"Without being in any way over-dramatic or alarmist, my prediction would be that the effects of family breakdown on the life of the nation, and ordinary people, in this country will, within the next 20 years, be as marked and as destructive as the effects of global warming"

Right on the button. Two attempts to whip up public hysteria through imaginary connections based on nothing more than wishful thinking. Truly, they are wiser than they know..

By the way, did anyone bother to record the religious affiliations of the English rioters? I'm only guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised to find a much larger proportion of theists among them than the general population.

Since that constitutes 'evidence' on a par with yours, perhaps I should write an article maintaining that belief in God causes social breakdown and chaos...

Would I get published here, I wonder?

Congratulations Warwick on writing yet another polemic that utilises whatever tragic headline that is currently in the news to push your own agenda. And you are obviously not alone, as you appear to have recruited quotes from a number of sources that have just as little idea of what is causing these events as you do. Not that anyone could easily check, your hyperlinks are unusable and your statistics appear to be made up to suit yourself. And what the heck is a 'goal system'?
Perhaps your editor should have actually read the article instead of just using a spell checker.

Fail. C-

I am not here to blow Warwick Marsh's whistle for him, but I could not agree with him more.

We have a homosexual socialist/communist govt, that sees our country in the grips of homosexuals. I have no issue with these people individually, but how dare they force down our throats their abhorrent way of life. Their behaviour is an abomination before the sight of God and they will answer for this themselves.

What I find to be the second worst possible form of child abuse, with the worst being parental alienation that is now going to explode in this country thanks to the govt changing the family law act, is having innocent children being raised by homosexuals. These poor innocent children will never know what it is to live a normal life with a mother and a father. How dare this Penny Wong woman flout her debauchery in the public arena and in our house of govt!
Because of her, there is not one labor politician who has the guts to say one single word about the fact she and her partner are committing a huge crime against this poor child.

This country was forged and formed on the Judeo/Christian model, which saw the whole of society built on the nuclear family unit.
Feminism, homosexuality and Atheism has caused shipwreck to our family structure and thus to our society.
Our country is now run by radical nasty feminists and homosexuals. I can only see our society following the UK, but it will take us longer to get through it. We have already made all the same mistakes.

Now I will just sit back and wait for all the nasty femmo and homosexual trolls to come here and slam me along with the author of the article. And I will laugh at their idiotic gnashing of teeth!
You know, they hate being critised so much that they become violent and they have to attack and insult and vilify anyone who criticises them. Don't believe me.
Then just watch this space!

The comments of a single "well known' Family Law Court Judge mean Nothing without objective assessment of a number of scenarios in any society. Data is key to sociological assessment.

The assertion that fatherlessness had a role in the UK riots is a bare, unsubstantiated one.

Paw - your reference to "these people sets the tone for your subsequent denigration. No-one is forcing anything. You choose to emphasise it as that and choose to get upset.

Spot on Warick. However those that have not enjoyed a great family life will believe anarchy is normal.

McReal I believe Paw may be alluding to the deceit and manipulation that is going on. Much like the Survey report that 62% of Australians want Gay Marriage. The report was so well "framed" to get that response it was just an exercise in manipulation, I could have framed the question to easily get the opposite answer.

hence, many people feel powerless in the face of this sort of propaganda and deceit as it is very well funded and the government seems to spend so much time on it.

What was the first act of this government, to consider gay marriage, with all the problems we have, lack of infrastructure and health, we got, gay marriage.

I agree with the author, our moral values have declined, and we have a government who seems not to understand the precarious position we are in here in Australia. If you remove the mining boom income, the rest of the country is in trouble, especially small business.

We have a government who lie constantly, cannot deliver a donut to a morning tea in this "year of deliveries".

We have idiot ministers, who see the taxpayer as an endless source of funds for social experimentation. Who sneer at anyone who questions their wisdom, and planned legacy.

They forget, that we only have so much we can give and remain prosperous and able to invest in the future.

We don't want more social experiments, we've had years of it with state governments and it will take years to flush out all the soft leftie judges and legal systems they have left us.

What happened to the duty of government to the people, this mob think it's the duty of the people to the government.

This government will fall because they do not understand, nor want to, the will of the people. Evidently, we're all wrong .. we'll see about that at the next election.

Wow, Paw!

I take it you're presenting your post as a good example of Judeo/Christian morality.

I noted, however, that it's choc-a-bloc full of insults and vilification.

You appear to have composed your diatribe in the hope of receiving some inflammatory flack in response....sorry to disappoint you, but I can't be bothered.

I wonder if you're somebody's parent? Great example, What Ho!

No McReal I haven't set the scene for anything and I am not in anyway going to get upset. Out of sheer dismay after reading these blogs for a long time and seeing every good article torn to shreds by these trolling low lifes, I finally decided to make the observation that you criticised. That's all it was, simply an observation!

Oh and Philo, I was raised in a great family. My parents are in their late 80s and early 90s and still married after 66 years. I couldn't be happier with my immediate family and only wish others had been as blessed as I have been. Yes, I have suffered with broken marriages, because too many women out there are broken in the head and believe that the world and men, owe them everything. This is because feminism has told them they have the right to demand everything they want and to hang the consequences.

But now, I am a single father who is the primary carer of his children and I couldn't be happier. Well, I guess I could if I had my children and was happily married, but because that cannot be, then what I have now is good enough.

I am angry at the way our children at treated like chattels or objects of owership by women. They are never considered whenever our govts change laws to suit women or homosexuals and these same children will grow into disfunctional adults. Some will make it, but many will not.

Spot On Warwick..Well done!!

OF course!
The secularism, marital practices and tolerance of people for being gay is what caused the riots!

That explains why countries where this is even MORE 'bad' by Warwick's standards don't riot at all; while the UK- with its own national religion and a very high ratio of ultra-religious people for a western country (although this is admittedly a wahabi minority) had a riot!

Another question- what is the "breakdown of marriage"?
-Is it the fact people are actually allowed to divorce their abusive spouses, instead of forced to stay with them and pretend everything is alright for the benefit of the abusive spouse, and some disapproving strangers?
-Is it the fact that less de-facto couples see any point in expensive weddings, thus denying the church bragging rights for making a couple?
-Is it gay marriage- ignoring the fact the UK has banned gay marriage?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12478#215523

Paw- this Nation wasn't 'founded' on any religious views, just plainly read section 116 of the Constitution. What it was founded on was democracy and representation. If the people of Australia elect homosexual ministers, it can hardly be seen as 'forcing' their belief on the people- they were elected to make decisions for the people, and their decisions will inevieatably be influenced by their belief.

Your radical outbursts are an embarrasment to the rest of us who oppose the breakdown of the family unit in society. Let's get rid of these metaphysical nonsensic terms of 'evil' and 'despised by God' and get back to how the breakdown of family can have a negative impact on society.

The term 'child's biological birthright' is an excellent comment. The child still requires genetically input from a male and female, that's the case at conception and will remain the case throughout the child's development. I'm not suggesting there can't be alternatives to this but this is certainly an ideal. Why are we sacrificing what is ideal for a child to fulfill a selfish urge of the homosexual community to say 'we have a right to have children'. If you had the right, you'd be able to do it without scientific intervention.

Credibility, what there was of it with convenient quotations designed to colour the writer’s article, was lost to me seeing statements from Miranda Devine. It immediately indicated that the writer reads the Sunday Telegraph. That was almost the end for me.
And to top it off,
“I will let Miranda Devine finish the story”
She did. Well for me, anyway.

How sad it is when someone actually quotes someone like this kind of ‘journalist’, creating the illusion that such a person is an authority on a subject about which she is patently ignorant. What a reference! Similar to asking Bob Hawke to discuss modesty or Julia Gillard to pontificate on anything intelligent except ‘going forward’ or ‘smashing the people smugglers' business model’

However, in deference to the effort he has gone to make his case as is his almost singular writings on the ‘fatherless society”, I would suggest that there is little in the UK riots to associate with the fact that the majority of the young participants did not come from a happy home. Then to state with some conviction that 70 of the inmates in our prisons would have been similarly disadvantaged, is drawing a long bow I would think. Then we have quotes from a Judge in the UK, a UK politician of questionable background, all supposedly adding some grist for his mill.

He continued......
“But where are the tears for a child who will grow up without her father in her home? Or where are the tears for the fatherless children who will soon occupy 70% of the capacity of our already overcrowded goal system?” Heavy stuff. Don’t know how I have survived this long, having never been involved in a riot, burnt a house down or smashed a shop window.
Haven’t been to ‘gaol’ yet, either. All ahead of me, I imagine.

Referring to his own circumstance he stated of his wife that “as she has had to put up with me for the last 35 years, she deserves a Gold Medal”.

Probably so. But you would know that better than anyone else

Matthew Lloyd, the society we have enjoyed to date and the one our Diggers fought and died for, was that which was built on the Judeo/Christian model. You can deny this all you like. Obviously you are an athiest and are offended by anything Christian.

You state:
"Your radical outbursts are an embarrasment to the rest of us who oppose the breakdown of the family unit in society."

Ha, I don't recall making any outbursts as you call it. Just as I commented, those who hate the truth being told, always find they have to attack and vilify the person making the comments they hate. And yep, you are doing exactly that to me.

You hate Christianity. So what!
You're allowed to and I am not going to condemn you for it.

I respect your right to make your comments and thoughts made publicly, why can you not afford me the same respect?

Interesting how the Tories are going all gooey red by matching their security fightback with a social fightback. The McCarthyists will justifiably feel betrayed.

Meanwhile Duncan Smith, the Tories work and pensions secretary stunned the 'born to rule' class by declaring: "You know, stiffing somebody on a debt in the City, or raiding someone's telephone for messages, claiming expenses that you should not have claimed … all of us have to recognise we have to put our own house in order at the same time, and try and change that. ...for too long, those at the top of society had been willing to believe that different moral standards applied to them."

Predictably, the communist Ed Miliband could only agree with his sworn enemy: "It's not the first time we've seen this kind of me first, take what you can attitude. The bankers who took millions while destroying people's savings – greedy, selfish, immoral. The MPs who fiddled their expenses – greedy, selfish, immoral. The people who hacked phones to get stories and make money for themselves – greedy, selfish and immoral. Let's talk about what this does to our culture."

Far out hey. Perhaps finally, just perhaps, there is a realisation that change must come from the top down and this is not some cheap Church of England self flagellation.

Leaders and those in power actually leading by example? Who'd have thunk it.

But then again the fruit of political rhetoric is hypocrisy until it's actions speak louder than it's words.

Finally a word from Jesus: "How can you think of saying, 'Friend, let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye."

When the NURTURE function across a large section of society is broken, this leads to widespread social dysfunction. That is to say it shapes the NATURE of society down the track. Widespread fatherlessness is one strong indication of a broken nurture function.

It seems obvious to me that the nurture function in society is most enhanced by society promoting the active involvement of both a mother and father in the creation and raising of their own children to adulthood. Is there anyone else with a more vested interest in a positive outcome for the child and more willing to undertake the self-sacrifices necessary for this to succeed? And how does a society best encourage both the mother AND the father to undertake this task to completion? I believe that society esteeming and rewarding traditionally defined marriage provides the most reliable and secure context for this process occur.

Well said Brain, I couldn't agree more!

In general I have no specific problem with the content of the article. Perhaps the more pertinent question should be the one related to an over-populated planet, with the resultant pull draw down of resources that is now clearly constraining economics, thus the socio-economic problems that have resulted in these riots. Whether or not fatherless youth were involved to the extent indicated, remains to be seen.

Paw - you stated:
'This country was forged and formed on the Judeo/Christian model, which saw the whole of society built on the nuclear family unit.'

According to my knowledge and education our country was actually forged and formed on the Greek democratic model, christianity was but a part of this formation and forging.

By the way, I am a happily married man with two wonderful young children and a caring and considerate wife. If one or both of my boys turns out to be gay, I would hope that they are afforded the unbiased opportunity to have any union, whether gay or not, or perhaps remain single as every person raised in this great country should.

Also, gay couples don't always use science to conceive, they have friends, gay and hetrosexual, who are happy to make the appropriate donation so that conception can occur, just my unbiased 5 cents worth.

basically author's saying without stable and secure fatherchild bond you get dysfunctional youths and eventually dysfunctional society...

agree...if have to identify major factors to these dysfunctional, first is women as mothers and dominant role is care and raising of young child(6monthsto6years age especially)...

why?...well think of this a scale...one end child and their bodyspace protected, and supported to develop into the individual they were going to be...you get a capable adult with a dynamic brain responses, that in any situation they find themselves can reason and act effectively...

other end scale...bodyspace constantly attacked and individuality broken...what results is insecure adult in 'unlearning' repetitive behaviour pattern mode, with very little awareness of self...

so put yourself where you think you are on this scale...

first makes for strong and developing society, second for obedient and controllable society...

so look at our immediate society...and if we are dysfunctional then you know where majority of us are in scale...dysfunctional as in real problems are dealt with ineffective methods, and problems keep escalating...

so who does what?...the first I must say in western society is rare indeed, and see it more in third world countries in poorest isolated communities, as individuals they have a robust personality, second in western, and done by women, women, womenx8...when last estimated, more than 80% of children in western countries have no or minimal contact with their genetic fathers...of which now percentage of children growing up in women only households increasing rapidly...

so women organized to achieve total domination of child within home\kinda\, the pattern goes into schools as well...are they going to let up despite the obvious harm...dont think so, even the parliament have not to date addressed this with a law defining and enforcing a proper standard for parenting...I expect lot of women to fail, and the government continues with policies that eventually say child only with mother is good, with father is bahaaad...

so where to?...think the world has got to a place where unresolved escalating pastproblems have now got to crisis levels...whatever solution would need to be drastic methinks...or future survival is in question...

sam

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12478#215541

KH, prior to the ANTI family law act of 1975, nobody was ever forced to stay with abusive partners. we had a "fault" as opposed to the current "NO fault" divorce system.

in short if either partner was abusive in some way you could leave them & be granted a divorce.

Any closet communists trying to continue the status quo or deny their responsibility for causing this should consider some plain simple facts.

#1, recent riot by hoons destroying a Bob Jane tyre store.

#2, Cronulla riots.

#3, redfern riots, its happened there more than once, BTW.

#4, Macquarie Fields riots.

it has already happened here, in similar places for similar reasons.

Here is a mountain of facts & evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is deliberate, premeditated, cultural marxist, sabotage, by the PC, Thought Police.

http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm this is from the socialist international plan, some of the items on the list are specific to America, but most of them are generic & were carried out in Britain, Europe, Canada, NZ, Australia, etc. see how many you identify as already having come true in the land of OZ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236# degenerating society, exactly what has been happening, in every NON communist nation. Take special note feMANazism for example was ruthlessly crushed in the USSR from the when Stalin took over till 1989, when the soviet union fell apart. infact all of political correctness was promoted in the west, destroyed in communist countries.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-covert-comrades-in-the-alp/story-e6frg6zo-1225887087909 the largest dominant faction in Dillards closet communist party.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/radical-roots-seep-through-at-the-heart-of-greens-20100726-10sj0.html?skin=text-only Bob Brown's really red communist party.

http://www.mailstar.net/xTrots.html how they created the poverty/unemployment as well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc5E6pvDv2Y&feature=channel_video_title another one on the same subject of closet communist poverty creation & how it is still in effect today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarRIC4rS1M how the communists attacked churches as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw how dumb & dumber the communist lemmings are? how brain washed into self oppression?

Try the closet communists for social, economic & cultural treason.

[Deleted for offensiveness.]

Marriage can only be between a man and a woman as the term suggests, the coming together of two different substances to produce an independent and self sufficient being. This can only happen as male sperm unites with the female ovum to produce another human in their likeness. The vagina and womb have no other design or evolved purpose other than to accommodate the male penis and produce children and the mother by design is the primary nurturer having mammary to give succor to their children. The term marriage can never be applied to the exclusive practice of anal sex, because no substance is fertile from the bowel to produce offspring in their likeness.

The Marriage Ceremony is the public declaration that this man and this woman have agreed to engage in sex with the possibility of producing children, and it is for this purpose only that records must be kept by the State of births, marriages and deaths.

Homosexual partners of their relationship can never, I say never naturally produce children from their union. The Child has the right and need to relate to both their maternal and paternal parents. We do not need a deliberate social experiment on the lives of innocent children, of a fatherless or motherless generation.

Some of the post are very funny, say's far more about the poster then what they have put in print.

