Golden Rule No. 1: Never Trust a Politician! Prime Minister Admits Australians are being Asked to Sign a Blank Cheque SSM

 


Prime Minister Admits Australians are being Asked to Sign a Blank Cheque on Gay Marriage


Posted by Coalition 4 Marriage on September 15, 2017

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull today admitted the Australian people will not know the detail of any final legislation to change the Marriage Act before casting their votes in the plebiscite.

The Australian reports the Prime Minister foreshadowed a lengthy parliamentary debate that would involve numerous as-yet-unseen amendments. In a stunning admission today Prime Minister Turnbull said the government had no control over the legislative process in the Senate.

The Prime Minister said:

“Private members will get a bill to protect religious freedoms and there could be an amendment here and an amendment there, a debate about this and a debate about that… No doubt it will be amended and debated and we don’t have a majority in the Senate and in any event, it is a free vote.”

Coalition for Marriage spokesman Lyle Shelton said this was an extraordinary admission from the Prime Minister.

“The Prime Minister has confirmed the Australian people are being asked to sign a blank cheque,”

said Mr Shelton.

“The Prime Minister has said he does not know the detail of the bill. He has said he does not control the legislative process. He has said that Australians will not know what protections the legislation will or will not contain.

“It’s regrettable that the dynamics in the Senate are such that members of the Government can’t even be relied on to produce a bill that protects parents’ rights, free speech and freedom of religion.

“Given the fact the Prime Minister couldn’t even convince the parliament to hold a plebiscite on marriage in the first place, how can the Australian people have confidence the parliament will ‘get it right’ on protections for parents, speech and faith?

“I say to all Australians – if you don’t know, vote ‘no’,” he concluded.

Alan Jones

A Yes Vote on Same-Sex Marriage will give Politicians a Blank Cheque.

David Flint
Original Source: Date-stamped: 2017, September 15. | Author: Coalition 4 Marriage | Article Title: PRIME MINISTER ADMITS AUSTRALIANS ARE BEING ASKED TO SIGN A BLANK CHEQUE ON GAY MARRIAGE  Article Link: coalitionformarriage.com.au

PROFESSOR DAVID FLINT: A Yes Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Will Give Politicians a Blank Cheque


The Daily Telegraph
September 12, 2017 10:00pm

It’s not urgent. That’s what the proponents of same-sex marriage told the High Court. So why are we being rushed into trusting the politicians, giving them a blank cheque in what is no more than a pretend or fake ­referendum?

Voters might recall Alan Jones’s advice on the politicians’ republic: “If you don’t know, vote No.”

As to trusting politicians, it’s hard to think of even one of today’s problems which, if it weren’t created by them, they’ve not made significantly worse. From replacing the lowest ­energy costs in the world with the world’s highest, from declining educational standards to the way the criminal justice system better protects the criminal than the victim, today’s politicians have hardly earned our confidence.

Professor David Flint says politicians have hardly earned our confidence, so why are we now trusting them to change the constitution without telling us what exactly they plan to do?

David Flint

Like Professor Flint, Alan Jones was a one of a small number of media commentators recommending a No vote on whether Australia should be a republic in 1999.

Alan Jones

This is because too many of today’s politicians are out of touch, coming from a narrow class of staffers, union and party officials and chosen not on merit but because of their loyalty to some factional boss or lobbyist.

The founders of this country proposed and the people agreed that the new federal Parliament would be authorised to make laws with respect to a limited range of issues. These ­included marriage.

Although they’d never heard of same-sex marriage, the founders and the people were well aware of other forms of marriage, including polygamy. They certainly weren’t about to give the politicians any power to allow men to have four wives, some underage. The meaning of marriage in the Constitution was — and still is — crystal clear. It means marriage ­between one man and one woman, nothing more and nothing less.

Thousands of demonstrators took part in a same-sex marriage rally in Sydney last weekend. Picture: AFP

This meaning should prevail until the Constitution is properly changed.

In any democracy, words in a constitution must mean what a reasonable person at the time it was adopted thought they meant.

And having seen what can happen in other countries, the founders were very careful that the final decision on changing the Constitution should rest with the people. They certainly weren’t going to leave it to the politicians or indeed, to seven judges.

