, you make a decision to click the link. Â The article is from The Age and there is no stumble Spinksy, you used that free will you’re so fond of and clicked the link. Â And just so we are clear, Matty Silver knows a thing or two – she’s done training at a university and everything.

Master of Health Science (Sexual Health)
The University of Sydney

Graduate Diploma of Health Science (Sexual Health)
The University of Sydney

Graduate Diploma of Counselling and Communications
Australian College of Applied Psychology (ACAP)

I guess Matty Silver has some good research to back up her article. Â What’s Spinksy got?

In fact the Bible paints a completely different picture. Wives are to be â€œsubmissiveâ€ to their husbands (Ephesians 5:22) and husbands are to love their wives (Ephesians 5:25). These are doing concepts rather than feeling and don’t fit within romantic or scientific notions of being â€œin loveâ€. If we then move the blowtorch to the idea of sexual compatibility it is clear that the worldly perspective falls a long way short of defining how relationships should be approached in reality. We must be active in doing love not merely hoping to feel love.

Oh, the bible. Â Spinksy is basing his ideas of love on the bible? Â This is the same bible that claims god so loved the world that he sent his only son to be killed for himself to pay for the wrongs of humanity caused by his own creation. Â That sounds loving.

The reason, Spinksy me old mate, that the bible falls a long way short on the perspective of worldly love is because the authors of the bible had a very differentÂ understandingÂ of the world, because the Â University of Sydney was about 2000 years away. Â As they say, we have moved on.

Not only is sexual compatibility a myth but sexual attraction is also a dead end.

I can only assume that Emma and Spinksy are not sexually compatible. Â Whether you want to admit it or not, sexual attraction is the reason you got married, it’s the way it works. Â Just because you didn’t have pre-martial sex doesn’t mean you aren’t sexually attracted to Emma. Â In fact, without that sexual attraction, your relationship would never have started.

There are people who legitimately believe that it is important for couples to be sexually compatible. That sex must be dabbled in before the marriage night just to make sure that you are chaining yourself to the right person. We need to be rid of such immature thought-processes. A marriage commitment does not require sexual compatibility or fornication. In fact, possibly the worst thing you can do for your future marriage is to live together before you tie the knot.

Lions having sex outside marriage

Seriously Spinksy, there are a lot worse things to do in the world than live together and have sex before you get married. Â Dabbling in sex is fun, you should try it. Spinksy simply avoids the obvious truth in the world, people have sex outside and inside marriage. Â They always have. Â I would suggest that it is not all the ‘fornicators’ who have the immature thought-processes. Â Spinksy also avoids the issue that people like Matty Silver are successful because there’s a market for them. Â There are many relationships that fail, and there are many that succeed. Â I would bet that most of those that are success stories had sex a lot before they married. Â What planet are you living on Spinksy?

We need to stop giving opinions like Silver’s any credence. The world suggests many lies and we are not filtering properly. Instead we continue to play church while believing that it is important to ascertain whether we are sexually compatible with our future spouse. News flash, sexual compatibility is the mouth wash of relationships. Its invention has derailed marriage which, despite the naysayers, is an institution that is very good.

Come on. Â You can dismiss whoever you want. Â But it’s not like Matty Silver is silly. Â Perhaps there is something in her way of operating and it’s the likes of christians that need to have their opinions questioned thoroughly and then discarded like a used tissue after a private session.

Might I then present to you something radically different. Sex outside of marriage rather than helping you in your pursuit of sexual compatibility actually sets you up to fail in regards to commitment. We are being set up to fail. Our sexual desires, if we take our ques from society, will be unfulfilled. We will not get what we seek. And so, people throw their relationship under the bus if the other person in the relationship does not satisfy what cannot be satisfied. Perhaps it is worth turning the disappointment around and looking at our perceptions and how they may well be the part of the cause of the problem. Yet we cannot hope to drag our preconceived notions of sexuality out of the mire without the help of somebody uncorrupted by society. But there is no solutions available except the one who created sexuality in the first place.

