Risible tear jerker?
The archbishop was acting like he was debating which colour bible cover he should use at the parish fete. Not like he was debating a fundamental debasement of society and destruction of the beneficial childhoods of children!
Here are some proper responses:
- The bloke who claimed he had a great multi family upbringing:
"mate, we're not talking about your privilaged experience, we're talking about what research shows: it is well known that overall, children from broken families do worse on major life indicators. You want to condemn how many children to being worse off? Children who don't have the benefit of well-off multi-parents"
- Magda Szubanski and her 10% of population is homosexual:
"Sharon, you're acting just like Sharon: your 10% is from Kinseys faked up propaganda based on the non sample of prisoners. A bloke who abused babies, and you think he's got something to say? Get real. The number is more 1-3%, but big deal; its an aberation that has no genetic meaning and therefore is a perversion."
- MS on the church sacking a priest:
"Not only are you factually wrong, Sharon, but what we do in our organisation by our system is none of your business. We aren't a public service, we are a private community group and we run the way we all agree to, and within the law. And here you are wanting us to back off your imagined private issues (because marriage by its nature is a public issue), and let us run your life the way you want, but YOU want to intrude on everyone else's life...typical lefty totalitarianism of convenience!"
- MS on not being able to get married in a church:
"Sharon, youve missed the point again. The church is a loose community of belief, not a part of the public service. And why would you who repudiate our core beliefs want to participate in our beliefs? Strangely hypocritical of you is it not.
"Remember this: marriage is a human institution for the raising of children, it is not an invention of the Christian church, we simply have a way of celebrating marriage amongst our members. If you are not a member you are free to use the public facilities at the BDM office, but why would you want to align withsomething that has nothing to do with you. We aren't an event company for your entertainment, you know....although we could....let's see, starting at $100,000 to meet the costs over generations of developing our practices...
- To anyone who supported SSM:
"Facts don't care about your feelings. Marriage is not about love, its social function is predominantly about the protected and orderly raising of children. As we all know two blokes or two women don't have sex: they can't produce a zygote, they can't RE-produce; so whatever they do with their sex organs it ain't sex!
"And the way same sex pairs (cause they ain't couples: no coupling gear) get kids is they get other peoples' and break the kid off from its parents...
"And don't give me the trumped up propaganda of self-selected middle class people...give me big studies like Sullins' who found the dreadful life outcomes of kids in ssm families.
To those who say the church doesn't have a voice because of child abuse:
"Get this straight. Firstly, it was a massive failure by society. Governments, the police, the judiciary, teachers, the school system, parents...none of them looked after the interests of children either. The police sat on their hands, the judiciary turned a blind eye, the governments turned their backs on institutional governance. The massive fail here is by governments, and that means, by society.
"Furthermore in a study by [get ref], it was shown that child abuse was perpertrated by religious in about 1% of cases, and by family, friends and neigbours in about 40% of cases. Get that? 40%, and more so by step parents than by natural parents; about double the rate, in fact. So on your analysis, we better not give the community particularly homosexuals any say in this debate...cause they can't do proper reproductive sex anyway.
Then, debate like Ben Shapiro
No comments:
Post a Comment