To make sure the people would be properly informed, it was agreed that the only way to change the Constitution would be by a Swiss-style referendum with the precise change and legislation approved both nationally and, to ensure there was widespread support, in a majority of states.

The founders were well aware of the dangers of using plebiscites to change the Constitution. Like opinion polls, plebiscites are just a question. This can too easily be loaded or misleading, as we saw in the 1995 Quebec secession referendum where exit polls revealed that many Yes voters actually believed they were voting to stay in Canada.

The point is that in a plebiscite all the details and especially the consequences of a Yes vote are not known in advance — they’re not on the table. The voters haven’t the foggiest idea what the politicians will get up to if you give them a Yes vote. Just as in the current postal survey or plebiscite.

The founders had seen how plebiscites — fake referendums — can be used to manipulate the voters. They were well aware that Napoleon Bonaparte and his nephew had used them to soften up the French until they agreed to turn them both into ­emperor-dictators.

Why won’t Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reveal his hand concerning what happens if a Yes vote gets up? Picture: Kym Smith

Is this a face of someone you give a blank cheque too?

Even where the plebiscite question seems clear, the voters can too easily be misled by being denied the necessary detail. How suspicious it is that the Turnbull government won’t ­reveal whatever legislation will be introduced if the people vote Yes. But even if the government were to reveal their hand now, it still wouldn’t be enough. Unlike a referendum, there’s no guarantee the legislation would be passed or even introduced.

The politicians could subsequently approve new forms of marriage or measures to punish supporters of ­traditional marriage.

Sydney Uni law courses push for Sharia law recognition

We have no idea what these could be. Some European politicians and clergymen have seriously proposed that sharia law be introduced to ­legitimise polygamous marriages, ­demeaning seriously women’s rights.

This could subsequently lead to the recognition of other practices, ­including underage and arranged marriages.

Even where the plebiscite question seems clear, the voters can too easily be misled by being denied the necessary detail. How suspicious it is that the Turnbull government won’t ­reveal whatever legislation will be introduced if the people vote Yes. But even if the government were to reveal their hand now, it still wouldn’t be enough. Unlike a referendum, there’s no guarantee the legislation would be passed or even introduced.

The politicians could subsequently approve new forms of marriage or measures to punish supporters of ­traditional marriage.

clip

If there is a Yes vote, we have no guarantee that our existing freedoms of speech and religion will be maintained. The bullying and fake news by some of the self-selected leaders of a community, one which seems to only exist in a never-ending series of initials, should put everyone on guard.

There is nothing to stop the introduction of same-sex marriage being used, as it has been in other countries, to step up filling our schools with campaigns to encourage so-called gender fluidity and enforce the access by both sexes to lavatories, showers and change rooms. There is nothing to stop some schools and other charitable institutions being forced to close down and teachers and people generally being gagged.

All of this would have been ­avoided if the details and consequences of the proposed change were on the table before the people vote, as the Constitution clearly requires.

There was no reason why a proper referendum could not have been called to coincide with the next federal election. Instead we are being asked to vote Yes and give a blank heque to, of all people, the politicians.

David Flint, an emeritus professor of law, campaigned for the No case in 1999

Original Source: Date-stamped: 2017 September 12. | Time-stamped: 10:00 pm | Author: The Daily Telegraph | Article Title: DAVID FLINT: A YES VOTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WILL GIVE POLITICIANS A BLANK CHEQUE | Article Link: dailytelegraph.com.au
Share

Fathers are Male, Men are Male, Boys are Male and Fathers Day is Fathers Day! is Woolworth’s promoting a political agenda on Father’s Day.

SHOPPERS are outraged over a Woolworths mud cake that hit shelves on Father’s Day with icing that read “Special Person’s Day”.

The photograph of the cake was uploaded to the Woolworths Facebook page by a Queensland father on Sunday. It was quickly reshared by dozens of others who called the supermarket giant out on failing to recognise Aussie dads.

One man commented: “This is a disgrace and total disrespect to all fathers in Australia today …

How dare you Woolworths?”

Another wrote: “Please keep Father’s Day to celebrate Dads, and don’t disappoint Australia with your political “special person” cakes.”

One woman said the cake was a “slap in the face to all the wonderful dads”.

