Tuesday, September 12, 2017

It is impossible for homosexuals to form a true marriage

They can at best impersonate a real marriage

In Australia we are currently having a nation-wide postal survey on Australian marriage law in order to determine whether the definition of marriage should be changed to include homosexual relationships. https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/

There is currently a lot of talk about same sex marriage being marriage equality. But is it?  It will in fact always remain fundamentally different

As I see it, by nature, a man and woman are different not equal.  Equality does not enter into it. And that difference brings a diversity of capacities to the marriage -- a diversity that a homosexual union cannot usually have.  No doubt there are, for instance, some homosexual men who are good with children but homosexual men in general cannot give the near-guarantee of being good with children that a heterosexual woman can give.  The diversity of the parties in a normal marriage gives the marriage as a whole a nearly double range of strengths and possibilities.  What one partner cannot do the other might, making the partnership as a whole more versatile.  Division of labour will be much more effecrtive.

And it is presumably specialization and division of labour that have caused men and women to evolve differently in the first place.  A partnership that has far fewer possibilities for division of labour is flying in the face of evolution and can rarely if at all be as strong and effective.

Men and women are necessary to each other, and only in that sense are they equal to each other.  A half plus the other half equals the whole. But a half plus the same half merely equals the same half.

A man and a woman are two halves that make a whole. A man and woman together become one, make life, become part of the ongoing flow of nature. A man and a man, and a woman and a woman, cannot do that without the assistance of the other sex, so their marriage is not equal to the marriage of a man and woman.

But it is no business of the government to ask what anybody does with their private bits.  It is only when the Left asks government to describe something as what it is not that an issue arises.  But in the great spirit of Anglo-Saxon compromise,  there would seem to be no objection to issuing homosexual couples with a certificate naming them and headed: "Homosexual marriage certificate".  That would make clear that the marriage is a special case and not a true marriage -- JR

Father, 31, who took his one-year-old daughter to hospital with a leg rash was falsely accused of child abuse

This can only be explaimed as NHS negligence.  A skin specialist mistook a fungal infection for a burn????  He should be sent for retraining or at least not further used in forensic matters.

And why could they not do an immediate biopsy anyway?

This is only one of such "mistakes" and it will alert real child abusers to keep their kids away from hospitals.  People who DO  bring their children in should be subject to a rush to judgement

A father was wrongly accused of abusing his baby daughter when he took her to hospital with a rash on her leg which doctors suspected was a burn.

Worried Kevin Gardiner, 31, of Ridgewell, Suffolk, sought medical attention for one-year-old Amara when he spotted the bright red mark on her left thigh.

But doctors immediately called in social services and police, who quizzed him on suspicion of hurting the tot.

Due to the accusations, Mr Gardiner was separated from Amara, his newborn baby daughter Genevieve and his partner Jasmine Yates for over a week.

He said: 'It was heartbreaking. I obviously felt like my life had been taken away from me when I hadn't done anything and I was being punished.

'All we were trying to do was the right thing and then I ended up being accused of hurting.

'I couldn't focus or think straight, I didn't know if my family were being taken away and I might never see them again.

'I couldn't sleep or eat. When I did sleep I didn't want to wake up. I felt so run down, I kept having breakdowns all the time and it left me feeling suicidal.'

Mr Gardiner and Ms Yates, 20, first noticed the rash while changing Amara's nappy at their home on June 29.

She displayed no other symptoms of being unwell and so the couple asked their health visitor, who came to their home moments later, what it could be.

They were told to make an appointment with their local GP who sent them to West Suffolk Hospital the same day.

Despite a skin specialist being called in to examine Amara's leg, doctors were adamant the mark was sinister and called the authorities.

Full time mother Ms Yates  said: 'As soon as we turned up at the hospital, we could feel them suspecting us of doing something to Amara.

'They were watching our every move and did nothing to reassure us that she wasn't seriously ill.

'It was like they weren't considering it could be anything else, other than us abusing our child.

'They started asking us if she had been in any accidents or if anything had rubbed against her leg and before we knew it the police and social services turned up.'

Doctors also demanded that the couple's four-month-old daughter Genevieve was brought in for examination.

Ms Yates was then told to take the girls to stay with her mother - while police threatened Mr Gardiner with arrest if he made contact with them.

He was not allowed to say goodbye to his family, and forced to go and stay with relatives.