When you find yourself posting on the internet that it's all womens fualt, or gays or reds under the bed. then it's time you had a good hard look at yourself, stop blaming other people and got on with your life.
Formersnag I think you need some help mate. i hop you havin't got access to a firmarm, you seem to not have a firm grip.

What is it with rightwing fanatics, the vitriol and hate they pour out against innocent people is disturbing.
They are obviously not Christians, as Jesus would have condemned them for their blasphemy towards their fellow beings. One can only assume that something has happened in their lives, that has made them bitter and the Web gives them the opportunity to vent that hate.
They are sad, very sad people!!

[Deleted for abuse.]

It is obvious when one cannot debate the issue intelligently it is easy to abuse the character of the writer.

Philo, that would be true if the issues were intelligent.

Unfortunately persistent incoherent paranoia around closet communism does not qualify.

" .. the coming together of two different substances to produce an independent and self sufficient being."
Posted by Philo, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 5:05:18 PM

Well, a conceptus and its next stage, the foetus, are Not ever independent and self-sufficient, Philo. They are dependent.

Amicus, 9:47:33am & Paw
Paw was upset when, after he wrote "these people", he wrote "how dare they force down our throats their abhorrent way of life."

The irony was the forcing was done 30 years ago with the start of the Sydney Mardi Gras, and now "it" is all passe. As I said "You choose to emphasise it as that and [You] choose to get upset."

"Much like the Survey report that 62% of Australians want Gay Marriage."

You mean the objective, designed Galaxy Poll = http://citynews.com.au/2011/news/christians-back-gay-marriage/

Perhaps it is worth considering a Christian view that ""There are some who have been eunuchs from birth — made that way by God."" -

............ http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/born_gay.html
.

,
The assertion that fatherlessness had a role in the UK riots is a bare, unsubstantiated one.
,

Warick Marsh has again had the courage to write something not deemed politically correct in our feminist society.

For the doubters, name an area of the world that has a high rate of children born outside of marriage, that does not have complete social dysfunction.

"For the doubters, name an area of the world that has a high rate of children born outside of marriage, that does not have complete social dysfunction."

Er.. Sweden? Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany, France? Canada? Australia?

Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Iran... oh, sorry. Those are countries in which almost 100% of children are born in wedlock, that also have complete social dysfunction. In Britain the death of a protestor at the hands of police is a rare tragedy: in theocracies like these it happens daily in tens and hundreds.

See if you can come up with a harder question next time.

Children of divorced parents have fathers and mothers even if they do not live together.

Jim Wallace was also on TV spruiking this fatherless line as contributing to the London riots. One speaker at today's rally against SSM even stooped to likening SSM to perverse ideas of marriage to children (as the slippery slope to pedophilia). This is ironic given some religious organisations have hidden pedophilia from the outside world, allowing pedophiles to roam free among children, and moving them on to another parish when this barbarity reoccurs.

How can marraige between two consenting adults of the same sex be the same as marrying a child? While many religions do not condone marriage to children, the many publicised situations where that happens is among some of the more perverse religious sects.

Could some children be better off without the fathers that fate handed them. Widows and widowers have been around for centuries with no such fanciful conclusions being made. Poverty, racism and disadvantage is likely more relevant to rioting than issues of fatherlessness.

A break down of marriages between heterosexuals is equally disruptive if handled poorly. These decisions are usually mutual and more often than not involve both parents in the children's lives post-divorce.

I am all for people working harder to save their marriages but the reality is that it does not always work. Sometimes it is better for all parties, including children to be separated from hostilities (minor to extreme) than sit in witness to it on a regular basis.

Marriage is about love and commitment. These values do not belong to any one group of people.

Christians are entitled to express their views but they do not have the right to dictate and force their will onto others who may not agree with that worldview. Even if SSM were legalised, Christians, Atheists and others who do not condone SSM do not have to participate.

Both Wallace and Marsh seem like nice guys, why do they persist with this anti-gay, anti-women rhetoric, which stands in opposition to my understanding of what the majority of Christians stand for. Love.

...There is an argument to support a coup d’état in this country, of which the moral decline led by unrestrained homosexuality is preeminent.

Unfortunately it not very surprising that while we are engaged in a serious debate about the possible causes of real and disturbing social phenomena such as those that have been presenting themselves in the UK recently, others are more interested in indulging in gutter comments about various contributors.

Regarding the post mentioning Jesus and the other one regarding being ignorant about history, anyone who actually bothers to read the history written about him by eye witnesses clearly sees that while he meaningfully engaged with the socially unacceptable of his time he did not just ignorantly embrace all their lifestyles. He impacted those he engaged with, for both the individual and common good. For example I would love to know what he wrote in the dirt that so embarrassed a murderous crowd from stoning a prostitute to death; but in the same situation he was also able to sensitively but effectively challenge the prostitute to discontinue her previous lifestyle. I doubt that he would have advocated then (or would now) values that our society does; (to use the previous example) values such as 'live and let live' for the executioners and safe sex practises for the prostitute.

I for one believe that the significant issues we face as a society are worthy of far deeper and sober examination than can be provided by superficial 'solutions' such as throwing stones or handing out condoms.

It is not surprising that those commenters who disagree with the article barely provided any reason for their disagreement. "You're making a bare assertion" doesn't do much as a counter argument. Don't label it "bare", just state why it is incorrect.

Meanwhile I keep seeing these 'Equal Marriage' posters everywhere and keep hearing about these 'equal love' rallies. When are people going to realise that marriage will never be truly equal until anyone can marry anyone at any time? Marriage is between a man and a woman only, and that's not "equal" to gays and lesbians. But marriage is also only for two people and only for those over 18, which is not equal to those polygamists and 17 year olds who want to get married. The Gay PR Lobby is just hijacking the word "Equal" to make the other side look like baddies. Don't be fooled people. If you really want equal marriage then let's follow the Afghani's and allow child marriages and polygamy. Otherwise we'll still have exclusivism and unequal marriage, and we couldn't have that now could we! How politically incorrect of us.

