No one is supporting the fundamental right of a child

This above is the way it should be.  It is not a construct, it is not one from many equal choices – it is the way biology arranged it for our species.

This, at the end of this link is utter sickness.

Now when is someone going to stop running scared of the gay mafia and call a spade a spade?  To mix metaphors even further, when is anyone going to quote the “emperor’s new clothes” as an analogy and tell it as it is?

Of all the issues – the EU, Cable, Obama, the snow, the flight of the dollar, the liars in Westminster, the spin-doctors, China, Muslim terrorists, the general PC madness at large – none is sicker than this one.

Those two did not, under any conceivable circumstances, “have a child”.  They took someone else’s child, for even in the world of false constructs there is still one which can not be imposed on nature – and that is that it takes a male and a female to have a child.  So, for their own “happiness” and for their own self-fulfilment, to compensate for biologically not being able to have children, they decide to ruin a child’s life.

And look at the complicit in this – from the Telegraph itself which announced that they’d had a child to those in the community speaking in support of this travesty – there is a furrowed brow, as they briefly consider the voice of reality and they move on as if nothing had ever happened.

When will anyone speak up for the children, apart from the multitude out there claiming to speak for the children, in order to push through their agendas?

Or are we already too far gone?

When will someone, anyone, in a position of power, come out and say that a child is the product of parents, ideally married?  One person and a Marxist at that – Julia Gillard!  With her toyboy in the Lodge with her and her relativistic Marxist roots, one doesn’t hold out much hope that she won’t make a u-turn at the conference.

Just because I have many gay friends does not make them right on this.  Why are they right – because they’re gay?  If you choose a homosexual union, then fine – you wear the consequences, which are that it is just you two and you two only, to the end of your days or until the end of your union, whichever comes first [yes I know the end of life is the end of the union too].

It has zero to do with procreation and zero to do with marriage, which is all about the purpose of procreation, whether or not a married couple decide on or can have children or not.

The assault on children has gone on long enough – in the schools who only now employ potential abusers who allow sex and drugs and even encourage it, whilst failing to educate the child in literacy and numeracy, in the homes where parents are strangely complacent and almost zombie-like in lack of protection towards their children and in the high-profile horses’ backsides, like these two bozos in the front page Telegraph article.

No one important seems to be supporting the fundamental right of a child, which is to have a mother and a father, living in relative peace and bringing him/her up with a decent set of values.

16 comments for “No one is supporting the fundamental right of a child

  1. December 29, 2010 at 08:34

    Seems that money can’t buy you happiness, but it can buy children.

  2. December 29, 2010 at 09:06

    At the risk of generalising, it seems today’s parents put their wants ahead of the child’s needs, regardless of sexual orientation.

    • December 29, 2010 at 10:03

      I agree, m’lud and would like to put strongly that this post is in no way “gay-bashing”. It is drawing the line and that line is with children. Similarly, I draw the line with libertarianism, drugs, sex and anything else indulged in by adults. Just leave the children out of it, OK?

      What I bemoan is that there are so few today whose politics have children as one of their major planks. Jamie Oliver is one good man who at least wants healthy meals for kids and there are still conservative heads of schools who try to stem the tide but they’re becoming thinner on the ground as time goes by. In this, the former conservatives are rapidly becoming the new reformers.

      Angus – it’s the high profile of these two and their utter disregard for the child which angered me.

      Lord T – there’s a certain amount we must have to live decently but when it gets into the large amounts – happiness very much seems to decrease. People whose god is money are never happy. And you’re right – it doesn’t buy love. It buys dependence.

  3. December 29, 2010 at 09:21

    Money does buy happiness. It is love it can’t buy but as has been said it does buy a good fascimile.

  4. Sally
    December 29, 2010 at 11:52

    James, would you kindly look through these links?

    http://lifeinthemix.org.uk/ark_schools_ac_ii.html

    ARK Schools and Academies Hedge Fund front.

    Military Industrial Complex takeover.

    http://lifeinthemix.co.uk/

    Some lifeinthemix are not available such as below.

    lifeinthemixtalk.com » Blog Archive…
    Sep 29, 2009 … They do not like this operation being brought into the limelight and so LINKS is deserving of a profiling from lifeinthemix. ……
    http://www.lifeinthemixtalk.com/?p=3305

    lifeinthemixtalk.com » Blog Archive…
    lifeinthemix has fully exposed the real agenda being developed through the ……
    http://www.lifeinthemixtalk.com/?p=15503

  5. Rossa
    December 29, 2010 at 13:59

    The egg was donated too, so 2 mothers and 2 “fathers” assuming one of them was the sperm donor. If not, then 3 fathers. Therefore this child doesn’t even have a real mother as they may not even know who donated the egg.

    And it cost £100,000 so the “mother” was paid well to be the incubator.

  6. fake
    December 29, 2010 at 15:51

    **they decide to ruin a child’s life.**

    2 gay fathers = ruined child.

    Case closed.

    Forget all the studies that show it can produce healthy normal children/adults.

    And the nuclear family inst what we are biologically set up for, any more than we where biologically set to live in tribes where the father was nothing more than another male with no special relationship with the child.

  7. December 29, 2010 at 17:06

    Forget all the studies that show it can produce healthy normal children/adults.

    Total bullsh because it doesn’t and so many studies have shown this. The PC constructed “studies” are so one-eyed that they’re not worth the effort of reading. For a start, there is not a sufficient time frame. It’s patent justification.