Ms Yates said: 'After the hospital said it was a burn they said we had to stay the night, I could stay with Amara but Kevin was told he had to go home and that he would have to come back in the morning with our 10-day-old daughter so she could be checked over.

'It was so upsetting. We just wanted our family together and to enjoy time with Amara and our new baby.

'Social services kept turning up to check on the girls. They were really checking up on me and making sure Kevin hadn't been in touch.

'It was so distressing for Amara because she didn't know why she couldn't see her daddy. They're so close and it really affected her.'

After a week, the hospital rang to confirm the mark on Amara's leg was actually a fungal skin infection.

Mr Gardiner, a council worker, was then allowed to return to his family on July 10, but the couple say they are yet to receive any apology from the hospital or social services.

He said: 'I was just over the moon I thought I might never see them again.'

But Ms Yates added: 'They should have run the tests before jumping to that conclusion.

'I'm so wary now to take her to the doctors. What if I was taking her in for something else and they started all this up again?'

Rowan Procter, executive chief nurse at West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, said: 'We are sorry to hear of the distress Ms Yates and her family are feeling, and would encourage Ms Yates to log any concerns formally with our patient experience team.

'The protection of children is of utmost importance to the trust, and we have rigorous processes in place to ensure potentially vulnerable children are safeguarded from harm.

'Whilst we cannot disclose details about any incident such as this, we apologise for any unnecessary stress that may have been caused.'

The family say social services carried on visiting them until last week, but they were given no explanation for their continued involvement.

They are now considering taking legal action.

Kevin added: 'Neither of us have even been in trouble before or given them any reason to think we might harm either of our girls.

'We love them to pieces and couldn't and wouldn't do anything to hurt them.

'I feel like they've been out to get me from the start. It's been the worst time of my life.

'All I wanted was to protect with my little girls. Social services are the ones causing the harm, not me.'

A spokesman for Suffolk County Council said: 'Suffolk County Council has a statutory duty to follow its child protection procedures when such concerns are raised.

'This is particularly important when we receive any referral from a specialist consultant within a local health authority.

'We discussed the situation with the family at the time who understood that we were following our statutory duties and we concluded our involvement when we received further information from the health authority following their initial diagnosis.'


Political correctness is incorrectness

Some wisdom from the University of Maine

Gentrification is the idea of taking cheap, poor or underdeveloped areas and bringing them up to middle or higher class standards. It appears as progress, but it actually does not address the underlying issues of poverty. As strange as this may sound, the Comedy Central cartoon “South Park” made me realize that there is another form of gentrification in our society – that is political correctness (PC).

In one episode, the character Nathan says, “What is PC but a verbal form of gentrification? Spruce everything up, get rid of all the ugliness in order to create a false sense of paradise.” I believe there is a wisdom in this line. Modern political correctness is not protecting marginalized communities. It is a self-satisfying and ineffective way to move society forward.

Let’s look at the relationship between how we view language and social progress. Obviously overt racism is bad, but PC language does do more harm than good. For an individual to look at the world through a PC lens, you need to see existing hierarchies and power structures. I agree with the idea that some groups are more privileged than others. What does this mean for how we act towards one another? The politically correct answer is to use certain language to avoid offense. It seems harmless enough, but this action requires the acknowledgement of your own privilege. From your raised position, you look down on others and treat them as lesser people,  not as a true equal. This is not fixing a power structure; it is affirming one that’s also patronizing.

Political correctness also solves nothing if underlying social stigmas and attitudes aren’t changed. Changing “shell-shocked” to “post-traumatic stress disorder” doesn’t help veterans get the care they need. Changing “disabled” to “differently-abled” doesn’t increase accessibility. In fact, changing words just gives people a safe way to continue to discuss horrible ideas in the open. Changing words to mean less offensive things leads to an effect called the euphemism treadmill. We can change words, but if the people who adopt them don’t change their ideas then we are not moving forward. Words don’t matter if intentions never change.

Political correctness has caused words that matter to lose their meaning. People are eager to throw out terms like sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic and transphobic. However, the words get thrown around so much that they have rendered themselves meaningless. A racist person should never get into office but when the word has lost its meaning, that attack no longer works. People get called racist for asking a dumb or inappropriate question, and that same word is used to describe the Klu Klux Klan. Any rational person can see the difference between the two but when the line isn’t so clear, the use of the word doesn’t work.