“If you want to support a “Special Persons Day”, do it on any other day! So disappointed that you would make this divisive political statement,” she added.
However, others said they disagreed with the backlash against “Special Person’s Day”, saying not all Australians had fathers in their lives.

“There may be other people in their life that may have to take that role on. I truly celebrate that you have created a cake saying “Special person’s Day” because for every family that does not have a mother or father around and someone else to fill that massive role, they are 100% a very special person. Well done Woolies!” A woman wrote.

Another congratulated Woolworths on “taking into consideration other people’s circumstances”.

“My son doesn’t have his father around a very sad day for him in fact but you turned it into a positive by providing a cake acknowledging a special person so he gave that to his uncle to say thank you for being a special part of his life, all round a happy day instead of a sad one,” the woman said.
A Woolworths spokesman responded to customers over Facebook, saying the contentious photograph had been cropped out not to show other cakes that contained “Happy Father’s Day” messages.

“We’re currently looking into this display with our store teams. We want to reassure you that we’re helping all customers across Australia celebrate Father’s Day as seen from our store displays, products and recipe ideas. Cropped out of this image are a range of decorative cakes that have different messages on them, including ‘Dad’ and ‘Happy Father’s Day’. Thanks again for sharing.” Link: news.com.au

Share

Fact check: Is Australia the only advanced English-speaking country without same-sex marriage?

Facts feature (04)

Is Australia the only advanced English-speaking country without same-sex marriage?

Find out the answer Read below.

From mid-September, Australians will begin receiving survey forms for the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, which the Government has commissioned in place of a plebiscite.

A common claim made about same-sex marriage is that Australia lags behind the countries we like to compare ourselves to.

Back in 2015, after the successful referendum to bring in same-sex marriage in Ireland, then Australian Marriage Equality director Rodney Croome asserted that Australia was “the last developed English-speaking country not to allow same-sex couples to marry”.

And in September 2016, Greens MP Adam Bandt told Parliament that “we are now the only developed, English-speaking country to not have equal marriage laws”.

One of the latest to make the claim is Opposition frontbencher Andrew Leigh.

“We’re the last advanced English-speaking country not to allow same-sex marriage,” Mr Leigh told Sky News.

Mr Leigh is not the first or last to make a similar claim. But what are the facts? RMIT ABC Fact Check finds out.

The verdict

Mr Leigh’s claim is overstated.

Most of the countries that Australia shares political, economic and social links with have legalised same-sex marriage.

However, we are not the only “advanced English-speaking country” that has failed to do so.

Singapore, an advanced English-speaking country with a population of almost 6 million people, has not even decriminalised sexual acts between two men, let alone legalised same-sex marriage.

And not all parts of the United Kingdom have same-sex marriage — it is still not legal in Northern Ireland.

Basis for comparison

Mr Leigh refers to a set of countries that are “advanced” and “English-speaking”.

Fact Check has assessed “English-speaking” countries as those with English as an official language.

This will necessarily include countries that have multiple official languages — such as Singapore, South Africa and Canada — and those where English is the language of government and the law but not the most widely spoken in everyday life.

There are at least 70 countries or self-governing/semi-autonomous entities (such as Hong Kong) where English is an official language.

These range from small places such as the Falkland Islands (population of around 2,900 people) to India (more than 1 billion people, where English remains an official language “for official purposes of the Union and for use in Parliament”).

And what is an advanced country? Mr Leigh’s office told Fact Check that he used “advanced” as another word for “developed”.

Unfortunately, there is no settled definition of what a “developed” country is.

Fact Check has considered several metrics:

• The International Monetary Fund’s list of 39 “advanced” economies.The list includes a number of economies that are not sovereign nations including Hong Kong, Macau and Puerto Rico. Only ten of these economies are English-speaking.

• The 35 members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development or OECD. Six of these countries are English-speaking.

• The 51 countries on the United Nations Human Development Index said to have “very high human development”. Nine of these countries are English-speaking.

In short, Fact Check has found there to be 10 countries or territories that are advanced (on at least one of the metrics) and have English as an official language.

The results

Out of the ten “advanced” countries or territories with English as an official language, six have legalised same-sex marriage throughout the country. One — the United Kingdom — has legalised same-sex marriage in most of the country.

