House of Representatives Debates Gay Marriage Resolution

An impressive debate began in the House of Representatives tonight on a motion by the Greens member, Adam Bandt, calling on parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.

Bandt’s motion reads:

That this House:

(1) notes there is:

(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, SPain, Canada and South Africa; and

(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and

(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.

Speaking to the motion, Bandt said, “there have been many attempts through history to limit love and all have failed”. The text of his speech is at the end of this page.

  • Click the PLAY button to listen to Bandt’s speech:

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

  • The motion was opposed by the Liberal member for Berowra, Philip Ruddock.

  • Listen to Ruddock’s speech:

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

  • The new Labor member for Throsby, Stephen Jones then moved an amendment to the motion, as shown below:

    That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”

  • Click PLAY to listen to Jones’s speech. The full text is at the end of this page.

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

  • The following members then spoke on the resolution, until the debate was adjourned:

  • Bruce Billson – Liberal, Dunkley

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

  • Sharon Grierson – ALP, Newcastle

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

  • Warren Entsch – Liberal, Leichhardt

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

  • Andrew Wilkie – Independent, Denison

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

  • Malcolm Turnbull – Liberal, Wentworth

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

  • Shayne Neumann – ALP, Blair

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

  • Teresa Gambaro – Liberal, Brisbane

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

This is the draft text of Adam Bandt’s speech on his equal marriage resolution:

Love knows no boundaries.

Love knows no limits.

And love knows when it has found its partner.

Mr Speaker, there have been many attempts through history to limit love.

And all have failed.

And as we move further into the 21st century I am confident that attempts to limit love will fail again, that full marriage equality will become a reality.

Mr Speaker, this motion before the Parliament does not seek to overturn the Howard government’s change to the Marriage Act which sought to limit marriage to a few.

My colleague Senator Sarah Hanson Young has a bill before Parliament that when passed will amend the Marriage Act to enshrine the right for all Australian’s to marry regardless of their gender or sexuality.

And in time the Greens will move for that bill to be debated.

Instead this motion seeks to provide an opportunity for members of Parliament, the media and most importantly the community to discuss the importance of Marriage Equality.

The motion is not binding on Members of Parliament or the government its passage will not in itself legally endorse or ratify the right to marriage equality. Rather it will acknowledge the reality of community opinion in Australia which has changed.

The motion reads:

That this House:

(1) Notes that:

(a) There is a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and

(b) there is widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community.

(2) Calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.

In moving this motion The Greens want Parliament to acknowledge that Australian public opinion is changing.

We also want Parliament to acknowledge that change is happening around the world.

And we want those who are still stuck in the old way of thinking to go out and engage with the people in their electorates to find out where are now at.

And I welcome my colleagues who have chosen to participate in this debate today and I am encouraged by the fact that many more MPs would have spoken today if we had more time for speaking spots rather than the ten we were able to allocate.

I am also encouraged by the number of MPs including Ministers who have indicated their support for Marriage Equality through the media, some of whom have raised the prospect of the bringing forward their Party conference to change policy.

This is welcome.

However, I would say that there is no need for such delay. If the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader were willing to shift direction we could change the law right now.

And it is especially disappointing that the Prime Minister and the government continue to hold on to 20th century thinking on matters of love when the community is so far ahead of them.

Because we know that the community has progressed.

Recent polling shows the majority of Australians support a move to full equality for marriage.

When The Greens Marriage Equality (Amendment) Bill was considered by a Senate Inquiry over 25,000 submissions were received.

We know that there are many small groups who are well-organized and well-resourced and that they will continue speak out very loudly in favour of discrimination. But it is a mistake to think that because they speak loudly that they speak for everyone.

I would ask members concerned about those groups to have a look at today’s analysis of community attitudes appearing in the Fairfax press. What it suggests for those sitting in this house by virtue of a small margin is that the well-organized old-world lobby groups are not engaging the voters in your seats. Instead, what you will find there, as Mark Davis writes, is that “perhaps the marginal seats are not as fussed by gay marriage as the politicians think.” Which means the time is right to make this change.

There are now so many people wanting to marry or friends and family members of those whose love the law says can not be recognised.

