Our legislation recognises, reasonably that preferential treatment as relative to childbirth does not constiute unlawful discrimination. Men cannot have babies and to want to would be as equal a perversion as two women wanting to have the same. Yet this preferential treatment has been manipulated in ignorance to create the presumption that women are therefore more important to the child than the father. This is the problem we have to challenge as subjectively as it is objective.

as is reasonable I believe, whether an individual is Christian or non Christian. The principle of kindness, respect and fairness toward and for your fellow man (or woman) is abundantly obvious as against its opposite in behaviour. Hit someone in any form and invariably they will find a way to hit you back. Don’t hit them and they have no such need.

Yet your challenge is mute. You descibe the necessity to challenge a behaviour and yet you mitigate this into being reasonable. Abusing children is not reasonable. We have a nation reeling in child abuse and spending extraordinary amounts of money to compete with its advance. Additionally we are talking about the principles governing birht. With birht comes new life and with new lifew comes evolution. Once corruption takes a hold, like rust, it is very difficult to contain. To support your view of tolerance on homosexuality limiting the rights to complain to include an acceptance for homosexual couples to have and raise children without providing the child with the influence by association of their hetrosexual inheritiance is not a limit at all. It is a freedom. And it is presently being exploited. And it clearly is detrimental to the child born because an adult behaviour is accepted as holding a greater value that the necessities for the child. That is simple.

So when a policy of education is introduced into the schools without teaching the learning child the governing principles of discrimination and the policy is discriminatory, in this case against the child and fatherhood, then you teach that child to accept those discriminations as acceptable and “natural”.

The naturality of the equation is about three simple things. A male and a female copulate to make a baby. That baby is made equally of male and female. The infant is naturally entitled to develop to the accord of those equal influences. To separate this from human functionality is to pervert that human function.

The men’s and fathers’ movement would do well to separate itself from such homophobic nonsense. There is a place for reasoned discussion of issues around homosexuality. Whether homosexual couples should be seen as equivalent to heterosexual couples in adopting and raising children is a matter of reasoned debate, and in the interests of children’s welfare I do not currently agree with that proposition. One can argue that some special status of marriage is appropriate for couples intending to bring children into the world and to rear them, but that doesn’t mean homosexual couples should not have available some legal recognition and protection regarding their committed relationships. In striving to remove unjustified discrimination against homosexuality, policy makers may sometimes go further than is sensible and such excesses should be challenged. But the lies and over-reaction contained in this article are far from reasoned debate. Supporting or perpetrating such propoganda will only bring the men’s movement into disrepute.

Every society includes a proportion of non-heterosexual people, and this proportion is likely to remain quite constant even if we increase tolerance and inclusion regarding those minority groups.

Men in western democracies are now experiencing something of what it is like to be discriminated against and unjustifiably maligned. It is hypocrisy to complain about such things when they are directed at us but to condone them when directed at others.

This post, makes it look as if the job to return sexual preferences back to the adult’s bedroom where they belong far too advanced for any simple transition to be accepted by those who are now “out”. I say belong because the move to remove discrimination on homosexuality was in itself a direct and unlawful discrimination on hetrosexuality. We are now suffering, and it would appear about to suffer worse from the extremes and absolute stupidity of those who hold or held the reigns of control and power. Women championed this position of freedom to accept homosexuality because most obviously, homosexuals present no threat to women. Homosexuality does not put any strain on the functionality of giving birth; unlike men. This matured and women then wanted to control giving birth entirely so they had to advance this unlawful discrimination into being direct agaisnt child hood and thereby introducing the indirect as unlawful discrimination against fatherhood.

California is presently burning from raging fires. Not many deaths but certainly the buildings are being destroyed in their thousands.

The most difficult of problems from here is how to craft logic into those who want power from this point. Then they will contest the above formula (less the fires) and present its legal reply before th public to justify homosexuality. Unfortunately for eveybody they cannot. This subjective evolution of homosexuality if to be accepted has to be accepted without grounds of substance in the objective.

This means that those who wouold argue against homosexuality being entitled to legal equality on the grounds that it is a corruption of existing laws afgainst discrimination would be right. I have started to read the Hansard on the debate at the time the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was before the House and so far I haven’t seen any text to suggest that anyone thought that outward homosexuality may well be a direct discrimination against sex - being hetrosexuality and therefore unlawful. This of course will be covered in the legislation as it redefines “sex” to include homosexuality. What will be missing though, almost certainly, is a description on how this inconsistency with our present then every day human rights is a justifiable limitation in a free and democratic society. Everyone was likely drugged to think like they were sheep.

Before I get arrested and put into prison for a life sentence for my comments in this writing it should be important to note that in my defence I have no objection to homosexual people. There’s is a free choice. That they discriminate against me as being hetrosexual is only a moderate concern and I had never thought about it enough to feel threatened by overt homosexual behaviour as long as it wasn’t directed straight into my face. My complaint as it remains is that this has now advanced where that lobby group - rich and very, very, very powerful have decided that they can have babies. At this point life becomes different. Homosexual people are no longer directly discriminating agaisnt the function of mankind for their sexual preference but the behaviour has been advanced to include a defenceless child. If there is a God (as people say), then it should be fair to presume that God protects laws that are made by man that are true and just. But when those laws are corrupted to protect a behaviour that is against the law of human functionality, then surely there must be a serious problem for everyone.

Compassion and security have two completely different meanings.

Respectfully,
Benjamin Easton,
(of a) fatherscoalition.