Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Hello, Sailor

 Yes, it's juvenile, but it made a Bunyip laugh.

19 comments:

  1. Must admit I didn't get it until I read the post tag. Then I laughed and sneezed at the same time and nearly choked on the peanuts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jesus H Christ Professor, a little more warning would of helped. I was drinking coffee when I opened your blogg. Coffee everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.March 14, 2012 at 8:27 PM

    He won't meet many sailors walking backwards to Bourke!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Katter isn't fixated. This is life and death stuff.

    "the logic is quite straightforward: the intended change in the definition of marriage would mean that marriage as traditionally defined no longer exists. Thus heterosexual people would no longer have the right to enter into an institution understood to be only possible for heterosexuals, as doubly recognising both the unique social significance of male/female relationship and the importance of the conjugal act which leads naturally to the procreation of children who are then reared by their biological parents.

    In effect, if marriage is now understood as a lifelong sexual contract between any two adult human persons with no specification of gender, then the allowance of gay marriage renders all marriages 'gay marriages'." John Milbank http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/03/13/3452229.htm

    All marriages 'gay marriages' so much for passing on an inheritance we received. Abolish rather than renew, what a defeat. And when the state decides nature is what they say? (Bolt today on eugenics for climate change)

    The billionaire/left-liberal elite 'market-state' has declared war, and gay activists behave as much like Brownshirts as is possible in our context. Who cares if children are denied the institution by law?, the elite abort them and abuse them by the hundred thousand. Bolt was even happy with Wongs two mum setup, and piled on Katter like he was deranged, PC affects the best of us I guess. http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/best-ever-description-of-political.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come on anon, the 'defending decency' horse bolted a loooong time ago.

      Delete
    2. PhillipGeorge(c)2012March 14, 2012 at 11:33 PM

      certainly Bartholomew, you are missing in action. A pyrrhic victory for you no doubt. The first time I ever saw "incurable" written on a medical file was someone who had eaten all the fingers off both of his hands. Yes, he had sovereignty over his own hands, and he could still clap about it.

      Seeing syphillis on a gay prostitutes colostomy site kind of shocked me. How young and stupid I must have been.

      Yes, Bartholomew the horse bolted and you own the horseless farm.

      there are no conservatives in main stream media. noted.

      Delete
    3. PhillipGeorge(c)2012March 15, 2012 at 8:13 AM

      the teenage girls who are oh so edgy/ daring, dressing up all grown up sexy and calling themselves, Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Fishnets with cleavage bulging. How scandalised we all are. How shocked us hand wringing Christians.

      But Prof - if you advertised yourself as a cannibal prepared to dismember and eat someone you'd get clients/ customers, a "partner".

      It is not that Hand wringing Christians call some B&D "vampire" mutilator "sick', wicked, evil, demonic, insane" - no really.

      There are lots of things one simply doesn't empathise with. It isn't a lack of sympathy, empathy, insight. It isn't dismissal. It isn't judgmental. No, If someone wants you to cut them up and eat them to get their sexual ecstasy who am I to dissuade them.

      But I would Prof. But not to limit their human rights.

      You write a bit as if it's no-one's business what someone does with their dick so long as it doesn't involve anyone under the age of 18. So long as it is informed and consensual.

      So that's maybe where you and Andrew Bolt lose some "hand wringing" Christians. How mocking a Bartholemew is of hand wringing fuddy duddy oh so yesterday Christians.

      It isn't a lack of empathy, sympathy. It's not judgmental.

      There are just 'wrong' ways to live Prof and if "one", a government or any fictitious institution or alliance does nothing to disambiguate right from wrong "one" is confounding a problem through to its logical conclusion:

      More people, very much being wrong - to themselves and with their lives in what is, sometimes, a one way psycho-social ticket.

      And it spills over..... into economics, science, sociology, philosophy, worship...

      cheers

      Delete
    4. Phillip, my comment was meant as ironic though I recongnise I didn't make that clear so the fault is all mine.

      Personally I don't really give a damn about 'Gay Marriage'. Voting wise I'd probably treat it the same way as a vote on the Republic, vote 'no' just to piss off the lefties. But no, I don't get worked up over the issue neither do I like the homosexualist lobby advancing it as if the fate of the nation depends on it .

      Being a rather 'broad church' type however, I do detest the actions of men like Andrew Bolt who seem happy to throw the 'fuddy duddy Christians', or all those further to the Right than him, under the bus by using leftists HATE! word's like 'bigoted' and 'homophobic'.

      I hope that clears it up.

      Delete
  5. Posted well before you Bunyip - http://1735099.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/of-unknown-origin.html
    Plagiarist...............