And it is these people, Mr Speaker who this debate is ultimately about. The many, many, many people want to marry and can’t because there partner is of the same-sex. And the many, many, many people whose sisters, brothers, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, grandmothers and grandfathers, friends and neighbours who all know someone who wants to be married but can’t because of this archaic legal discrimination.

Today, the online campaigning group Get Up asked couples to submit their photos and their stories of why they want to be married.

I want to read some of these to the House.

Tony Bannister:

The attached photo is of my beautiful partner Paul Walters & I. We have been together as a couple for over 13 years. We are committed to each other, our families and our friends. We have busy, successful careers, have a number of properties which we co-jointly own and we live our lives, just like most other ‘married’ couples in harmony with each other in a caring and loving way.

What we don’t have is a recognition of our partnership in terms of legally or equality. Not only is this discriminating as to what this means to ours and others relationships but I strongly believe that this is at the root of discrimination in terms of educating our children that same sex partnership, marriage and unions are just as equal, loving and right as our parents and friends. Anyone we are connected to from parents, to friends to work colleagues can see that what we have is no different from what they have yet agree that we should have the same rights and protections. Until this happens we are living in a world of ignorance and intolerance.

Kate Abel:

I met the love of my life 6 months ago and this is a photo of us taken only last month about 15 minutes after we became engaged.

We are now planning our wedding and the part that devastates us is that our own country won’t recognise us as a married couple. Being recognised through a civil union or partnership, for us is insufficient. We want nothing more than to have our relationship seen legally as “marriage” and to be able to say that we are wives. We want that certificate of marriage, just like any heterosexual couple does. We are both professionals, highly educated (we are both undertaking Masters levels university courses while working full time as professionals) and we hold the same values of love, family and marriage as everyone else. It saddens us that, just because we happen to be of the same sex, we don’t have that right to be married. Five of my friends are getting married next year and all of them take for granted that this country allows it.

Because we aren’t allowed to get married here, we are going to marry overseas. Afterwards, we will have a formal reception in Australia. Being able to hold a marriage certificate with our names on it is very important to us: at least our marriage will be recognised somewhere. The sad part for us is that not all of our friends and family will be able to attend the ceremony because of the geographical limitations.

These are just a few of the thousands of Australian who want to be married but a barred by the Howard government ban.

Mr Speaker, there have been many times through history when the civil rights of a group of people have been violated, often with legal sanction.

Many of those struggles continue.

The struggle to end discrimination and for full equality for LGBTI people did not begin with marriage equality and it will not end when it is achieved, but it is an important turning point for that struggle.

I am sure the increased discussion and debate brought about by this motion will contribute to bringing about full equality.

Regardless of the outcome of the vote which it seems may be determined by the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader’s current position it is this debate and discussion which will take us further along the path to marriage equality.

I am encouraged by suggestions and support by various members for a friendship group that could progress these issues.

Mr Speaker, there is a famous aphorism “love conquers all” and as I said in my opening remarks love is a powerful force and it is a powerful force for good.

It is the power of love that has brought us to this moment in the debate over marriage equality.

And it is the power of love that will force this Parliament and this country to face the reality of what marriage and love means in the 21st century.

This is the draft text of Stephen Jones’s speech on the equal marriage resolution.

I rise to amend the motion – and wish to make a few brief observations.

The first is that I don’t pretend to be an early activist on this issue.

When I think about the issues that I campaigned on this year – it was dealing with youth unemployment (which stands at 14% in my area), it was reforming our economy to make it more sustainable and to preserve our planet for future generations, it was improving infrastructure and access to health and education services.

But now – having focussed on the issue, and having applied the core Labor values of equality, fairness and dignity, I believe there is a need for change.

It was these values that led Labor in its first term to conduct an exhaustive review of all Commonwealth laws to identify and remove all areas of discrimination against same sex couples. We amended 86 separate pieces of legislation.

If change is to occur then we must build a community consensus. If legislation is to be changed it will require a consensus which requires more votes than any single party.

That won’t be achieved by a heroic dash but careful advocacy that deals respectfully with different views.

On this issue there are different views.

There are some who on theological grounds believe that to celebrate marriage of two men or women is an affront to their religion. I believe that the real objection here is not the marriage but the relationship.

We can be thankful that we live in a society where those who hold this view are as free to hold it, as I am to say respectfully – that I do not agree. We are opposed to discrimination – this opposition is grounded in the value of fairness and equity – we are opposed to treating people differently because of gender, race, religion or sexual preference.

