SPCS

SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF COMMUNITY STANDARDS INC.

Buffoon of the week – by Karl du Fresne

by Leave a Comment

Karl du Fresne writes on his blog: “Maurice Williamson [the “ego-tripping” National MP for Pakuranga] is being lionised as some sort of international celebrity for his speech in Parliament in support of the same-sex marriage bill. He has become an improbable hero in the eyes of the media, which abandoned all semblance of professional impartiality on Louisa Wall’s legislation….I see nothing to admire in Williamson’s grandstanding. On the contrary, I think it was a contemptible speech – contemptible because it mocked and ridiculed people who had merely exercised their right to express a view on the bill.”
To read more go to: Blog post dated 21 April 2013. http://karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz/
For complete profile of Karl du Fresne see:

“Gay” ‘marriage’ shunned by “gays” as largely meaningless

by 2 Comments

In the Netherlands, the first country in the world to introduce “gay” ‘marriage’ on 1 April 2001, a Survey by Rutgers World Population Foundation, a centre of expertise on sexual and reproductive health and rights, suggests that about 500,000 people call themselves “gay”. Yet from 1 April 2001 to 2005, only 3% of them married (ref. 1).

This Figure of 3% and the decline in the numbers of same-sex ‘marriages’ (SSM) per year following that law change, strongly suggests that for 97% of Dutch “gays”, the institution of “gay” ‘marriage’ is largely irrelevant, unpopular and/or meaningless. In the 5th year (2005) such “gay” ‘marriages’ plummeted by 56% compared to those registered in 2001. From 2001 to 2002 the numbers dropped by 28%, from 2002 to 2004 by 33% and between 2004 and 2005 by 8%.

In the Netherlands registered partnerships were introduced in Dutch laws for “gays” on 1 January 1998, before SSMs. “Gay” marriage (SSM) was introduced into law later (2001) because these registered partnerships were seen to be legally deficient by “gays”.

New Zealand introduced civil unions into law in 2004 for “gay” couples seeking legal recognition, but they have proved to be very unpopular for “gays” who have demanded, and  now secured, on 17 April 2013, the right to be married in law in the same manner as heterosexuals.

If “gay” ‘marriage’ continues to be treated by “gays” in the Netherlands with the same contempt and/or disinterest as they treated “registered partnerships”, then the numbers of all such registered “gay” relationships will decline further to a point that these new ‘institutions’ could well go extinct like the dinosaurs.

In New Zealand civil unions have proved just as unpopular for “gays” as civil partnerships in the Netherlands, and also been criticised as meaningless and degrading by prominent homosexuals in the media, “gay” university academics and “gay” SSM lobbyists.

Ironically those who oppose the legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’ and seek to promote traditional (heterosexual) marriage are treated with contempt by many “gay” activists and the pro-“gay” media in New Zealand, who label them as dinosaurs, outdated and unable to adapt to the new ‘moral’ “gay” climate. However, such critics fail to recognise the Darwinian evolutionary principle of “survival of the fittest”: it is not the unfit (the sterile, the unnatural etc.) that survive!

Neither of the homosexual participants in “gay” ‘marriage’ can ever share together in any exclusive act of procreation via “gay” sexual activity. Their joint sexual acts are never orientated towards procreation. A “gay” couple can never together play any joint biological role in evolution. Their relationship differs fundamentally from a tradition marriage which involves a male and a female.

From 2001 to 2003 the population growth rate in the Netherlands had declined from 0.55% to 0.50% and by 2011 it had dropped to 0.38%. This decline was temporarily reversed in 2004 (0.50 to 0.58%). The possible correlation between these declines and the drive for SSM law is of interest to researchers (ref. 2).

“Gay” couples are unable to be biological joint-parents of any child as they cannot consummate their ‘marriages’ in the natural heterosexual act (sexual intercourse) which is fundamental to human procreation. It is only via in vitro fertilization, surrogacy or some other ‘technology’ that one partner of a “gay” couple can become a biological parent. The other same-sex partner may in law be designated as the second ‘mother’ (in the case of a lesbian couple) or ‘father’ in the case of a homosexual male couple; but neither such ‘mother’ or ‘father’ can be a biological parent to the child.

References:

Ref. 1 Gay marriage: preaching to the unconverted. April 19, 2013

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/192876ce-a6f3-11e2-885b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QyNnBrob

Ref. 2

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=nl&v=24

Definition of Population growth rate: The average annual percent change in the population, resulting from a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths and the balance of migrants entering and leaving a country. The rate may be positive or negative. The growth rate is a factor in determining how great a burden would be imposed on a country by the changing needs of its people for infrastructure (e.g., schools, hospitals, housing, roads), resources (e.g., food, water, electricity), and jobs. Rapid population growth can be seen as threatening by neighboring countries.

See also:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands

Mike Butler: The gay-marriage self-parody

by Leave a Comment

The phrase “gay rights for nuclear-free whales” quite accurately parodies the shallow, trendy, bumper-sticker campaigns of the New Zealand left. Shallow trendiness dominated parliament this week as Labour MP Louisa Wall’s Marriage (Definition of Marriage Bill) Amendment Bill passed its third reading 77 votes to 44.

Customs Minister Maurice Williamson promised the sky would not cave in, which was obvious since figures from New Zealand’s 2006 census show that same-sex couples make up fewer than 1 percent of all couples in New Zealand. The numbers of homosexual men living together reached 0.3 percent in 2006, while the number of homosexual women cohabiting made up 0.4 percent of all couples living together.

A total of 3516 female couples and 2655 male couples lived together in 2006, compared with 867,696 couples of the opposite sex. In 2011, of all homosexual couples living together, 232 couples entered into a civil union, with 133 of them women.

To what extent did this shallow, trendy, bumper-sticker campaign clog up parliament? Some indication came from the time it took for MPs to reply to the email I sent to all on August 28 last year. Labour MP Lianne Dalziel replied in March this year while National MP Nicky Wagner replied on April 16.

For full report go to:

http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/mike-butler-gay-marriage-self-parody.html?m=0

Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage

by Leave a Comment

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t  lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen.  On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda.  She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.

Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)

For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society.  (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.)

While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point.  When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits.  Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers.  Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008.  In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married.

Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.

Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.

Source:

Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage – by Michah Clark

http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

Micah Clark

In 1989 Micah Clark graduated from Southwest Baptist University in Bolivar, Missouri with a bachelor’s degree in Political Science. Micah interned as a member of the Indiana House of Representatives’…

Full bio and more from Micah Clark

Visit: http://illinoisfamily.org/author/?id=888

Note:

Masha Gessen is a Russian-American journalist and editor of the Russian-language Snob magazine. She is the New York Times blogger Obama appointed to run Radio Liberty in Russia
Her latest book is called The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin