What’s next after "gay marriage"

Posted: December 29, 2011 in Morality, Politics

In discussions on homosexual marriage an often asked question is "How will it hurt you?" and unless I know the people involved I have to say it probably won’t directly hurt me immediately. But there is another question that I feel is more important.

In the last few decades adultery, fornication and then homosexuality have moved from being unacceptable to acceptable with homosexuality, at least, having at one time been illegal. My question is this: "Which currently unacceptable sexual practice is the next to become acceptable?"

A good candidate would be polygamy. With politicians currently selling themselves to attract the 1-2% homosexual vote why not try for another 2% of the vote, this time being that of the Muslims whose religion permits polygamy.

At least it’s got to have a better chance that paedophilia don’t you think?

Julia Gillard claims she wishes to lead a national discussion on a referendum on recognising indigenous people in the Australian Constitution. OK, but I feels she needs to define "indigenous people" first.

According to one document on the Government web site (http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2000-01/01RN18.htm) "In his analysis of over 700 pieces of legislation, the legal historian John McCorquodale found no less than 67 different definitions of Aboriginal people". The document goes on to say that various Justices have said that "biological descent … to not imply strict patrilineal descent".

This does not sit well with me. I recognise that we can have an affinity for a particular race of people but to me to actually belong to that race you’d need at least two of your grandparents belonging to that race. If not you’re more not that particular race than you are that race.

My children (all born in Australia) have their two grandparents on their mother’s side born in a European country (A). On my side one great-grandparent was born in another European country (B). Being genetically one half A and one eighth B can they claim to be B? Personally I don’t think so no matter how much that side of the family may affect them socially.

Two Indonesian terrorists on death row for the 2004 Australian embassy bombing say they feel no remorse and believe they’re destined for heaven once they’re executed.

Iwan … and Ahmad … were sentenced to die … for helping to plan the …  car bomb attack that killed 10 people …

“Why should we apologise if we believe that we did right in waging jihad against the infidels?”

“In the eyes of Allah I am victorious and I will go to heaven when I am executed. I am not worried at all”

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/im-destined-for-heaven-embassy-bomber-20100917-15fdn.html

What type of mind set believes that murdering people who think differently to them will get them to heaven?

How do you see it?

The Illawarra Mercury’s editorial on 13th Sep said “No-one should have to endure the threat of frightening, booze-fuelled behaviour when they step out on the town in our city” and I agreed.  However could it one day become the expected norm?

My agreement is based on Judeo-Christian values but they seem to have been eroded lately.  Take our sexual values,  who four decades ago would have though that anyone would suggest same-sex marriage.

We’ve had judges telling the police they have to put up with being sworn at because it’s so common, there is a lot of support for killing people because they’re old (euthanasia) and we already kill the unborn (abortion).  People aren’t valued so why not get drunk and bash a few of them up?

We changed our sexual values once enough people said they weren’t following the old values any more.  All we need is enough booze-fuelled people to “come out” and then it will be OK won’t it?

Well that’s How I See It.

Homosexual Adoption

Posted: September 8, 2010 in Morality

Homosexuals want to be able to adopt children but should they be able to if they don’t need to?

What do I mean?

Nature has provided for the continuation of the species by having seed from a male join an egg from a female in an environment where a child can then develop.  The environment is the woman’s womb and the process is sexual intercourse.

Instead of placing there seed into a woman’s womb via the vagina homosexuals (apparently) place their seed into another man’s mouth or rectum.  This does not result in the continuation of the species.

The homosexual has seed just like any other male.  However he chooses to not use it in the way provided by nature and then says “I have no child, I want to adopt”.  (Ditto a woman who has eggs but will not seed to be placed in the womb as intended by nature.)

Should he be able to adopt? I’d say no.  Nature has an intended way to have children.  If one refuses to have children as nature intended why should they be able to adopt?

That’s “How I see it”, how about you?

Climbing Uluru

Posted: July 11, 2009 in Media, Morality

It’s an interesting concept climbing Uluru (or to be non-PC Ayres Rock).  It’s just that.  It’s a rock, a big one and in the middle of nowhere, but a rock no less.

Thing is the locals consider it to be sacred and that’s where it gets tricky.  Should one person’s view that something is sacred limit what another can do?

To most religions life and marriage are sacred.  Therefore if we ban climbing Uluru on the grounds that it’s sacred we should also ban abortions and and sex outside marriage.

At least that’s HowISeeIt.

NSW Elections

Posted: March 27, 2007 in Politics

Well the NSW state election is over and Labor won again. Two things I came across that worried me:

  1. A bloke working on the booth I worked on went to vote saying the following:
    “I’d better go do the right thing by the party”.
    He didn’t consider the State, his electorate or even himself. He is owned by the party and does what they dictate. Is it any surprise they were calling themselves “comrade”?
  2. The Sun-Herald asked people who they voted for. One 20 years old said “I voted Labor because Mum said to”.
    I remember when the 18 year olds got the vote on the claim they were old and mature enough. Obviously this doesn’t apply to all of them.

I wonder what the state of the State will be in four years.

What do you think?