They need to show me ONE example where nature has created ANY human child from a "union" of two men or two women.

Had nature intended to have children from such a "union", this would have happened by now. After all, nature has had over three BILLION years to perfect evolution (without meaning to imply any intent behind evolution).

And yet nature could not produce ONE child from such "union".

Such "unions" are intended (if such a word can be used) to be STERILE.

These are purely relationships. These contracts could readily be recognised for all legal purposes, that's fine. But these relationships are intended by nature to be STERILE. Therefore, these relationships can have NOTHING to do with children. 

I'm glad that there is now an Australian Marriage Association which is conducting research and working to demolish this mindless insistence on "gay" marriage. I quote from an article in The Australian today. Note that I don't fully agree with this article, but cite it as one of many strong arguments against the idea of "gay" marriage.

"Gays" can call their relationship "gayrriage" if they want to rhyme it with marriage. But a "gayrriage" must be a STERILE relationship. No children can or should be entrusted to such a relationship, in violation of THREE BILLION years of natural evolution.

Will incestuous couples want marriage rights?

DAVID VAN GEND

THE day we cut marriage adrift from the rock of nature, from the mammalian order of male-female-young, is the day we lose any fundamental reason to deny "marriage equality" to any consenting adults, whether polyamorous or incestuous. And that way madness lies.

Daniel Brennan, former chairman of the Bar Association in Britain, wrote in March: "After all, if you can abolish the most important precondition of marriage, namely that it requires a person of each sex, why should you be able to retain other preconditions, such as limiting it to only two people?" 

Another taboo will fall before the inexorable logic of "equal love". In April, an incestuous relationship came to the European Court of Human Rights. Patrick Stuebing from Leipzig argued that he and his sister had the right to a "family life".

The case had inspired calls to legalise familial sexual relations. The ECHR refused, saying it was necessary for "the protection of marriage and the family" to punish incestuous relationships. But how long will courts uphold this quaint notion of "the protection of marriage and the family" once "homosexual marriage" has breached the levee of sexual taboo that alone protects the natural order of marriage and family?

In Queensland under Labor's Civil Partnership Act 2011, two men can sign up at the Marriage Registry, issue the "bans" and organise a state-licensed celebrant for a public ceremony complete with rings and confetti and the March from Lohengrin. Then under Labor's Surrogacy Act 2010 the two men can create a baby of their very own, and the Registrar of Births Deaths and Marriages will officially falsify the birth certificate to record the names of the two males as "parents", with no mention of any mother.

Against this parody, serious politicians must assert one unifying policy: that no law shall be enacted or allowed to stand which tends in any way to diminish the ideal of "a mother and a father for every child".

Such a policy will exclude the artificial creation of babies by single people or same-sex couples and exclude any same-sex institution that mimics marriage.

Frank Brennan, a former chairman of the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, writes: "I think we can ensure non-discrimination against same-sex couples while at the same time maintaining a commitment to children of future generations being born of and being reared by a father and a mother."

David van Gend is president of the Australian Marriage Forum.

BJP improve thyself (if you can). Look in the mirror and you'll find a monster staring back at you.

Note also that MMS is PERSONALLY corrupt – if he consorts with the corrupt. So Team Anna is very correct. It is impossible for someone to claim that he is honest while being the head of the worst set of scoundrels that India has ever produced: the Congress.

Team Anna, I often question some of your strategies, but please don't care one bit about BJP. That organisation is the pits of the world, along with Congress. Just ignore it.  True, even MMS deserves natural justice, but he is THOROUGHLY CORRUPT. That can NEVER be doubted. Evidence is overwhelming. Beyond the slightest iota of doubt.

So I'm with you Team Anna, on this.

When I read Atlas Shrugged, I recall not being able to stop; read it in a couple of days and nights, through thick and thin. The book is dynamite. Ayn Rand's talks are also powerful. At times abrasive, but she knows she is challenging ridiculous ideas. 

Was she right on everything? No. I disagree with her views on a few issues. But very few.

Even on the issues on which I disagree with her, I know she makes a sound theoretical argument. It is just the impracticality of some such ideas (e.g. taxation) that she fails to acknowledge. She had the privilege of not being involved in the actual governance of society. 

1959

1981

The John Galt speech

Fountainhead: full movie:

It was a surprise to come across Jeffrey Miron, a Harvard academic bold enough to rebut the idea that the recent global financial crisis was caused by "capitalism". It would be nice if Alasdair Roberts would listen to Miron (btw I was disappointed at Roberts's recent Foreign Affairs article – read my comment on the article on the FA website).

I side primarily with the views of Friedman, Hayek and Buchanan, along with a strong natural rights flavour that comes from Hobbes and Locke (yes, Hobbes!). And some Mises. I disagree with anarcho-capitalism almost entirely. That's the broad thrust of what I teach/preach. This is what informs my book/s including The Discovery of Freedom (which is languishing because of my various health issues).

Nigel's lectures demonstrate clearly why I (along with other classical liberals) oppose socialism, why I oppose social democrats like Rawls, and why I oppose the welfare state which is also extremely IMMORAL (as Arthur Brooks has shown).

These are very short videos. You'd be able to cover all of them in about an hour.