Formersnag- three of your examples citing evidence that a 'divorce culture' causes riots are
Cronulla- race riots responding to abusive behavior by an outside ethnicity towards the locals
Redfern- disadvantaged and stigmatized minority group reeling from a death of a minor resulting from a police chase
Macquarie Fields- disadvantaged and (less) stigmatized white minority reeling from a death resulting in a police chase

And you can guarantee that many of the youths come from two-parent households.

Secondly- how is 'fault' relevant to divorce? If a spouse is unhappy with their partner, automatically one or both are at 'fault' for either causing the other spouse to be unsatisfied- or the unsatisfied spouse themselves for failing to be satisfied with the marriage- and thus divorcable. In most countries assets are investigated and actually returned to their rightful owners, with 50/50 joint-purchases divided only.
Should we simply force people to not be allowed to divorce people their marriage isn't working with, unless they give us compelling reason to permit them to?
What if they remained officially 'married' but moved to separate houses and took separate partners?
Is a better environment for children where both parents clearly hate each other and regret marrying each other, argue or insult each other all the time?

Trav, Tuesday, 16 August 2011 10:28:55pm

Bare assertions are ones without substance - they are propositions (or statements) without supporting information, evidence, statistics, or proof.

There is not much more to say.

References to cold marriage and polygamy, in a discussion about same-sex marriage, is unnecessary red herring, and a slippery-slope fallacy.

John J
"Sweden? Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany, France? Canada? Australia"

How many single parent families in those countries are supported or held up by taxpayer funding?

When the taxpayer funding is not there, complete social dsyfunction.

In the UK, about 50% of children are now born outside of marriage, which is only a short step away from single parent families and child poverty.

And of course, the child povert rates in the UK are now some of the highest in OECD countries.

The feminist dream of children being raised by the mother and the state is collapsing, and will continue to collapse as more countries go into debt.

"John J
"Sweden? Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany, France? Canada? Australia"

How many single parent families in those countries are supported or held up by taxpayer funding?

When the taxpayer funding is not there, complete social dsyfunction."

Sorry, I didn't realise that YOU got to define what constitutes social dysfunction.

So firing bullets and missiles at dissenters, as they do in highly-religious Syria and Libya -- no single parents there, except the ones who have been bereaved by government killings! -- is merely fun and games: nothing like as bad as, say, shoplifting?

Now it is just getting irrational.

"The feminist dream of children being raised by the mother and the state is collapsing, and will continue to collapse as more countries go into debt."

Now I have heard it all. Must have missed the bit about the feminist dream in Feminism 101.

Related to Feminism 101, an observation about the social conditioning contribution of Penny Wong Wong, Sophie Allouaches and Sophie’s pregnancy: Penny & Sophie cannot escape the fact that they must set aside the very nature of their orientation in order to bring children into their relationship. Their lifestyle choices do not automatically become a new ‘normal’ nurture function just because it is the 21st Century. I respectfully submit that to the extent that GLBT relationships are now considered valid and worthy of protection from discrimination in Australia, they are still by very design one-generation arrangements that are inherently incompatible for the propagation of robust future generations of society.

And my rationale for this view? It is interesting to observe that in a number of respects western society is moving towards what is considered ‘progressive’ practices that are also identifiably ‘back to nature’. Examples include: the environmental movement, conservationism, low carbon footprints/emissions, eco-friendliness, organic food, herbal medicine and ergonomic ‘everything’. However, in human relationships we are now encouraged to accept as equal in value all manner of man-made (ie synthetic, arbitrary, even reproductively impotent) lifestyle choices that if globally adopted by any single species in any ecosystem you care to look at, would cause that entire species to become extinct in a generation.

To the extent that western society departs from those traditional values that do contribute to a strong and robust societal legacy, it is dying the death of a thousand cuts.

You know, you could probably compare the religiousness, the divorce/marriage culture, and number of riots between Australia, America, UK, and many mainland European countries, and you will find not a single consistent statistic.

What you will find even less of is any link to suggest that Cronulla was simply the result of 'single parent' households.

Do tell- how does that work again?
I mean, an actual step-by-step segue from being raised by only one parent instead of two, that leads to moral decay, that leads to motivation to violent protest participation?
What do you think motivates other protests and riots- or the people who organized protests that later degenerate into riots?

To me it sounds like something to conveniently blame a system you don't like without having to analyze the hard issues.

The process of the effect of widespread fatherlessness was explained in the article:

English MP David Lammy commented:

"There is none of the basic starting presumption of two adults who want to start a family, raise children together, love them, nourish them and lead them to full independence. The parents are not married and the child has come, frankly, out of casual sex; the father is not present, and is not expected to be. There are not the networks of extended families to make up for it. We are seeing huge consequences of the lack of male role models in young
men's lives. . ."

Social commentator Niamh Ui Bhriain in her article Why is London Burning says:

"The decline of marriage has left a significant proportion of children with a confused understanding of stability and of boundaries. And the lack of male role model means that young men in particular seek out the toughest in the gang for an authority figure rather than their father. That means just one bad apple can influence a whole community of young teens.

Congratulations to Warrick Marsh for another brilliant article. It is sad but true that the main reason of youth lawlessness is fatherlessness. I also agree with Melanie Phillips from the UK DailyMail stating that what is missing in our children’s life is father who is a fully committed member of the family unit. Every child’s cry and wish is to have a father (and a mother)who can be his or her role model in life. This is the fact and truth of life.
I commend you Warrick for standing for what is right for this generation and the generations to come. Keep up the good work!