English-speaking

economy/country

IMF

Advanced economies

OECD Members

HDI – Very High

Human Development

Same-sex marriage
Australia Yes Yes Yes No
Canada Yes Yes Yes Yes
Hong Kong SAR Yes No Yes No
Ireland Yes Yes Yes Yes
Malta Yes No Yes Yes
New Zealand Yes Yes Yes Yes
Puerto Rico Yes No No Yes
Singapore Yes No Yes No
United Kingdom Yes Yes Yes Partially
United States Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sources: International Monetary Fund; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; United Nations Human Development Index; Official documents

Same-sex marriage is not legal anywhere in Singapore or Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China, so on its own cannot be considered a “country”, though same-sex marriage is not legal in mainland China either.

Singapore has not legalised same-sex marriage, and in fact homosexual acts are still illegal in that country.

The situation in the United Kingdom is more difficult to characterise.

The UK is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the different countries/regions can make their own laws in some areas.

Same-sex marriage is legal in England, Scotland and Wales, but is not legal in Northern Ireland.

This means that same-sex marriages cannot take place in Northern Ireland and are recognised as civil partnerships rather than marriages in that territory.

A spokesman for the Northern Ireland Department of Finance told Fact Check:

“The law of Northern Ireland does not allow for same-sex marriage, but it does allow for same-sex civil partnerships, which confer similar rights and responsibilities; same-sex marriages that are conducted in England, Wales or Scotland are recognised as civil partnerships under the law of Northern Ireland.

Same-sex relationships from other jurisdictions may be recognised as civil partnerships in Northern Ireland…

On 17 August 2017 the High Court in Northern Ireland ruled that there is no obligation to introduce same-sex marriage.”

British citizens are able marry their same-sex partner in many British diplomatic posts overseas, including in Australia.

The marriages are valid as if they had taken place in the relevant part of the United Kingdom (as elected by the applicant).

Consular marriages cannot be conducted if “Northern Ireland” is elected, but there is nothing stopping a person from nominating England, Scotland or Wales even if they come from Northern Ireland.

Some of the British islands near the United Kingdom — such as the Channel Islands (Jersey, Guernsey, Sark, Alderney and Herm) and the Isle of Man — are not part of the UK and in fact are “crown dependencies” with their own legal systems.

Same-sex marriage is legal in the Isle of Man and most of the territory governed by Guernsey, but not the most populous island Jersey.

Australia is clearly towards the back of the (English-speaking, advanced country) pack when it comes to legalising same-sex marriage, but it is not alone.

Last English-speaking democracy?

Others have made claims around Australia being the last English-speaking democracy without same-sex marriage.

Again, this is an exaggeration.

Fact Check considered at the The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, which lists countries on a spectrum from full democracy to authoritarian.

Fact Check also took into account the annual Freedom in the World report, published by the US based Freedom House, which rates countries not free, partially free and free.

Out of the English-speaking countries listed as “full” or “flawed” democracies or “free” or “partially free”, only seven have legalised same-sex marriage.

A narrower claim was made in an August 14 tweet from the Sydney Mardi Gras, which stated there is same-sex marriage in “Every major English-speaking democracy EXCEPT Australia”.

x

The accuracy of that statement depends on the definition of “major”.

But given the list of democratic English-speaking countries without same-sex marriage includes Singapore (with a population greater than New Zealand or Ireland) and India (with a population of over a billion people), it again goes too far.

All of these comparisons demonstrate that while Australia may be behind those countries that are culturally and economically similar to Australia, there are many English-speaking countries that have not legalised same-sex marriage, many of which can be fairly called “democracies”.

Broader claim, same result

Some politicians and campaigners have gone beyond Mr Leigh’s formulation to claim that Australia is the only English-speaking country that has not legalised same-sex marriage.

Andrew Hastie, Liberal MP from Western Australia and a known opponent of same-sex marriage, told the Parliament on October 13, 2016:

“It is true that Australia is the last English-speaking country in the world to redefine marriage.

We can learn from international experience, and I dare say that we need to appreciate the consequences.”

A few days later, Matt Keogh, a Labor MP also from Western Australia, similarly told the Parliament “we are the last English-speaking nation to make this change”.