There are others who argue that gay marriage is an affront to tradition – I have more sympathy for this argument. I am a great believer in the importance of tradition – it is often the stuff that binds us together. But it can also be the stuff that excludes and impedes genuine progress.

We must be careful in genuflecting to tradition. Traditions change over time. There have been many matrimonial traditions which we now think of as absurd if not abhorrent. Betrothal, dowry and a wife’s matrimonial vow of obedience to husband come to mind.

Marriage is an important institution in our society – it is a special relationship where two people say to each other, and to the rest of the world, that they agree to be bound together in love, exclusive of all others, for life. It would diminish us all as a society if we were to say that we must exclude gay and lesbian couples from this celebration.

I respect the right of religious organisations to disagree with this – and to continue to practice in accordance with their beliefs indeed no motion or Act of this place could in itself alter those beliefs – but it is an entirely different thing to ask the state to enforce this.

Finally, I come to this place as a representative of my electorate and of my Party. I will advocate for change – I will do that in my electorate and in accordance with the rules and processes of my Party, and in this Parliament.

Bandt motion

Mr Bandt, pursuant to notice, moved—That this House:

(1) notes that there is:

(a) a growing list of countries that allow same-sex couples to marry including the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Spain, Canada and South Africa; and

(b) widespread support for equal marriage in the Australian community; and

(2) calls on all parliamentarians to gauge their constituents’ views on the issue of marriage equality.

Mr S. P. Jones, moved, as an amendment:

—That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House calls on all parliamentarians, consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same sex couples including marriage”

Print Friendly


  1. Plebboo says:

    Hey Bob Brown and the rest of you fags want to be careful. The islamist hate faggots and I have been told,they throw them off tall buildings or decapitate them. Since you are all in favour of islam residing in this country shariah will follow and your death will be imminent by islamists. This is what I have been told by islamists.

  2. vanhellslinger says:


    An acronym I created back in 84’ that stands for surplus intelligent male population life elimination, may be the backbone of understanding the why and how to stop the gay assimilation of America and the world.


    S.I.M.P.L.E. is a simple philosophy based on one simple fact. The fact is for thousands of years women have been giving birth universally to more male babies. Statisticians put it at around 105 male babies are born for every 100 females. So 100 million females mean 105 million males, and that is enough extra men to build an army to destroy the world. For thousands of years, the surplus male population has been used to fight wars, and the reason for the wars, has been shrouded and hidden, by people that don‘t understand it, nor want it. The church has historically denied, and obstructed any biological reasons for war because it is contrary to church logic, a logic based in creationist faith, and denies even the basic scientific truths. Biological theories for war tend to saddle up next to the theory of evolution, and we know how the churches feels about Darwin. However today’s modern church is a little more open minded and accepts some of the ideas on biology and nature. The facts speak for themselves; every war (with a few minor exceptions) throughout history was fought primarily by men.

    “In the case of the sechemites all the males were massacred by sons of Jacob, while the women and children and livestock were carried off as booty “ genesis xxxiv 25-29

    Fact: In 1984 there were 1,200 men under sentence of death for crimes, and merely a dozen women on death row.
    We have all seen on TV, animal reality shows where male horses, dog, cats, mountain goats, big cats, deer, etc. etc. fight for the right to mate with a female. It is so common a fact and yet we can’t see the correlation to our own nature. People are so obsessed with creationist fantasy, or atheist obsessions that they will deny the most obvious of truths. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is simply another way to kill off surplus male population. However because of world overpopulation there is another variable that must be recognized, and we have an obligation to respect the nature of a nondiscriminatory war based on global statistics. Whether it’s God nature or a atheists world, we must accept what stands before us and react to whatever life gives us biologically.

    S.I.M.P.L.E. Biological Theory For Cause of War
    Surplus Intelligent Male Population Life Elimination
    All wars are defined only in theory. That’s why the Democrats and Republicans have different opinions on the Iraq war. Away from the mainstream theories for war is one called Biological Theories For the Cause of War. My version follows:

    Fact: World War 1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam, and most wars in all times were fought primarily, fundamentally by heterosexual men.
    Fact: Throughout history women of most races and nationalities gave birth to more males. In 1980 there were 93,074 more male babies born in the U.S.
    Fact: In 1984 there were approximately 1,200 men in the U.S. under sentence of death for crimes, and only a mere dozen women.
    Fact: More males die each year than females. During 1975 in the U.S. 108,759 more males died.
    Fact: There is approximately 1/2 million more men in prisons than women.
    Fact: Other species of animals have similar mating rituals like humans. The males also perform ritualistic combat for the acquisition of females.