FFS – I read and re-read. Â That’s just such a load of twaddle crap dipstick duck shit. Â You start by asking to present something radically different and then all you really do is rant about how bad things are. Â I think, but I’m not sure, that your radical idea is getting the help of someone uncorrupted by society – probably your god. Â That’s not radically different, that’s what we expect from religious nutters. Â Your preconceived notions are derived from a book that was written so long ago and has never been updated. Â You want us to accept sexuality as laid out in that thing? Â You seriously think that we need a solution because there is no solution, and the only one available is in the bible? Â You need to do a course on sexual health. I hear Sydney Uni has some on offer.

You see, you may believe that you can keep God away from your sex life, or indeed any part of life you may wish but it simply doesn’t work that way.

Yeah, it’s easy to keep him away, there is no god. Â And it does work that way.

If we divorce our relationship from the intentional plans of God, from His created intent, we are cheapening, abusing and condemning the relationship.

So, if a plan is intentional it’d be nice to know what it was. Â Expecting people to follow your plan when you don’t tell them what it is, is stupid.

We are using the other person, putting them on a pedestal, and when they fail (as they always do) we may call it quits or grow to resent them.

Well yes. Â It’s actually ok, good and healthy to get out of a bad relationship. Â You’re putting Emma up on the pedestal, I hope she’s secure.

Needless to say the introduction of sexual compatibility for the finding of a â€œsoulmateâ€ is a toxic concoction that has proved to be indigestible. We must throw off this charade, and encourage our friends to do so, if we want to live relationships that glorify God.

I’m not sure that the quest to find a ‘soulmate’ is such a bad thing. Â It certainly isn’t toxic, and I don’t see any evidence to prove that it is indigestible, in fact it just feels like you’re making it up as you go along.

It’s you, Spinksy, mate, that need to throw off the charade. Â Living in a relationship to glorify a being that doesn’t interact with you in anyway is crazy talk. Â Really you should focus on your life with Emma and what makes her happy. Â The love you have is to share with her, unhindered by outdated dogma and you should tap into the wealth of knowledge about relationships. Â There is so much stuff out there that will make your relationship zing.

Clearly you need more zing, otherwise your zinger will drop off.

The Pope Blames the Gays for Everything!

Bruce — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:32:18 +0000

[SOURCE]

That great mind of the 12th century, Pope Bendydick, has taken the chance on World Day of Peace to further vilify and harass gay people.

There is also a need to acknowledge and promote the natural structure of marriage as the union of a man and a woman in the face of attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different types of union

There is Â nothing natural about marriage, it’s a artificial system. Â Get your head out of your arse.

Such attempts actually harm and help to destabilize marriage, obscuring its specific nature and its indispensable role in society.

That’s just stupid. Â Marriage isn’t going away, people still get married, still raise children (regardless of marital status) and still contribute in society. Â Allowing gay people to get married won’t change that at all.

These principles are not truths of faith, nor are they simply a corollary of the right to religious freedom.

They’re not principles, they’re doctrine. Â They have nothing to do with reality. Â You are basing these truths of yours on a myth and a fairy tale.

They are inscribed in human nature itself, accessible to reason and thus common to all humanity.

You talk about reason? Â And here you are worshipping a jewish boy you think was born of a virgin, you think he’s still alive after 2,000 years and you regularly eat his body and drink his blood and you want to talk about reason? Â Pardon me while I barf.

The Church’s efforts to promote them are not therefore confessional in character, but addressed to all people, whatever their religious affiliation.

All people who aren’t catholic, and I suspect a lot of people who are catholic, think you’re a silly old fart out of touch with reality that probably really does think he is god’s representative on earth. Â Catholic’s and you as their head, have no claim or right to inflict your pathetic religion onto the rest of the world.

Efforts of this kind are all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, since this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, with serious harm to justice and peace

What would you know about the truth of the human person? Â You that presides over an organisation that allows children to be abused, people to die of HIV/AIDS, women to die because abortion is frowned upon, homophobic politicians wanting to kill gay people are blessed .

You have the audacity to talk about harming justice and peace.

Your view of the world is perverted and twisted.

The pope is a cunt.

Cameron Spinks says 238 Million People are Insignificant.

