This blog is aimed mainly at Australian readers, so I apologise to my other readers.
I am tired of the multi-coloured banner across the top of my blog, even though I’ve tried to have it removed, and investigated how to remove it myself, but I don’t have the computer knowledge.
It is obviously a banner in support of same sex couples marrying, but as they have had the same legal status since 2008 as de facto heterosexual couples I fail to see the attraction of the word ‘marriage’. But that as may be. Forcing my bog to carry their banner is not going to endear them to me.
According to the last census in Australia 3.6% of the population claim to be homosexual, which as I’ve said before, doesn’t bother me in the least. I do not condemn them, because I am not sinless.
My concern is that 96% of the population will be affected by the proposed changes to the current definition of marriage.
Via a postal vote we will be asked to tick for or against the change to the marriage act, which states that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The question is simple, but the consequences of the changes that could take place will affect all of us for generations to come.
The law was changed to allow homosexuals to marry in the UK, and we in Australia have a tendency to follow certain changes in the UK, NZ & the USA. According to a British report (Feb 2017) 2.5 % of the British population are homosexual, which means 97.5% have had their lives altered because the government have added additional laws to change society over and above the basic law to allow homosexuals to marry.
My concern is that the change in the UK has not just been to allow homosexuals to marry, but also to change the direction of the society as a whole.
Just a few examples of the UK changes that might ‘emigrate’ to Australia.
The UK Government has a new Parliamentary Minister – for Proposals to streamline and de-medicalise the process for changing gender will be part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition, the Gender Recognition Act.
To announce this new ministry we had the corruption of the badge of State that dates back to 1603.
Dieu et mon droit = God and my right, which is the oath of the monarch.
Not particularly respectful for the Queen. Her Government issued a news item.
To jump to another change, yet linked to the one above –
London Underground workers have been told to stop greeting people by saying ‘ladies and gentlemen’.
Instead, Transport for London (TfL) workers will use phrases such as ‘good afternoon everyone’ as the city takes steps to become more gender-neutral.
I find this a little odd considering The Gender Recognition Act was announced by the Minister for Women and Equalities, how very un-pc, surely it should be handled by the Minister for Persons and Equalities.
If you attend Hull University as a student, and you do not use ‘gender neutral pronouns’ instead of ‘he’ or ‘she’ then you will lose marks during your examinations. It is a good job that the Minister for Women and Equalities doesn’t attend Hull University as a mature student.
Don’t think that you can move to another university because Sussex University staff have been advised to use gender neutral pronouns . . . several other universities have issued guidelines to their staff – are we looking forward to such advice from our Australian ‘seats of learning?’
If you have a bank account with HSBC you have to make a decision as to how the bank should address you – MX, Ind, Misc, Mre, or Myr – I think I’d pick MYR, because that being the international code for the currency of Malaysia, and perhaps HSBC might make a mistake and send me a few ringgits instead of sending them to Malaysia.
So don’t expect to receive a letter addressed to you if you are a Mr, Mrs, or Miss. I can still remember my first Christmas envelope addressed to Master . . . . .
Misc doesn’t have the same ring. . . .
There is an organisation in the UK called Stonewall, which is a homosexual organisation to promote radicalism in society, and it seem to be working in many areas – the slogan of this organisation is ‘Acceptance without Exception’, which creates in my mind a strange feeling of deja vu, which is not a pleasant feeling. George Orwell’s novel Animal Farm springs to mind.
To calm people before the vote to legalise homosexual marriage in the UK that nothing will change, the UK Parliament promised to protect the freedom of religion. This was supposed to ensure that people could remain true to their convictions.
Within a very short time the political ‘protectors’ started to devalue ‘their heartfelt promises’. The Minister in charge of Education stated that the Church of England should reflect modern attitudes.
From 2013 homosexuals in the UK have been able to have a civil wedding, but the law will not allow them to be married in an Anglican church.
The Education Secretary suggested it was now time that the Church of England allowed its vicars to bless homosexual unions.
The Education Minister said, ‘I wouldn’t prescribe to them how they should deal with that, but I do think we are living in a country where people broadly recognises that attitudes are in a different place now to where were many , many years ago. We have allowed same sex marriage, that is a massive step forward for the better, and for me, I think people do want to see our major faiths keep with modern attitudes in our country.’
The Speaker in the House of Parliament must be politically impartial. Therefore, on election the new Speaker must resign from their political party and remain separate from political issues, even in retirement.
The Speaker of any House of Parliament, but particularly the British House of Parliament, which dates back to 1258, must remain neutral. He / she isn’t allowed to have a political opinion, not even after he / she retires. Unfortunately the current Speaker of the House, has an opinion on homosexuals marrying – he calls for churches to embrace homosexual marriages, and said not so long ago –
“I still feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so, without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right.” another member of the Government who hasn’t read the Bible.
Would anybody be interested in what this person had to say if he wasn’t the Speaker of the House who should be neutral – or is he neutral when he said – “I’ve always thought proper credit should be given to the Blair government, which was a hugely reforming government, and Tony Blair personally, who was a terrific force for good on these issues. Credit where it is due, the Cameron government did something very remarkable on equal marriage. I’ve always thought same-sex marriage legislation was David Cameron’s greatest achievement in Parliament.”
Not bad for a man who is ‘neutral’.