    ” If it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it. And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male therof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil therof, shalt thou take unto thyself.” (Deut. 20:12-14)

    Topic: Population, Sex Composition(From the International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences)

    “Most easily measurable, and of fundamental importance both demographically and socially, is a populations composition by sex. In any given area the distribution of the sexes tends to be unequal, owing to the operation of any or all of three factors. First, a differential sex ratio at birth is universal; more males are born everywhere than females”
    Demographic Yearbook, 1982, United Nations Published, World Summary
    Estimates of population and it’s percentage distribution by age and sex and sex ratio for all ages for the world, macro regions and regions: population in millions
    All ages Both sexes Male Female
    World total 4432 male 2224 female 2208

    In 1982 there were 16 million surplus males on our planet earth, and increase of 5 million from the 1980 census. Here in the U.S., during 1980 alone, women gave birth to 93,074 surplus males.

    “However, organized predatory violence has always been a male monopoly, whether practiced against game animals or those enemy humans defined as “not men”( and hence also a kind of prey animal). From – The Imperial Animal

    “War was usually a highly formalized institution with the object of vindicating the group mores that were thought to have been offended by a member of another tribe, usually by wife stealing of witch doctoring” (International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences,1968;War)

    S.I.M.P.L.E. Surplus intelligent male population life elimination. All wars were caused by an unbalanced sex ratio. Population statistics prove that women were giving birth to more males, and war, crime, drugs, etc. all contribute to balancing our lives. The key word is “balancing”, even environmentalists are ever so worried about the presence of non indigenous species, that can destroy the balance of nature.
    Allowing homosexuals a place in human society as equals to the alpha male dominants, a status that was earned thru thousands of years of war, will unbalance human nature. So why not just let people know the real reason we have wars? For every woman on death row there is approximately 100 men. For every woman that commits suicide, 10 men do. 10 men die in accidents, drug overdoses, murder, etc. for every woman that does. The statistics are there in almost any world almanac. War, and other violent phenomena contributes to male deaths, and allows us to balance our sexes. Heterosexual males earned their place in history, and it’s not right to give it up free of charge to homosexuals.

    Is nature trying to compensate by creating nonbreeding humans? We don’t know, if nature has imbedded a factor within us, to respond whenever we reach a population saturation level? If it is true, then we as intelligent animals must decide, do we want the homosexual community to become our leaders? Will they assimilate us with laws and rules, demands, and changes to our culture and civilize practices, that will offend our moralities, and not a defense to stop them?
    FACT: In ancient Greece it was mandatory for young boys to practice homosexuality. Conquered Jews were expected to provide their male children for nude wrestling with Greek boys, a practice of assimilation.
    FACT: A common progay assimilation technique used in modern America has been documented , that is YMCA’s in the 1950’s forced young boys up to the teen years to swim naked in pools, while adult men watched. This kind of assimilation may be in tomorrows future if we allow gay rights to grow.

    We have for thousands of years, fought wars, using all male armies, and the victors of the wars won the right to continue their family line. “To the victor goes the spoils”, and that is in nature the proper design, the dominant stronger males are reserved the right to mate with females, and propagate the species. “. The strong survive, and at the expense of the weaker, defeated and frequently dead .

    Now the government wants us to stand up on a pedestal of equality, the gay males, and give them the same status, as a conquering army, the alpha male position. Thousands, maybe millions of years of biological patterns that we have lived by to this day, is to be replaced by an artificial system, that lacks the full force of natures logic, that is the forced assimilation of heterosexual into homosexual lifestyles. The ancient Greeks tried it and it failed. They were destroyed, the nature of the human animal decided against homosexuality.

    Why is it we refuse to allow foreign species of plants and animals into our ecosystems, that can devour and hurt our nature, but we will permit a foreign body in our own society to merge, and do so without any real scientific proof that they won’t harm our way of life?
    The gay community wants us to believe that homosexuality is all natural, and so it is, but a disease is also natural. By allowing gays to upgrade their status , give them gay marriage, and repeal DADT, we are changing our nature as a whole. This is tantamount to planting an invasive species next to your fruit trees, and not knowing if it is harmful to the crop.


