W W W
Wide Web Witness
Inc. Home Page Contents
What is New
BULLETIN TWENTY ONE
THE INVASIVE CONQUEST OF THE CONSTITUTION
Is Australia to bite the dust ?
See also Bulletin Eight above, with 13.
What is it that makes apparently sane and notable citizens, especially in Parliament, imagine that it is quite consistent and sound to call ludicrous names, those who do NOT like contradicting the billions of instructions in our billions of nucleated cells ? How is such a thing possible except in a progressively deluded society ? To say, YOU HATE MAN, of people who love his basic construction, who want to keep to it except where there have been copying errors, is a contradiction. It is vicious abuse because it is contrary to the case, and a mere attack on others from those who appear to be guilty of the very thing they despise and assault verbally in others! Who hates what they want to conserve ? who loves what they wish radically to alter, in being, or in approach ? Is this some kind of burglary, of people's good name ?
Is this misled emotion or undisputed fact ?
But you may ask, In what way is this to break with millions of instructions in our very bodies as mankind ? Making new babies is a procedure of the most complex kind. It is governed by a form of code that gives orders in a setting still only partially understood by man, by continually showing more types of programmatic input as its basis. These instructions include making two types in general, male and female (as we call them, but the name does not enter into it, they are what we CALL that), which then enable an eventual conjunction called procreation, which also, call it what you will, enables our type of thing, human beings, to continue despite dying out every generation.
How is it to hate man (homo sapiens) to prefer keeping to the way he is made ?
How is it to be a man hater (homophobe) to conform and prefer to conform to the way he is made ? and not abuse the meaning of the singular type of event called marriage for so long by so many for such good reason ? Before the name change, there are the grounds and the authority to so act!
What is hating about endorsing ? On the other side, what is natural about shouting that people must call 'marriage' what is objectively, unnatural, not what in its own nature, simply is what is normally there, a name for its due usage ?
Objectively, it is UN-natural to loose from what is found in nature, for our construction. Again, objectively, the commands, codes, miniaturised routines, programs in DNA largely, which have the way to make us enshrined, exhibit a fascinating wonder of complementary cohesiveness, with special provision for its enhancement in speed and accuracy. Why is it to hate man to delight in this marvel, as a wonder of construction, for it is constructed ?
Why is it to hate man, to want to be careful and not meddle (except in physical disease where things have gone wrong in the copying processes for someone in a new generation) with the construction direction when it works, and has worked, and has needed to work, for thousands of years ? One might have thought it the very acme of CARE and CONCERN and WATCHFULNESS as over something precious, like an oil-painting worth millions, to want to leave it, except where visibly marred, as it is. Since the painter presumably or usually would have had far more creative painting ability, as shown in the picture, than the ordinary person, this would result from LOVING the painting and respecting its creator. So look after any Raphael paintings you may have. You have a greater work in your own body.
The atheism rush makes it worse. It would be interesting to know what percentage of those wanting to use the term which enables one to refer to procreation the natural way, namely marriage, either reject, or detest the very notion of, or disregard God, or try to make Him a compliant listener to their every dream, if permitted existence, or a lord to be instructed, but who does not instruct or who may be contradicted at any point by the will of man! Drifting from design, is naturally associated with drifting from the Designer. That merely emphasises that you do not really need any vote. Doing this sort of language transformation presupposes that nothing made everything, or it is all just assumed to this or that extent without explanation, which is irrational and question begging.
Did nature make itself before it was there to do it ? This is religious in domain. The State (Commonwealth here) MAY NOT direct religion, but must allow it its due expression (not of course including things like murder, which are separately crime). A plebiscite into the area of the divine or natural character of man's construction, even logic apart, is one into a religious main theme. It is this: WHAT MAN IS, and it enters the domain, what is his origin and his authority ?
What is the good of
asking people if they want this or that contrary to the Constitution's
permission! You must first let the State make religion, as with (other ?)
totalitarian or totalitarian leaning societies, and if you do, then you can
act within those powers. In the meantime, it is not well, without burying or
changing the Constitution. But religion is still private, and the public
coverage of the topic is still to be left alone by the Commonwealth.
Asking opinions does not change it.
Rush like this when the very basis of our country is at stake (already justice is removed from aspects of free speech, removing equity for all parties), is more like some kind of hypnosis, dazzlement with desire, than a due, judicious, thoughtful expression of democracy.