    The clinical psychologists show clearly that happy mother and father + love = normal, functional child.

    I’m well aware of ScienceDaily [but look at the people who did the study]. I’m also aware that NARTH has religious roots but as they’re the only people currently trying to conduct studies, then homosexuals auto-reject these.

    ____________________

    63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
    90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
    85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
    80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
    71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
    75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)
    70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
    85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

    _____________________

    And it cuts the other way too. The idea of the kid being raised in a double-male household is appalling. The mother brings something so vital that not many have even bothered to quote stats at it. It’s like quoting stats to say we need good nutrition. I could survive on gruel but I’m not going to be a particularly healthy specimen.

    ____________________

    I’m astounded that in 2010, one even needs to run a post like this.

  8. December 29, 2010 at 19:32

    But all these statistics you quote about “fatherless homes” are largely fatherless homes because a heterosexual male father has left the home (or never been part of it). That’s the issue these statistics reveal, quite different from the one of homosexuals bringing up children. However, my own reaction to this news today was “Yuk” and “not fair on the child”; then my wife pointed out that this particular child is probably not going to be too upset, when aged 17 or so, it realises the full implications of having a “father” who is a nearly-dead multi-millionaire. Then she talked about all the damaged children raised by useless heterosexual fathers (I don’t think she was referring to me)… and I listened, and I hummed and hawed, then I still said “Yuk though, not fair on the child” (under my breath).

  9. December 29, 2010 at 19:58

    “none is sicker than this one”…..? Really? I see plenty of issues much, much sicker than a couple of obscenely wealthy guys wanting to give life to a new being and, presumably, who will give it love and a lifestyle the envy of many who will eventually become its peers.

    A child needs the input of attributes of both genders, sure. But those attributes are part of us all, they are not peculiar to women or to men – some men are as caring and nurturing as any woman, and some women should never be allowed anywhere near a child.

    I suppose that within a gay couple there is one with a bigger dose of feminine characteristics (Yin) t’other with more masculine traits (Yang), being the reason they have found each other attractive – a kind of completion.

    You are being far too pedantic on this, in my view, Mr. Higham.

  10. james wilson
    December 29, 2010 at 20:01

    In the back of the progressive mind is the notion that if it is impossible to bring some people into equality through improvement, then at least it can be accomplished by degrading others. But always, always, excepting themselves–the priests of the new atheist state.
    “Democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom, but for equality their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, and invincible: they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery.”

  11. December 29, 2010 at 21:01

    Hmmmm.

  12. December 30, 2010 at 09:16

    My own observations of my now 16 month old baby is that she is not only fascinated with her parents gender differences but nigh on obsessed with our romantic involvement. It is clear already that she will frame all her interactions with men with reference to her relationship with her Father. These men may not be able to give this child this kind of foundation but their considerable wealth (allowing them to hire full-time female nannies for example) can certainly bridge a lot of gaps.

  13. ubermouth
    December 30, 2010 at 11:57

    Oh,how could you say such things about our Queen? 🙂

    Had I known he wanted to adopt a little boy, I would have gladly changed my gender.

    I can think of worse things-like the fact that some children have NO parents.

  14. fake
    December 30, 2010 at 14:42

    **The PC constructed “studies” are so one-eyed that they’re not worth the effort of reading. For a start, there is not a sufficient time frame. It’s patent justification.**

    ALL studies should be treated as suspect, but that does not mean all studies are suspect.

    **The clinical psychologists show clearly that happy mother and father + love = normal, functional child.**

    I do not disagree with that, however that does not prove that other family units = fubard child.

    **63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
    90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes
    85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
    80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.)
    71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
    75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.)
    70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
    85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)**

    This is where I feel rather disappointed by you, this is such a lame bunch of stats to quote.

    All of the above has nothing to do with the issue of gay parents, but of parents that abandoned their children, of likely struggling single parents, and likely shitty parents (how often do women pick bad men also end up being generally irresponsible in other aspects of their life).

    This shows such blinkered thinking on the subject, you see what you want to see.

    **And it cuts the other way too. The idea of the kid being raised in a double-male household is appalling. **

    Well, yea, because you don’t like gays. Be honest about it, the whole “I have gay friends” line doesn’t wash any more than “I have black friends”.

    **The mother brings something so vital that not many have even bothered to quote stats at it.**

    There are two things the mother brings. A nurturing approach to the child, and contact with women.

    Whilst men do not normally act as nurturing as women, some men can (just as some women can’t), and as I said before, until you start vetting ALL parents of all types, you can’t start making such judgements against individuals.

    It IS important however that the child has regular contact with both sexes during it’s upbringing, otherwise that could make it socially inept at dealing with the other sex. However such contact can come in many forms from other friends or family members.

    Really you could take your argument and apply it to single male parents (not as common but they exist), and argue that it is wrong and they are ruining their child.

    And as to marriage, PAH.

    Marriage is a silly religious ceremony that ruined tribal upbringing.

    Which is better, Mother + Father.

    Or mother and other mothers and other fathers.

    How many child’s lives have been ruined by 1 of the parents dying or leaving, or family splitting up, the number is un-countable.

    In a tribe all come together and the loss of 1 person whilst sad, never devastates the life of any child.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please copy the string v41K2n to the field below: