Sunday, January 8, 2012

Andrei Unsurprising news in a society that has lost its marbles

Capital scores in gay union stakes.

Civil Unions are probably unknown in the heartland where the work is done that earns the money that keep this country going.

They are a symptom of a cultural malaise in the ruling classes who feel entitled to have their every whim pandered to.

Marriage is about creating a stable environment for the raising of children by their biological parents - that is its purpose!

For the vast majority the raising of the next generation is the most important thing they will ever do.

For some bizarre reason we no longer value children - so for example we see this: Human rights spat as family barred from flat. An apartment building where the residents object to children sharing their space.

A world without children?

Is this why we murder so many of the unborn? Because we don't value them?

Is this why the cultural elite is pushing for sterile unions of people?

Don't they want a future for us?

Because unless people step up to the plate and have children, raising them well there is no future.

17 comment(s):

leftrightout said...

So andrei, did tou read as far as this bit?

The body corporate's chairwoman responded that the building had a limit of two occupants per apartment, so the board would be unable to approve the family.

So there is no blanket ban on children, simply on the number of occupants per unit. So a sole parent and one child would be quite OK.

Heine said...

No LRO, don't get in the way of a perfectly usual anti gay marriage rant. I struggle to see how 2 bad parents can still be better in the eyes of this lot, than 2 loving parents of the same sex. But that's religion for you.

Lucia Maria said...

LRO,

That rule does not apply to owner occupiers or couples of rentals who have children while living there.

Lucia Maria said...

Heine,

Two persons of the same sex cannot create children together - they have to get them from somewhere. And there is always a person of the opposite sex that the child is denied a relationship with that they are related to.

Nick K said...

When you buy apartments you agree to the rules. It's called private property rights.

Andrei said...

Clint;

When John and Maria get married it is assumed that they will produce children and that those children 25 years hence will be milking the cows, digging the coal from the ground, taking care of the elderly in rest homes and so forth.

This is a good and necessary thing.

This is why society has a stake in the relationship between John and Maria and recognizes it officially.

When Nigel and Tim get "married" their relationship - important as it might be to themselves will not and cannot produce children for the future. It is of no interest or concern to society as a whole and official recognition of it serves no purpose whatsoever.

Andrei said...

Nick K

When you buy apartments you agree to the rules. It's called private property rights.

Not arguing the toss over that - just my bemused observation as to why anybody in their right mind would want to live in a child free zone.

It quite clear to me that we have lost our joy in children and do not value them or those who raise them.

And that is pathological

Lucia Maria said...

Nick,

If you were to read the article on the apartment, or even my previous comment, you'd see that it's not a ban on children as owner occupiers are exempt, as are those who have children there while renting. It's more that those who write the rules are unable to distinguish between children and adults, or they think adults will take advantage in future rentals. It's all pretty silly and shows just how bad things are becoming for families, who no longer have a privileged place in society.

I.M Fletcher said...

That is not many civil unions after five years. I think it proves the point that gay couples do not really want to marry. It is all about changing laws to make their conduct seem acceptable by society.
On his blog, David MacDonald points out -


In Boston, Canada, and the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, almost no queer people are getting married, the stats are incredibly low, and dropping. The national gay paper in Canada, Xtra, interviewed the queer community about why there have been so few gay marriages even though it's been legal for years -


"...same-sex marriage is a radical act....it's an assimilationist strategy...For anti-assimilationists, same-sex marriage represents a reform movement that seeks to prove that queers are 'just like everyone else.' But many of us are not like everyone else - and unapologetically so.

...Many queers worry that the cultural adoption of same-sex marriage will lead to a domestication of queer culture.... But does our vibrant queer culture depend on marginality? Hopefully not. And, as Dan Savage has pointed out, marriage rarely meant monogamy for hets, so why would it make us sexually exclusive?

... queers have a distance from which to critique it [marriage], as well as freedom to create the relationships we want....owning property or having a pet is more of a commitment than a marriage...we have built cultures and communities independent of the straight world, developing and adopting our own creative alternatives: chosen families, open relationships, multi-parent families and domestic partnerships, just to name a few...