You get your information from the UK Daily Mail....Mate you have got to be joking!!

Yes spot on, Warwick.

I am concerned at the noise being made by the Greens about Marriage for Homosexuals and Lesbians. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. This has worked for millennia and has a proven track record in the wellbeing of children and society.

It boggles the mind how the Gay subculture is focusing on Marriage as a must have. Why are they no longer happy to pursue their lifestyle in a nation that allows them to live with partners? I’m old enough to have been around since the 1970s and the 1980s. In those days Marriage and family were dirty words to Homosexuals and Lesbians and not something to aspire to. The preference was for multiple partners. Perhaps the spread of AIDS and HIV put paid to that and made them more circumspect. Perhaps they have come around to see that a family unit is a good thing. But if we’re going to be honest, it is more likely, that those who live in a homosexual lifestyle want to have the full social financial benefits that their heterosexual counterparts now are entitled to. They are not suddenly “converts” to the ideal of marriage.

The Greens are citing that the majority of Australians want Homosexual Marriage to be legal. In politics, it is easy to spin figures and I believe that this is what they’re doing. It is something a minority wants but the Greens are trying to ride their current position of strength whilst they can. Some are asking why a political party who got to where they are on a climate and environment agenda is now messing about with family and marriage issues. Well, let me see, would it have anything to do with their leader being a homosexual who wants his personal sexual preferences to become part of the accepted mainstream?

"Prime Minister David Cameron has blamed the "moral collapse" that saw parts of the country hit by looting and rioting on children without fathers and schools without discipline.

Cameron said ministers will review every government policy to consider whether they are likely to deliver effective societal changes in response to the riots that escalated across England last week."

His government should start with family law policy first.

This gay business assisted by the courts is getting right out of hand.

Here a biological father gets trumped by a lesbian:

"A Sydney man says he is devastated that his name has been taken off a 10-year-old girl's birth certificate, after a legal challenge by the mother's former lesbian partner."

I thought a birth certificate provided evidence of immutable facts ie who your biological parents are. And I thought a birth certificate belongs just as much or more so to child than the biological parents or anyone else claiming a right to be on it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-17/father-loses-birth-certificate-fight/2843288

Roscop.
Well I am aghast at reading that.

But I am pleased to see so many cars with a “My Family” sticker on the back window, with images of the mother, father and the children (and sometimes the cat and dog)

There appears to be a growing number of parents who are proud of their families, and proud that they are together, and I doubt that such parents would not know where their children are, and would not know that their children were out looting some shop somewhere.

Feminists must go into asphyxiation whenever they see a “My Family” sticker on the back of a car, but there does seem to be a fight back towards proper families and greater stability.

Prime Minister David Cameron may have to see off his own 'moral collapse' in the ever escalating phone hacking scandal before he can attend to any others.

"It won't stop at homosexual marriage - look for polygam and marriage between adults and children to be legalised. There is no greater dream for a paedophile than to be able to legally acclaim a child as a lover"
Rebecca Hagelin said at the Christian Taliban rally in Canberra yesterday.
You people who call yourselves "Christians and Moralists", where are your minds to have these foul evil hatred thoughts. You bring children into your ant-gay argument, but do you think of the harm you are causing to young gay people, of course not, all you think of his expressing and trying to spread your evil bigotry.

May your God who ever she or he is have mercy on you!!

Follow the logic...

If same sex marriage is the slippery slope to the marriage of children, cats & dogs, cars & trucks.

Then what was the catalyst for same sex marriage? Those pesky heterosexuals set the example.

Solution

Ban marriage.

Or maybe some bigots should keep their vile little thoughts to themselves and live and let live.

Sorry Ammonite, your argument doesn't make any sense to me. Marriage (there is only one type) is not about setting examples for homosexuals to aspire to.

This topic has become surreal.

I agree with the premise that children ideally should have a father and mother. Although not married, my partner and I of 12 years have a very normal 7yo son and we are all very happy.

I do not believe marriage is essential to a healthy family. What is essential though is love, commitment, tolerance, patience and understanding. These are the qualities of nurturing a family not some bit of paper, ceremony, car sticker or pontification.

While I do not support SSM, I do not oppose it either. It's not an issue for me. Other peoples personal lives are none of my business and I will respect the umpires call whenever it comes in.

What I do disagree with is the open slather hypocrisy of so called christians and others with their associated bizarre and paranoid closet communist conspiracy theories.

In an earlier post I made the point about change happening at the top. One cannot whinge about the specks in other peoples eyes until they have removed the log out of their own eyes.

In other words if the morally decayed fatherless mobs see those in power indulging their own immorality they will respond to any pompous judgements with contempt. Many 'normal' kids with jobs from 'normal' families have also been arrested. How are they accounted for? A few bad apples? A standard deviation?

While not condoning the looting and destruction, if those who condescendingly make pronouncements about accountablity are themselves unaccountable it is all for nought.

Too many times in recent years have we seen our leaders and those in power proclaim "Do as we say, not as we do."

Moralising is meaningless at best but can be comtemptuously repugnant to those who's senses are assaulted by the stench of hypocrisy.

Neutral,
What you and your wife have is an actual marriage if your relationship to her is exclusive. It is just that you have not publicly declared and registered it in the register of marriage. I assume you have registered your son as you being the father?

Philo, yes I am definitely the father and am registered as such.

We are monogamous and technically described as defacto - a rather ugly term. Apparently this qualificiation takes 2 years.