A study out of Stanford has also shown that PC language can lead to bad behavior through a phenomenon call moral self-licensing. Through PC language, individuals endow themselves with a sense of higher virtue which then paves the way for bad behavior. Last year, I wrote about punching Nazis and the reasons I thought it was not the way to address the issue. The idea that punching Nazis is okay is entirely based in the psychology of moral licensing. The internal logic works like this: since I hold an enlightened view of the world, it is now okay for me to engage in violence. The narcissistic gratification that is derived from moral self-licensing paves the way for bad behavior.

People are also tired of having to watch everything they say or do in order to not offend people. With language, it is all about intention. When people use some of these phrases that are deemed “microaggressions” they are not evil. Racism is evil – naivety is not. Equating normal people with horrors that led to the worst of history is not an effective strategy for progress.  

I’m not saying that politically correct people are bad. I’m arguing that the current trends of tolerance and social justice are not the proper means to an end that I assume most rational people want. We should work towards a world that is cosmopolitan and culturally diverse. I would rather people be politically correct than uncaring and oppressive, but it still is an ineffective form of social change. It fed the Trump movement. It does not bolster progress, and it may in fact hinder social change.


Why I refuse to let my daughter be taught by a fat teacher

The nursery assistant was clearly a lovely woman: kind and great with children. But as I watched her play with my two-year-old daughter, I felt a growing sense of unease.

She was only in her 20s, but she was already obese — morbidly so. She moved slowly and breathlessly, her face flushed.

Would she, I wondered, have the lightning reflexes needed to save an adventurous toddler from imminent danger?

And what sort of unhealthy habits would she teach my daughter, who would be eating her lunch and tea there each day?

Looking around, I noticed that she wasn’t the only extremely overweight member of staff. I couldn’t help worrying about the message this was sending to the children in their care: that being very fat is normal and — when children adopt role models so readily — even desirable.

My anxiety about this was the main reason I chose not to send my daughter to that nursery, despite its Ofsted rating of ‘Good’. Instead, she goes to another, where the staff are all a healthy weight.

Is this snobbery or ‘fatism’? I don’t think so, but plenty will disagree with me.

This is the first time I have publicly admitted to feeling this way. Aware that the reaction would be anger and vilification, I censored myself. I told everyone I preferred the other nursery because it was smaller and friendlier. I knew I would be accused of discrimination, or ‘fat-shaming’, if I admitted the truth.

It’s not politically correct to comment on anyone’s size any more, and certainly not to say anything negative about obesity. Some even see the word ‘fat’ as equivalent to a racial or homophobic slur.

Fat-positivity — also known as fat acceptance — has gone too far. Originally a response to discrimination against those who aren’t slim enough to fit into society’s beauty ideal, it’s now an excuse for the severely obese to celebrate their bodies, the consequences be damned.

Activists say that ‘fat is beautiful’ and being obese isn’t a problem. Anyone who points out it’s not a good thing to be so overweight is condemned. Telling a woman she should think about losing weight for her health is, apparently, now ‘anti-feminist’.

Take last week when I, perhaps foolishly, entered a Facebook discussion on obesity. A friend had shared a blog post by an overweight woman who was expecting a daughter. Worrying her child would also be overweight — a state she seemed to assume was not preventable — she talked about how she would bring up her child to deal with ‘fat antagonism’ and help her grow into a ‘fat-positive person’.

The response was a roar of approval: everyone agreed the woman’s sentiments were marvellous, and wasn’t it terrible that large women are made to feel ashamed of their bodies.

But I found it problematic — and said so. People should not be fat-shamed, but I had to point out that it was not inevitable the woman’s daughter would become fat. Nobody is born obese.

And, more importantly, being overweight is not healthy, so, rather than teaching her daughter to accept it, she could teach her that it was something to be avoided if possible . . . and how.

While I didn’t expect my comments to be very well-received, I didn’t anticipate the hostile reception I got. I was sworn at and accused of being discriminatory and of ‘trolling’. When I tried to defend my position, I was told I was upsetting people by making them feel bad about themselves.

Scientific evidence was denied — people said I was misquoting studies linking obesity to heart disease. I was asked to stop commenting. Shut up and go away.

My crime? Being a healthy weight. I was told the outsized don’t want to be dictated to by slim people who can’t understand what it’s like to be fat — lumping me and everybody with a BMI under 25 together, as if we were all Kate Moss. But as I, and most people who aren’t overweight, know only too well, staying a healthy weight isn’t easy.

