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