Bruce — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 23:44:17 +0000

[SOURCE]

How easy it is to see a christian getting their knickers in a twist over some really simple stuff. Â In this case me old mate Spinksy can’t help but call the bluff of the homosexual lobby and then dance around with his own self-importance. Â He must very very special indeed.

A recent Gallup poll was undertaken that revealed that 3.4% of adults in the United States identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. This finding is significant in its massive scale. 121,290 people answered the question “Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender?” and only 3.4% of them answered in the affirmative.

Well, the research I’ve seen over many years makes that about right. Â I thought it was about 2%, some people say it’s about 10%. Â It’s never really clear and it really depends on how you ask the question. Â For example, if the question was ‘have you had a sexual experience with a member of the same sex?’ Â You’d see a higher number. Â If you’ve had a bit of a fiddle with your best mate, does that make you gay? Â No, probably not. Bisexual? Â Maybe, but probably not. Â Is it an issue? Â Only if you’re a repressed male christian who thinks your wobbly bits should only be inserted into another person who has signed a marriage certificate with you.

This sees a significant nail in the coffin of those wishing to pander the line that 10% of the population are homosexual. Instead it must be conceded that the figures suggest a much lower proportion of the population are actually homosexual. If this new Gallup poll stands under scrutiny then the percentage of homosexuals will be below 3.4% of the population (as the poll included bisexual and transgender as well).

Ho hum. Â Does it matter that the minority is smaller? Â Does that change any of the human rights concerns for homosexual people. Â Does it make it ok to continue to belittle and persecute people because there are less of them than Spinksy thought? Â If 13% of the world population has daily hunger and we can feed 10 % of that, does that mean we can then ignore the remaining 3%? Â (13% of the world population is 925 million people. Â The world’s population is about 7 billion). Â Why does Spinksy get all upset about this when it’s only 3.4% of the population? He calls thatÂ insignificantÂ and not compelling, yet continues to demonise gay people despite his impression that they’re insignificant. Â That just shows how easy it is to pick on a minority simply because in his eyes they aren’t significant.

There is actually nothing compelling, one way or the other, about the percentage of the population who are homosexual. A sin still remains a sin no matter how many are participating in it. Yet quoting higher percentages in this case is a slight of the hand trick attempting to normalise such behaviours. If more people are doing it then it must be more acceptable to do.

The sin is only a sin in the mind of people who think that it’s a sin. Â Doing the sin, in this case homosexuality, Â is only acceptable to those doing it. Â Spinksy can do his poofter bashing as much as he likes (as in his snide personal remarks, I’m sure his god stops him from doing actualÂ physicalÂ harm), he canÂ suppressÂ anything he sees as a sin, but it’s not for the likes of him or any other religious fuckwits to dictate how others lead their lives. Â And while the percentage might not be compelling, if we extrapolate the 3.4% across the world population we find that is 238 million people. Â I don’t care what religious hogwash you’re flaying around in Spinksy, 238 million people is compelling.

While there is no real significance in the number of people who are homosexual it is worth blowing the elaborately fashioned smoke screen away. The Christian position on marriage (or anything else) should not change regardless of what the numbers tell us.

No real significance? Â How easily he victimises those 238 million people and wipes away their human rights. Â He seeks to impose the “christian position on marriage’ to all the population, regardless of personal belief.

This is surely the height of arrogance from any other person on the planet who sees themselves as an authority on how to deal with other humans.

Spinksy yet again demonstrates that his website is aptly named Resistance Thinking. He just needs to insert a ‘to’ between Resistance and Thinking.

marriage – Bruce Llama

The Moonbattery of the Lamestream Snarfle Wife

Related Posts

Canberra’s Nutters Gather to Protest

Related Posts

Gay Marriage is Harmless, Unless you’re a Homophobic Bigoted christian.

Related Posts

France is at War with the militants homosexualists!

Related Posts

Pell Thinks French are Better

Related Posts

Spink Thinks Satan Plays Football

Related Posts

Leeds likes Cocks that Crow

Related Posts

Cameron Spink on Sex

Related Posts

The Pope Blames the Gays for Everything!

Related Posts

Cameron Spinks says 238 Million People are Insignificant.

Related Posts