For me, it has been a lifelong struggle. The only reason I’m slim (I’m a size 10), and by no means skinny (I have a tummy and thighs that jiggle), is because I watch what I eat and exercise regularly.

Perhaps I feel so strongly about this because I’m a slim person with a fat person inside, wanting to burst out. My body clings on to every calorie it can. A doctor told me evolution had ensured I would survive a famine — not that useful for a 21st-century North London girl with a sedentary job.

So I have little sympathy for those who blame their genes or hormones for being fat. My grandmother was morbidly obese, and I have a hormonal condition — an underactive thyroid — which causes weight gain.

When my thyroid stopped working, I rapidly put on weight, going up to a size 14 and almost 11 st (I’m only 5 ft 3 in). I hated it: my thighs rubbed together and I had a muffin top. It took several years for medication to regulate my hormones and several more to lose the weight I’d gained.

It wasn’t about dieting, it was about establishing a routine that would keep me slim for life: doing at least half-an-hour’s exercise every day and never eating more than 1,500 calories. But I don’t just want to stay slim for my health: I like being able to wear close-cut, fashionable clothes and feeling fit, especially now I have a toddler to run after.

Rolls of fat are not attractive — I shouldn’t be scared to say that.

Research has proven that, in many ways, being obese is as unhealthy as smoking. It causes cancer, heart disease and diabetes and can impede fertility. Studies also disprove the notion one can be fat and fit. The heavier you are, the more likely you are to suffer from heart failure or stroke.

If that nursery assistant had been chain-smoking, everyone would have condemned her. But as a public health concern, the only real difference between smoking and obesity is that you can’t passively get fat.

Although even that is open to question. For studies have shown your friends can have as much impact on your size as your genes. Your chances of becoming obese go up by a staggering 57 per cent if your best friend does. A friend in greed truly is a friend indeed.

It’s not just because you’re likely to spend time sharing fries or tubs of Haagen-Dazs. It’s because it changes your perception of what is an acceptable weight. Obesity becomes the norm.

That, on a larger scale — pun intended — is what has happened to society. According to obesity statistics, 27 per cent of adults in England are obese and a further 36 per cent are overweight. So the majority of people are now fat: it’s banal, not exceptional.

When size 16 is the average, it seems normal and desirable. It might be, for a woman who is 6 ft, who at size 16 probably won’t be overweight. But a 5 ft woman almost certainly would be.

Vanity sizing means clothing sizes have increased along with women’s girth, normalising larger bodies. While I may be a size 10 today, in the Fifties I would have been a size 14, which was then considered voluptuous.

When people talk about Marilyn Monroe being a curvy size 16, usually to make themselves feel better, they don’t realise she would fit a 10-12 in today’s clothes. Society is in a state of denial.

Whatever the apologists say — and the fat lobby has tried to blame the rising obesity problem on everything from the ubiquity of junk food to an airborne virus — in most cases, obese people are responsible for their own bulk.

There’s a simple reason you put on weight: you expend fewer calories than you ingest. Many fat people say that they have a slow metabolism, but it’s been shown the overweight often have faster metabolisms than slim people.

Once any underlying medical conditions have been dealt with, there is no reason the majority shouldn’t be able to achieve a healthy weight.

Yes, some do have complex psychological or emotional issues that cause them to overeat. But is telling them it’s fine to be obese really going to help them?

People can’t help being tall or short, old or young. We can’t help the colour of our skin, our cultural background or the place of our birth. We shouldn’t criticise anyone for these things. Obesity isn’t the same: people become fat.

I don’t think that the disgust response to obesity is a social construct. I believe it’s innate because we know unconsciously that it’s a dangerous state.

Discrimination is never good. But neither is obesity. So let’s stop celebrating it, and instead offer a bit of tough love.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


1 comment:

C. S. P. Schofield said...

I feel I must respectfully disagree with you on the topic of Homosexual marriage. The principle objection I have to the Gay subculture is its volatility. Even in the era of AIDS it is common for Gay men to have random sexual encounters with comparative strangers. But if I object to this (and I do) it seems to me that I am obligated to approve of a more stable alternative. Further, I think there should be legal protection for homosexuals who wish to be monogamous if they find out that there partner has cheated on them. Marriage provides that.

It is difficult to see what Homosexual marriage could possibly do to the solemnity of marriage that hollywood serial divorces have not already done.