As I've explained elsewhere, the BEST way to preserve and even grow endangered species like tigers, is to PRIVATISE THEM and allow sale of tiger parts (including for consumption).

Sharply reacting to Team Anna’s demand for an inquiry by a panel of judges into allegations against Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and 14 other Union Ministers, Dr. JP said in a media statement that assuming every one is corrupt and every Government decision is tainted with corruption unless otherwise proved is a sure recipe for disaster. 

“Nothing can be more illogical and untrue than assuming that everyone in politics is bad and those outside politics are angels.

“Those who fight against corruption must have respect for truth and evidence and not rely on hearsay and speculation.”

Dr. JP underlined that there are many men and women in public life who maintain high standards of conduct and probity against heavy odds and named leaders like Dr. Manmohan Singh, Pranab Mukherjee, A. K. Antony, L. K. Advani, Arun Jaitley, Nitish Kumar, Buddadeb Bhattacharya, Navin Patnaik, Narendra Modi, Mamata Banerjee, Prakash Karat, Suravaram Sudhakar Reddy and N. Rangasamy.

I agree that natural justice must be available to everyone. However, I don't agree with JP's clean chit to these specific politicians. The fact that they are part of the system which starts with crores of rupees of black money in elections and false declarations at the start of their parliamentary career, undermines any credibility these politicians might have. 

According to me, MMS, Modi, Advani, etc. are thoroughly corrupt. If they claim to be innocent I'd like to interrogate them on their actions over these past many years.

I must generalise because though there may be a few sensible "gay" folk, the current spate of bullying by this group is getting out of control. 

Extracts from Angela Shanahan's article in The Australian yesterday illustrate the grave threat to liberty from those who have NO IDEA about what it means. Liberty is not license. Liberty is underpinned by accountability. Liberty MUST be consistent with nature. Gay marriage is NOT consistent with nature.

FREEDOM of speech has been dealt yet another whack by the gay lobby determined to get its way on same-sex marriage and, what is worse, it was done in the name of human rights.

Last week the deputy chief psychiatrist of Victoria, Kuruvilla George, resigned under pressure from his position on the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission.

His resignation came after Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young and various members of the gay lobby queried his professional judgment and his deeply held views on marriage. His crime? He signed a petition against same-sex marriage, as part of a doctors' group called Doctors for the Family.

The petition pointed out that the health of the natural family is vital to the health of society and that homosexual relationships are not a suitable environment in which to bring up children. The petition was signed by 170 doctors and had numerous academic medical references (and some interesting non-academic ones from the likes of Andrew Sullivan) to back up their opinion.

The irony here is that the gay marriage lobby, by pressuring the unfortunate professor into resignation, has used the human rights commission to effectively abuse someone's human right to express an opinion. But that is par for the course. The use of the human rights mantra to intimidate will become even worse. There was no bar on the professor signing the petition, either as a citizen or in his private capacity as a doctor, as both the attorney-general of Victoria and Deputy Premier made clear. George made no mention of his office as deputy chief psychiatrist. Nor is the professor anti-gay. He told me this week: "I am not anti-gay or anti-anyone for that matter. The submission was purely about changing the definition of marriage and legalising 'same-sex marriage'. Nothing about being anti-gay, which I have been portrayed to be. It is this injustice that has pained me the most."

The intimidatory "Right Think" of the political gay lobby now includes the entirely confected notion of "marriage equality". If one opposes this artificial notion, it is now seen as tantamount to gay bashing. 

The gay lobby embarked long ago on a policy of using human rights law and human rights bodies to get its own way. It has already gone a long way to achieving its aims.

Plenty of lay people feel in conscience that the homosexual lobby is pushing a distorted, artificial view of marriage in order to further normalise a sexual preference. We have enough problems with children born in ordinary families without wantonly playing with the lives of any more children.

The issue here is that a confected idea of "human rights" is being used as a form of ideological intimidation

George told me: "I feel rather battered and bruised from the events of last week. I was shocked by the way I was targeted, though I did not make any mention of my various positions when I signed the submission to the Senate. I have learned the hard way that 'human right' and 'freedom of speech' is relative and it depends on how politically correct one is."

But there is worse. Freedom of conscience is threatened because human rights commissions are now seeking, through legal change, to overturn conscience. That goes to any issue, not just gay marriage. The diktats of human rights commissions are replacing conscience.

I'm extracting from the doctor's petition below. Original can be downloaded by clicking this.

We believe that marriage as reflected and proclaimed in the Marriage Act 2004 “…the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” to be the basis of healthy marriage and family. 

We believe that marriage as defined is the basis of a healthy society. We submit that the evidence is clear that children who grow up in a family with a mother and father do better in all parameters than children without. 

We believe it is important for the future health of our nation to retain this definition and we oppose moves to alter this definition to include “same-sex marriage”. We also believe marriage as currently defined is more stable than so-called same-sex “marriage”. 

We further submit that legalisation of same-sex marriage will have significant ramifications that have been confirmed by research.

I fully support these sentiments, but I don't base my arguments on "significant ramifications" or research.

This is NOT a scientific issue. Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL natural institution of society that can't be changed by man. Children have evolved to grow naturally with a father and mother (even if one of the parents dies at an early age). Marriage is a protected species of human institution and no "natural right" accrues to those who want to destroy it.