When the Senate considered same-sex marriage in early 2017, the organisation Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) stated in a submission:

“It is time to recognise that we are the last English-speaking country that still discriminates against same-sex-attracted couples.”

More recently Professor Kerryn Phelps, Deputy Lord Mayor of the City of Sydney, told a forum on August 3, 2017:

“So many Australians are saying, ‘hang on, this is really an issue, we’re the only remaining English-speaking country without marriage equality.”

These claims are inaccurate.

Fact Check has found that out of 70 countries and self-governing areas that have English as an official language, only fourteen have legalised same-sex marriage.

These are Bermuda, Canada, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Ireland, Isle of Man, Malta, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, parts of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Africa, the United States and most of the United Kingdom.

Sources

Date-stamped: 2017, Aug 25. | Time-stamped: Posted Friday at 04:52 | Article Link:  abc.net.au | Article Title: Fact check: Is Australia the only advanced English-speaking country without same-sex marriage?
Share

The slippery slope of moral bankruptcy

Seriously folks if you didn’t know this is what a **the slippery slope of moral bankruptcy*** looks like and it’s not the end of the slide.

fools mountain
Article: I breastfeed my boyfriend’:

“Mum, 36, uses pumps and pills to help her ‘feed’ her gym buff lover every TWO HOURS”

It started at fool’s mountain “there is no God” and ends at the eternal fiery lake

Share

These Guys Are Utter Moonbeams

4cm Newsfeed Master feature

For those who adhere to the Judeo-Christian worldview, we know that one of the earliest creative acts by God was the creation of mankind. And this was a very specified creation. As we read in Genesis 1:26-27: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Thus mankind as male and female was and is how God designed us to be. There are not three sexes or ten sexes or a hundred sexes. One does not simply choose whatever sex one wants to be. We are born male or female, and our DNA does not lie about such matters.

Sure, we know that because we now live in a fallen world, one in which everything is tainted by sin, things are not fully as they were meant to be. The image of God still remains in every single one of us, but anomalies can occur. Some might be born missing some fingers, but they are still human beings.

A very, very small number of people might be born with what we call an intersex condition, where there is ambiguous genitalia, chromosomal imbalances, and so on. These can be found in conditions such as Turner Syndrome, Klinefelter’s Syndrome, etc. This is extremely rare however and has nothing whatsoever to do with the radical homosexual and transgender activists seeking to destroy human sexuality.

Even in intersex cases we still have the fundamental reality of a male or female sex. Those with the intersex condition do not constitute another, third sex, but are afflicted with a genetic disability, just as a Down’s syndrome person has a genetic disability.

And note that I am using the word “sex” here, not the questionable term “gender”. For more on this, see the excellent article by Stella Morabito: thefederalist.com/2016/05/31/why-you-should-stop-using-the-word-gender/

I will speak more to her piece shortly, but here I want to say we are in an all-out war with the social activists and the sexual revolutionaries. They want to destroy human sexuality altogether. They want to convince us that being male and female is simply a social construct, and we can be whatever we want to be.

I have reported before about the various lists of what is out there: dozens and dozens of options can be chosen from. If Revlon has 177 different shades of lipstick to choose from, the number of “genders” and “gender identities” and “gender orientations” is right up there.

In a recent article I reported on those claiming there are 112 genders along with 71 orientations: www.billmuehlenberg.com/2016/03/09/gender-moonbattery-off-the-charts/

The war of sex differences is upon us big time. So who is behind all this miserable madness? All the usual suspects can be mentioned: loony Laborites; goofy Greens; secular humanists; cultural Marxists; the PC thought police; the sexual anarchists, the gender benders, and so on. But behind them all is the god of this world: Satan.

morrisonIf God made us male and female, then Satan will do all he can to convince us this is a myth, and human sex is infinite and fluid and totally a matter of choice. That is because everything God favours and endorses, Satan hates and seeks to pervert and ruin. So human beings of one of two sexes, human sexuality, heterosexual marriage and family – all as God designed them to be – are all under horrific attack by Satan and his minions.

So every day now we find this madness being forced down our throats by the zealots and activists. The real worry is just how nutty these guys are getting. And I choose my words carefully here, because we have just been told by the sexperts that we can no longer use the word “guy”. Yep you heard that right.