    Assimilation- to render similar, Wikipedia

    Let’s face it, cultural assimilation alone repudiates homosexual logic. However, the problem is far worse than I first posted, with the computer and internet in the hands of billions of people, globally, we may, be in the process of experiencing, for the first time in history, a new form/type of assimilation. The rate and amounts of information that is being transported instantly to billions of people, will have profound and dramatic effects on the people of the world. This is so new, that it may very well be a hyper/mutant/mega assimilation(s) that will turn the world in ways we cannot fathom, as yet, the final results are not in, and by the time we understand what is happening, it will be to late to stop it.
    Biblical scholars translated and interpreted the Bible long ago, and predicted a one world government. The mathematics of population growth foresaw a time when we would saturate the planet with people, so the premise of globalization is not new. What is new, is living the experience, we are there, no longer waiting, and it is only days, months, or a few years more when we will see major changes on this planet.
    Whoever is the most dominant force on this planet will be the Matadors of assimilation, that will set the standards for the assimilated people of the world. Without a doubt there will be a massive program of non-partisanization, global bargaining, that will preclude the cessation of minority programs, that are considered globally unimportant, and undesirable to the majority of the world population. Homosexuality on a global level is already a loser, add the costs of supporting a program that demands in political correctness, separate toilets for gays and transgenders, separate housing in the military, prisons, and other places, and add the global recognition, of gay males, having the highest infectious disease rate in the world, this alone is a big negative for the gays, and then add the illogic of gays, as breeding propagating couples, they cannot bear children without the added expense of external interaction. A one world government will consider homosexuality as a cost-prohibitive program! In all likelihood new technology will find a way to reveres homosexuality at the childhood age and wean the world population off gay, and this is probably just a couple years away.
    With all that said, I close, and if you didn’t already read the original post on PBE continue on, and “have a nice day“!


    In primitive caveman times people thought in terms of family, friends, and tribe. They didn’t have nationalism, country, and Gods were equally as primitive as their cultures.
    As populations grew into nations we acquired and expanded our shared values, we grew up intellectually, and learned about things like diversity, multiculturism, and universal goals.
    For most people morality via spiritual values or otherwise have forged us foreword in time, and if for no other reason, family, and the hopes and dreams of a better life for the next generation.
    It appears, for all practical reasons, we have and will continue to increase our systems of communications, using, especially the computer and internet, and TV, radio, etc, to implement advanced futuristic ways of thinking and rationalizing, to the point of reaching out to a Public Brain Experience. We already can blog, chat, email, and translate almost instantly around the globe, sharing every manner of suggestion and question. Some scientists have even created computer programs that allow quadriplegics to operate complex machinery just by thinking into the computer. IT SHOULD BE ONLY A SHORT TIME AND THEY WILL FIND A WAY TO REVERSE THE PROCESS. We will take, metaphorically, sleep learning to the next stage in evolution.
    The issue is, if we are going to evolve into some, (hopefully good guys) Star Trek Borg beings with this hyper universal minds , moralities, and goals, will it be a life that embraces homosexuality?
    The answer is very clear to any rational mind. Of course we have free will, and we live in a free nation with rights for all, however necessity is the mother of invention. We will fine tune human behavior because it is expedient to the fluency of human evolution beyond this world. HOMOSEXUALITY IS A DINOSAUR, A FOSSIL ON THE VERGE OF EXTINCTION, doomed for destruction, science will improve the quality of life, and do so with the interests of all humankind, not just to placate one dysfunctional group of society. The Public Brain Experience is here, now, and it will grow bigger and better, and we will see the truth of all things. Homosexuality is a biological dysfunction, and because the males use anal cavity penetration, they are linked directly to the highest infectious disease rate, and are considered the main contributors to the spread of AIDS in the 1980’s to date. As we advance scientifically more people are considering God as a post evolution phenomena. The possibility that God is a Klaatu (The Day The Earth Stood Still), and is still the Father of Jesus Christ is growing into a global alternate religion, and with it will come an understanding that Biblical interpretations can adapt themselves to even evolution. I PBE this thought to you my friends online, in Jesus Christ name I pray you accept the Astronaut King, until he returns, God be with you.Amen