For all intents and purposes we are emotionally and physically 'married' but without the official voodoo, baggage and stickers.

Philo, I should also add that I recognise that for legal purposes we are married - the 2 year thing.

The strange thing about that is when we bought a house last year only couples who had been together for less than 2 years could qualify for the 1st home buyers grant if you had previously owned a property.

Not that it made any difference as we were never reliant upon it.

Neverthless, I do not see myself as being married in the 'traditional' sense.

We were both divorced when we met, no kids, and decided to work on the important things in a relationship when we became serious rather than indulge in the veneer of convention.

Can I suggest people in any other kind of relationships except man and woman to come up with their own terminology instead of using the word marriage? Please be creative and don't steal the word marriage from it's original meaning. Webster 1828 dictionary definition of marriage: "(1): The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children."

Marriage is a contract........that's why is doesn't work. Point of order here/with-in human understandings.

How do you feel, when signing a contract..strait away, the un..word, comes into play. Its the non bonding of two people which gives that small but freedom of, that makes most of what we see in the break-downs when marriage is looked upon as must or die, if you don't.

I don't understand the question?

LEAP

Neutral,
Almost no research has been carried out into de facto relationships in our feminist society, but estimates are that they last on average 3-5 years.

No enough time to raise children, leading eventually to single parent families and child poverty, and also leading to an uneducated society, as there is not enough money to properly educate children in a single parent family.

Feminists control most of social science, and that is why there is minimal research undertaken into de facto relationships.

They don't want the facts to be made public.

Below is a video clarifying the issue for those who think they are defending marriage by banning some people from marrying.

Warning: Language (swearing) Alert. Therefore don't watch if you are easily offended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCLXZCYyNqU

No answers to my questions;
Apparently, according to all these bitter divorcees, mothers are incapable is instilling morals into their children.

Either that, or this whole article is nothing but a shallow excuse to take advantage of a tragedy to make a rant about "Why my wife should have been forced to stay with me instead of freeing herself"

Either that, or they're just bitter that they didn't get custody of the kids instead of the wife; which would then make them a hypocrite.

In other words- the entire thing strikes me as the biggest, most childish entitlement complex I have ever seen.

-But that would be crazy, right?

Rather than crazy King Hazza your comment is probably the most accurate on this topic. Resentment must be one of the most underrated emotions in these arguments.

Some posters give the impression that men never do bad things and all the woes of the world are down to women. Is it unreasonable to consider that women might be single due to forces out of their control (abandonment) and that some women are better off without an abusive partner.

A happy marriage is a worthy goal but not everybody is lucky with their choices.

If homosexuality is such a positive lifestyle why does the evidence show the opposite?

For quite sometime now, we have been bombarded with messages telling us that homosexuality is just another lifestyle; equally as valid as any other in our society. Any opposition to this view, especially in public, is generally met with hostility, with the “offender” being branded as judgemental, homophobic or an extreme right wing fundamentalist.

No one is allowed to raise questions, such as:

1)Why are homosexuals not permitted to give blood through the
Red Cross?

2) Why do homosexuals have the highest incidence of HIV
in Australia?

3) Why do homosexuals have a high incidence of anal damage
and anal reconstructions?

4) Why do homosexuals have a high incidence of anal cancers?

The reality is many people have been lulled into believing the lie that the homosexual lifestyle is okay and that homosexual marriage has to be legalised.

Ammonite,
I suggest you get the facts right. Marriage is not just about two people declaring their love for each other. Mothers and fathers do that continually to their children.

Marriage has biological consequences of a male penetration of a consenting female to whom he is committed exclusively for life. Though you would trust that both love each other and they are mutually consenting. Though in some cultures marriage is not so consenting as young brides are purchased as property

King Hazza - Entitlement complex? That is what I call the GLBT lobby’s current determined attempt to usurp traditionally defined marriage.

Not all divorcees are bitter. Many just yearn for a better way, realising that the existence of traditional marriages that fail does not diminish the value of the institution of marriage. What society needs to do in response to failing marriages is to encourage good marriages; through more purposeful social values, more pro-active and determined effort and increased resources, all directed towards encouraging good marriages.

Incidentally marriage is not designed to be just a contract but a covenant (as in the sense of American-Indian blood covenant). There is a world of difference. Contracts are primarily defensive in nature and ‘selfish’ in that their main purpose is to protect the rights of the parties. They do this by focusing on how to clearly identify a breach of contract, providing escape clauses and clarifying the processes to be followed when these have been triggered. If we begin with this end in mind, then marriages are a doomed institution from the start.

A covenant on the other hand is a deliberate MUTUAL all-binding commitment to the welfare of the other person bound to, FOR THEIR BENEFIT. It is quite literally intended to be for life and unto death if necessary. Our society now only romanticises about such rarely occurring commitments, for example in the concept of ‘mateship’ immortalised in our Australian military narrative, and in correctly understood traditional marriage.

If as a society we returned to having this kind of selfless commitment in mind when creating family units and raising children, imagine how much more resilient to societal stresses and all of life’s other challenges, our children’s generation and their children’s generation would become.

Wawrick’s article does not suggest that single women are the cause of the UK riots or that women are incapable of raising good children. The point is that this burden should not be disproportionately forced upon women by society as it increasingly is, to the extent that traditional family is deliberately (or by default) being replaced.

For decades, in our society’s misguided pursuit of personal freedom above all else (read escape from moral and social responsibility above all else) we have encouraged insecure and dysfunctional family units to flourish; family units that are ‘divorced of’ the positive male role models necessary to produce a robust next generation of society.