...Because we have all the same rights and responsibilities as common-law partners that we would have if we married, there is no need to marry," she says ... in Canada, common-law couples, gay or straight, are entitled to survivor benefits, post-breakup financial support, input into partner care, family and medical leave, adoption opportunities, immigration sponsorship and inheritance rights. ...

...Gay lawyer Ken Smith points to another disincentive to legalize vows. With marriage rights come obligations; you can't opt in or out at will....

...Many queers regard marriage as an oppressive patriarchal institution and have no interest in participating in it," findlay notes. "My partner and I, for example, decided that we would not marry unless there was an important political reason to do so. As my partner says, 'We've been living in sin for too long to change now!'"

...I believe that the more progressive political approach is for the individual to be the basis of social organization instead of the couple...A culture that values the individual instead of the couple as the base unit would offer more support for singlehood and single parenting, for starters...I'd like to see more information, resources and support for all forms of relationships: single, polyamorous, coupled, friendship, chosen family or whatever our queer hearts can dream up."

From: Why most Canadian gays and lesbians are choosing not to marry MARRIAGE / Too many risks, few incentives Xtra Jillian Deri /Vancouver / Thursday, September 25, 2008)


Legalized Gay Marriage was the result of 20 years of lobbying, court orders, and the marginalization of Christians for their protectiveness of marriage. Yet it was more of a political tool, a trophy. And "straight" Canada negotiated away it's most precious institution for this mocking of the building block of it's culture. The next trophy will be polygamy which is now all over the gay press. I got an email that said:

"Let me just say one thing, same sex marriage is not about if the gay community didn't really want to get married or not, it's about people who are different from the norms (heterosexual) are not discriminated and have the same rights as any other person would have. You disgust me, you Jesus lover. Sincerely, Atheist"

KG said...

"..why anybody in their right mind would want to live in a child free zone."

Well, here's a hint--after living in apartment buildings where children came to visit a couple of the residents over the holidays and turned the place into a noisy, toys and rubbish-strewn pigsty, I can understand perfectly why people who pay a premium for peace and quiet might like to get what they paid for.
Now, people here may not be the kind of parents who think it's fine to inflict their undisciplined, ill-behaved brats on others (and their children probably don't fit that description) but I can assure you there are plenty of parents out there who regard that as perfectly acceptable.
That's if they take the trouble to consider it at all.

dad4justice said...

Civil Unions while we are Gold Medalists at Child Abuse!

This country is a faggot hole,packed with selfish and greedy queers!

scrubone said...

KG: The fact that there is a growing problem with bad parents isn't a reason to ban children.

It's a reason to deal with the issue of bad parenting.

KG said...

Fair comment. But dealing with the issue of bad parenting is a medium term project, while dealing with the issue of ill-behaved brats is an immediate one.
I went to see the movie "Othello" (Lawrence Fishburne version) a while ago and the experience was destroyed by a couple of loudly crying babies and bored teenagers. My reaction to a waste of good money and time (not to mention having what ought to have been a pleasant experience ruined) sure wasn't "this is an issue of bad parenting" because right then that was utterly bloody irrelevant.
Adults ought to be able to enjoy adult pursuits and adult environments free of the distractions and anti-social behaviour of poorly supervised children.
And the growing problem with bad parents can only be dealt with in the short term by banning children. The growing number of restaurants and resorts which are enjoying brisk business by making it clear that children are not welcome is evidence that it's not just a few curmudgeons with a short fuse who feel this way.

KG said...

And who do you suggest should deal with the issue of bad parenting?
Bad parents won't. Good parents don't need to. Those of us without children have no right to.
So tell me who?

Heine said...

I didn't say that. I merely questioned why you'd protect the rights of bad parents over the rights of good ones - purely based on what they choose to do in their bedrooms.

ZenTiger said...

Clint, rights protect people and "bad" people can still be afforded rights, which they can also lose if they break the law. Trying to make up a hypothetical question of protecting "bad parents" over "good people" is beside the point.

Are you also arguing why "bad" parents are not entitled to a defence lawyer?

KG said...

No answer to my question, Scrubone?

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.