    Cavemen with ethnocentricity lived for family, and as we evolved into countries we increased the number of factors that bonded us together. However, we had to trim the cultural fat in order to assimilate larger numbers of people coming from different cultures, so we reduced the number of languages, Gods, and other cultural patterns. We see this system, in our globalizing world , continuing, as we have a small handful of useful world languages, we share many laws internationally, we tend to dress the same way, and there is only a few major religions, etc. The direction humanity travels by globalization will increase the probability that homosexuality will be eliminated, as it represents only a small fraction of people, and it has a traditional link to disease and dysfunction, it is not as practical as heterosexuality that combines sex with bearing of children. Occam’s razor, consolidation of all things pertinent to simplify life, because we have to, in order to manage large numbers of people.
    HAS SCIENCE AND HISTORY ALREADY VALIDATED THE END OF HOMOSEXUALITY? It has clearly been demonstrated that cave people existed many thousands of years ago. Apparently we don’t know if from the troglodyte/aborigine primitives a thousand language are extinct or dead, because we don’t have the evidence. We do know there are approximately 7,000 known languages, and from that hundreds are already dead and extinct, and there appears to be an enormously highly visible program of assimilation globally that is predicted to eliminate most of the rest. We even speak from time to time of a one world language. One can guess, either English, Spanish, Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, Russian, and maybe Japanese.
    The programs of culture, religion, sex, etc. that went extinct and dead along with their languages are many, and will most probably never be resurrected. Ancient Greeks practiced homosexuality and pederasty( pedophilia), they even made it mandatory in some cases for young children to be forced into homosexual relationships, this kind of society is extinct and will never be revived.
    Anthropologists have used their study of history to help us understand the future of humankind, let us honor this study as the science it is, and recognize that homosexuality is slated for extinction. Along with the disease rates, and the outright dysfunctional program of non breeding relationships comes the extra burden of accommodating their lifestyle. A gay couple can demonstrate propagation, but it incurs the extra expense of external forces, such as another person, or artificial insemination. The recent repeal of DADT may prove to cost us billions in extra spending by providing separate barracks and other facilities. The science of assimilation is being tested in it’s final stage of human evolution, we may see many new programs, a universal race, a blend of white and black, or as we know it already the tan and brown color people. A one world government, a mainstreaming of spirituality, and the elimination of all deviant sexual behavior. All of it done to consolidate and make living on earth affordable and enjoyable. Science will prevail and this gay disease will fail.


  3. vanhellslinger says:

    Countries With Gays in the Military

    Recently the democrats passed a new law repealing the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and now allow gays to serve openly in the military. One of the arguments the gay community presented was a list of countries that already allow gays to serve as soldiers. Unfortunately I didn’t have the time to research all those countries, and still don’t, but it was interesting to look at a few of them.

    Number one is Australia, and I had posted on another blog that I considered Aussieland to be a 2nd world country. More importantly, in 2008 the United Nations declared Australia the number one most racist developed country. At the same time there were no nonwhite members of the Australian House of Representatives, and Senate. Odd that the gay community here would miss the biggest racist country in the world, but apparently they did.
    Since I am down there let’s look at their neighbor New Zealand. Quite frankly, for all practical purposes, they don’t really have a military. I mean they have 6,500 total people in their army, and that includes the civilian militia. Break that down by job category, cooks, nurses, managers, supply, computer operators, drivers, etc, etc, and one can imagine a few hundred infantry, and maybe a few dozen artillery.
    No wonder that the New Zealand military was embarrassed publicly by the Stephen Wilce incident. Apparently they gave a complete fraud a top level security clearance. So of course they have gays in their military, they are the New Jokeland to any real military.

    I want to briefly deride Israel for their use of gays, as it is one of the easiest to defrock. Plain and simple, Israel is a charity case country of the United States, since the 1970’s Israel has owned the distinction of being the number one recipient of American aid. We have given them more money than any other country in the world, and look at the place, it looks like a 3rd world country. They are just as bad as the Australian in race relations, just ask the Palestinians. I’m not saying they don’t have a effective military, it is one of the best, but would they have any military, if American had not given so much their way? What is seen here is another clear example of major flaws and issues with countries that allow gays to serve in the military, and Israel fit’s the glove.