I have heard it said in jest(but it belies a deeper truth) that ‘real’ men are now growing up to be real men just like Mum. Now even in some two ‘parent’ families children are sometimes growing up to be real men just like Mum and Mum and perhaps the sperm donor; or Dad and Dad and their surrogate; and with room for only two on the birth certificate.

Let’s proceed with the end in mind. This is not a dress rehearsal, it is not ground hog day and for too long the grand social experiment of our time has been using you and your children as guinea pigs.

Vanna,

"Neutral, Almost no research has been carried out into de facto relationships in our feminist society, but estimates are that they last on average 3-5 years"

Based on your estimate then it's obvious I don't live in your feminist society.

Nor am I interested.

But I will include femnaziprozacpusherphobia in my list of bizzare and paranoid closet communist conspiracy theories.

While I'm not an active supporter I can understand the positions taken by Ammonite, King Hazza and Pelican. They make fair and valid points.

As do Brian2520 and Philo for the protaganists.

Just spare us any bigotry, conspiracy and hypocrisy.

I'll leave the philosophy to those with greater foresight that I do.

However from a practical perspective, its interesting to have more evidence to support what we know works.

Someone once said that it seems foolish to expect a different outcome from repeating the same course of action.

J_95,
Human relationships have natural outcomes that have hundreds of years of history of what works and what doesn't. Homosexuality is not a new human act. We do not need experiments on children, we need established designed principles or love security and provision by natural parentage.

Philo what we need is for people to stop dictating, the way they want things to be.
Australia is a democracy not a theocracy, and there are no reds under the bed!!

Thankyou Pelican and Neutral.

Brian- The bottom line with 'marriage' is that regardless of how much esteem or sacredness we place on it, it is still the same situation if one spouse simply finds themselves incompatible with- or incapable of caring for the other; and it boils down to whether by forcing a marriage that in all but legal views, does not really exist anymore- is hurting both parties- or someone who pretends that forcing a now unwilling partner to remain 'bound' to them is a good thing, as they personally benefit.

If anything- the only problem with marriage is that is IS actually treated as a solution in itself to maintain or justify a relationship, and too many people are jumping into them with partners they hardly cooperate with.
Even that aside, many people enter marriages unaware that their partner may be withholding (very convincingly) a nastier side of their personality to trick them into being bound to them.

Kipp,
So you are willing to dictate to the children that they be born of fatherless or motherless parents - hence the social problems we have today.

Part 1

Re:
a) "significant issues...far deeper examination" Forum 33 Brian 2520
b) "analyze the hard issues" Forum 41 King Hazza
c) "confused understanding" Forum 42 Brian 2520
d) "change at the top" Forum 53 Neutral
e) "more resilient to social stresses and all of life's other challenges" Forum 65
Brian 2520
f) "Judeo/Christian model" Forum 3, 13 Paw, Forum 17 Geoff of Perth

Argument within a tradition sometimes fails to understand alternative views from an outsider. In this age of information overload, confusion can often be the result.

Such may well be the case with the notion Judeo/Christian tradition. At its most basic, this is a conflicting term. Perhaps a simple explanation may be derived from sacred literature - The Bible. The terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" would be far better replaced by TaNaK(The Hebrew Bible) and Nicaean Canon. It is not correct to think there is some seamless transition from "Old" to "New". Rather, the suggested name changes help to reveal two entirely different mindsets.

Thus Rome's inability to come to terms with Galileo for more than 350 years, opened the way for science to attack religion.

Sigmund Freud, the papa of psychiatry, noted that conflict in religion is a primary source of mental illness. His concept of the Oedipus complex became a panacea which swept the world. Freud's last work "Moses and Monotheism" denigrated Moses with the claim that the Egyptian Pharaoh Akenaten was the first monotheist and thus Moses' precursor. The Church rejected Freud, But the challenge was taken up in the world of Jewish psychiatry, with a radically different result.

The challenge to orthodox science was also unbearable with the most shameful outrages against honest sincere inquiry occurring in the middle of the 20th century. The vehemence has continued throughout the first decade of the 21st century, despite the successful emergence of a new scientific paradigm. Thus more confusion.

shmuel

Part 2

Conflict within and between science and religion demands reconciliation. This is so, if a new spiritual identity is to emerge that will assist modern youth to face a complex but wonderful future with confidence.

It should never be forgotten... the sanctity of Life is the supreme value and needs to be sanctified. This is the province of religion

shmuel

King Hazza, granted not all marriages are entered into with good intentions and in the end some marriages would be more destructive to maintain than to dissolve. Even Jesus conceded that due to the hardness of heart of his generation, individual marriages could not always succeed in the way they were intended.

But what we have been doing in our society for decades is actively promoting alternative dysfunctional lifestyle scenarios as the new 'normal', rather than fostering and promoting what most often works. This situation has created and entrenched a general moral rudderlessness and then we in 2011 pretend to be at a loss to understand the root causes of major societal dysfunction that results such as the UK riots, perhaps future Australian riots if measures such as the shared parenting roll-back bill are passed. All I am suggesting is that we as a society proceed with the end in mind.

It is said that an elderly American Indian chief once related a story with life purpose to a young brave of about 11-12yrs, who was approaching his initiation into adulthood. The wise old man explained that he had long been greatly pained because it was like he had two wolves inside him that were fighting with each other constantly. One wolf was a benevolent selfless wolf and the other was a selfish, greedy, mean spirited wolf. The young brave was quite anxious regarding his beloved elder's ongoing painful experience and asked the chief which wolf was most likely to win the fight. The chief sighed knowingly as only one of great years and wisdom is want to do, and said encouragingly to the boy that victory was assured for the wolf he chose to feed.