An ABC TV news report on this last night was quite staggering. They dragged out one “expert” after another telling us how evil and harmful it is to call people “guys”. Typical ABC. The press ran with this story today. One of them puts it this way:

Australian of the Year and former Army chief David Morrison says the term “guys” should no longer be used in workplaces. The retired Lieutenant General on Wednesday launched a new Diversity Council Australia video which aims to crack down on language which excludes minority groups. “Exclusive language, gender-based language or inappropriate language, has as much a deleterious or disadvantaged effect as something where you’re saying something blatantly inappropriate to another human being,” General Morrison told ABC News Breakfast.

ABC TV news report

OK then, let me say this without any hesitancy: these guys are complete fruitcakes.

These guys are whackos. These guys are complete nutters. There, I said it, and I am happy I said it.

So arrest me already. And other more sensible sorts have also pooh-poohed the idea:


Foreign Minister Julie Bishop cautioned against interfering with freedom of speech. Ms Bishop said words such as “guys” were generic enough they should not cause offence. “I don’t think we should try and interfere with the freedom of speech in this country to a point where people are too concerned about day-to-day conversations,” she said.

Julie Bishop

The war on human sexuality is getting more and more mind boggling by the day. So let me return to the Morabito piece “Why You Should Stop Using The Word ‘Gender’.” She begins:

Let’s stop polluting our language with the word “gender.” Corruption of the English language was Point A on the road to President Obama’s directive to de-privatize and de-sex all school restrooms nationwide. The ploy that got us all into the lazy habit of using the empty term “gender” in place of the accurate word “sex” has its roots in gender ideology, which cultural Marxists pushed for many decades. Since cultural Marxism is nothing but nihilism, it shouldn’t surprise us that “gender” can mean whatever you want or don’t want it to mean. In other words, there’s no there there.

She reminds us where the term came from:

Apparently, the substitution of the word “sex” with the vague word “gender” was the hobbyhorse of John Money back in the 1950s. Money was the corrupt sexologist who is most notorious for utterly ruining the life of David Reimer by talking his parents into raising David as a girl after a botched circumcision left him without a penis. Money drooled at the chance to experiment on little David because David happened to have an identical twin brother who could serve as a control for Money’s little inquest. In the 1970s, feminists took off with Money’s new lexicon, and we’ve been sloppily repeating the word “gender” ever since.

She continues:

      DON’T get sucked into the mind game of “cisgender.” Cisgender is a totally weaponized term that forces even more de-sexing in society. It’s also a pejorative term that is supposed to mean that your mind just so happens to allow your “assigned sex” to exist alongside your “gender identity.” In gender ideology, a cisgender person is inferior to a transgender person.

      Politely insist you are the male sex or the female sex, which actually matches up with your chromosomes. Period. Since the prefix “cis” means “on the same side as” (as opposed to “trans,” which means to cross over), perhaps you can cheerfully add that you are “cis-reality.”

      DON’T say “gender neutral.” DO use other more accurate terms, such as “de-sexed” or “de-privatized bathrooms.” “De-sex” is particularly accurate when referring to what the state is doing to every one of us when transgender law insists that the term “gender” is superior to the reality-based term “sex.” Example: “The phrase ‘sex assigned at birth’ de-sexes us.” “Unisex” is far preferable to “gender neutral” in referring to clothing styles or hairstyles or any other material things that uniformly apply to both sexes.

      DON’T say “gender non-conforming.” “Sex-non-conforming” is more accurate. The transgender idea, after all, is not to conform to the verified reality of the male or female sex.

      DON’T get trapped in conflating intersex with “gender identity.” Intersex people are not transgender, though transgender activists use them to promote the agenda of gender ideology. The fact that anomalies exist in nature doesn’t cancel out the realities of nature, but actually accentuates them. Every single human being—male, female, intersex, or transgender—got here the same way: through the union of one male and one female.

I have said it many times now: social engineering is always preceded by verbal engineering.

And we sure have this here big time guys.

www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-01/david-morrison-wants-australians-to-stop-saying-‘guys’/7465824

[1459 words]

The post These Guys Are Utter Moonbeams appeared first on CultureWatch.

Share