Moving on as to how the 2.5% have changed British society – the UK High Court has suggested that traditional Christian beliefs on sexuality are not conducive to Christians being appointed to foster children. A couple’s Christian views according to a judge ‘”there may well be a conflict with the local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked-after children.” . . . I’ll leave you to read it again. Dr Barnardo’s childrens charity – the oldest and I think the largest in the UK was started by a Christian, with Christian beliefs and is still in business.
I’d like to know how the British Government is going to work out how to make the Church of England vicars officiate at homosexual marriage in a C of E church. The Government will then have to follow up by making the Catholic church comply (does Roman know?) and then the Muslims, the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc.
The other small detail is that Her Majesty the Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and all Acts of Parliament to change or compel the C of E will be enacted in the Queen’s name. Parliament will be asking her to break her coronation oath!
British society is changing beyond recognition, and I fear that Australian society will follow.
Is your job secure ? A housing manager in Manchester UK, Adrian Smith commented, in his own time on his own Facebook page, that allowing homosexuals to marry in church was ‘equality gone too far’ – he was disciplined at work and reduced in position from a £35,000 job to a £21,000 job. He’d worked for the council for eighteen years.
Acceptance without Exception comes to mind. Adrian Smith the manager in question, took his employer to court and won, but he shouldn’t have had to go to court.
How about a magistrate being dismissed, by the Lord Chief Justice, from his position because he opposed an application by a same sex couple to adopt a child. As a magistrate he said that he thought the child should be raised by a mother and father. The court clerk and two other magistrates in the court complained. The Lord Chief Justice said that he was influenced by his Christian beliefs against the same sex couple, rather than the evidence.
The magistrate was also Finance Director of the NHS Trust Development Authority (National Health Service), and after after being interviewed on TV about his dismissal, and because his views were out of step with the Trust, he was removed from his Directorship.
The real ENEMIES OF THE STATE had to be put away safely; the asocial and the professional criminals who could not be locked up under the prevailing laws had to lose their freedom in order to protect the people from their destructive behaviour.
A quote from the autobiography of Rudolf Hoss – look him up.
How about the National Trust with 4.2 million members, of which 62,000 were volunteers to help run the various sites. An instruction went out that all volunteers would wear a same-sex rainbow badge while on duty, and those who refused had to be ‘moved out of sight’ until they were ready to prove their inclusive tolerance.
Once again George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ comes to mind – some volunteers are more equal than others.
This link makes interesting reading about the National Trust and how they handled a couple who didn’t wish to wear the rainbow badge and lanyard.
Forty years a member and Max Hasting resigns from the National Trust – read that Dame Helen Ghosh, who was the head of the Trust, changed the name of the Easter Egg Hunt to Cadbury Egg Hunt across all Trust properties. She wanted to appease those who didn’t like Easter because it was a Christian festival, which might upset other religions. It obviously didn’t click with her that Easter is a Christian festival and that it is part of the British culture.
As for child education we already have gender fluidity in Australia.
Vishnitz Jewish Girls School, which is a London based private school, has been praised for achieving high marks from school inspectors for the standards reached by the pupils and the way the staff teach.
Four years later, although the school still ranked highly in the ‘pure’ educational departments, it failed the educators test because it didn’t teach the girls about homosexuality and sexual orientation.
According to the inspector this failure ‘restricted the pupils spiritual, moral, social, and cultural development and does not promote equality of opportunity in ways that take account of ways of differing lifestyles.’ It appears that the inspector couldn’t fault the girls academic ability, which I am sure pleased the girl’s parents.
Read the news item linked to the girls school name, and you will see that Stonewall have links to the Educational Minister. Read about seven year olds being encouraged not to use the words ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ because this might offend transgender children.
I can remember when I was seven, and I knew the difference between a boy & girl, because boys wore shorts and girls wore dresses – it was quite simple really, but that was when we went to scholl to learn to reed, rite & do sums. Sex in any form never entered our heads.
Consider what happend in the UK before the vote to allow homosexuals to marry each other – protection for all, unless you wish to use gender defined pronouns, or wish ladies and gentleman a safe train ride, or allow seven year olds to use boy & girl when describing the sex of someone.
All effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”
Consider the above quote in the context of what we are hearing in Australia before we vote. Ask a Pom if the same thing happened in the UK before their vote went through the Parliament.
We all want equality, whether it is equal pay for woman doing the same job as a man, night clubs not refusing entry due to skin colour, homosexuals having the same legal rights as de facto couples, but some changes can change society so much that it will cause us all huge problems that could take generations to fix – are we leaving a can of worms for our grandchildren and great grandchildren?
BTW the above quote in red is from Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’, chapter six, makes you think doesn’t it?
4 thoughts on “Think before voting”
Go Geoff, go!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Humans are not capable of governing themselves. They are shifting from one extreme end to the other, always confused, never thinking rationally. God bless us all. I grew up in the Soviet Union and I am immune to idiocy, but it still can be annoying.
Color, sexuality and other such things are not a debated matter in civilized and intelligent circles, ‘civilized’ and ‘intelligent’ being the key words. I wish people focused on things that matter for our planet and our species instead of being ridiculous. Seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I couldn’t agree more with your comments. Personally I couldn’t have put it better. Thank you for your research and showing up the general lack of perception by the the supposed ‘higher echelons’ of society. It appears that if you are not a ‘lefty’ and don’t agree with their point of view then you are WRONG and deserve to be vilified.
Now where did that come from? Oh yes …….. one Adolf Hitler (and also one Donald Trump).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Finally got a chance to read it, i liked your summary in the last paragraph.
Get Outlook for Android
LikeLiked by 1 person