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.March 15, 2012 at 12:14 AM

      So what?

      Delete
    2. Posted well before you Bunyip - [linkwhoring removed]
      Plagiarist...............


      And posted several places elsewhere - including all over Twitter - before you posted it.
      Jeebus, what a small sad life you must lead.

      Chucklehead..............

      Delete
    3. "Chucklehead"
      "Jeebus"
      Yank patois.
      Means nothing to me. Could be a compliment.
      Even when you attempt abuse you look like a drongo*.
      *Translation for the dog - a stupid, inept, dimwit or slow-witted person (urban dictionary)

      :-)

      Delete
  6. "the logic is quite straightforward: the intended change in the definition of marriage would mean that marriage as traditionally defined no longer exists."

    Anon @ 3:17am, it's not gays who are to blame for the destruction of the sanctity of traditional marriage.

    Straights have done a fine job of destroying all that the state of "marriage" traditionally entailed all on their ownsome.

    As James Taranto (no "fag hag," he) correctly pointed out after the kerfuffle raised when New York's Republican legislature gave gays the right to marry,

    "Last August, to far less public attention, lawmakers in Albany enacted legislation making New York the final state to institute no-fault divorce, thereby abolishing even the pretense that marriage is a lifetime commitment under the law. Under this regime, marriage is a lifetime commitment only until one spouse decides otherwise.

    "New York's previous fault-based divorce system was out of step not only with the laws of the other 49 states but also with a culture in which divorce is commonplace and marriage for life is no longer the norm. This state of affairs has multiple and mutually reinforcing causes: female careerism, which reduces the value of the traditional male provider; the social acceptability of nonmarital sex (still quaintly termed "premarital"), made possible by the easy availability of contraception and abortion; and welfare and child-support laws that create incentives for childbearing outside marriage.

    "None of these developments have anything to do with homosexuality.

    Deroy Murdock made a good point some years back when he observed, in a column posted at NRO, that 'social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony's supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.'"

    So go ahead and believe that gays are an abomination in the eyes of Jesus Christ, if that is your wont. Go ahead and throw up a little bit in your mouth at the "yuck factor" of what they might be getting up to in the bedroom, if that is your wont. Go ahead and stand up for religions' rights to have nothing to do with these folks.

    But don't blame gays for the destruction of the once-noble heterosexual institution known as "marriage."

    "Marriage as traditionally defined" ALREADY "no longer exists," and you can't put that one those durned poofters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PhillipGeorge(c)2012March 15, 2012 at 9:22 AM

      even sounds a tad angry spot. you too miss the point.

      we want happy "gay gays". Not jaded old burnt out defecate thru their colostomy bags 'gays'.

      gay is all about fun. fun. fun. and Love, love, love.

      you doubled fisted you's are so much more loving than just the single fisted version.

      anyway, we'll all get bored with Bob and move on, "progress" to more big minded things like 'saving' the rivers, and breathing fresh clear air.

      ps. your post was just slightly relevant. So very slightly.

      Delete
    2. @spot. You've clearly indulged your 'yuck' factor, on what privileged ontological and epistemological ground do you stand on or is it just a double standard?

      Really what DOES Jesus say? c'mon put the effort in to give more than a caricature - a Brownshirt 'Juden'!

      Of course heteros are responsible, its to them that the ad. is directed. Gays are only 1% of the populatuon, and only a tiny fraction of those want (or are stupid enough) to legally submit to the feminist abomination marriage laws are today.

      Gay 'marriage' is a left-liberal heterosexual political movement. It is thebvehicle of cultural marxism (Charleton link above). It's an indulgence for those who would rather eliminate the evidence of their injustices than admit their guilt, repent, and do the hard work of marriage renewal. They'd otherwise have to change their lives and face reality. Abolishing marriage IN PRINCIPLE is an exculpatory denial of reality - the elite are characterised by this tendency. If they can convince killing babies in abortion is ok, they can convince that men and women are fundamentally interchangeable, a child can cop 2mums, 4dads or whatever. Insane child abuse - like dismembering and incinerating as medical waste 70 000 babies a year.

      To the elite adult desire/strongest will rules, nature is a blank slate ready for the impression of that will, there is no intelligible intrinsic order in the human ecology that the political elites are compelled to recognise as a check on their disordered desire. If it is old growth forest slash and burn is wrong, if it fetal life we can slash and burn their bodies at will, why not their access to normal families and marriage too?

      Will Triumphs!

      Delete
    3. Couldn't agree more, Spot. We've already conceded marriage to the relativists. But that's no reason to walk away from the argument now. Maybe this is the wake up call our society needs - that we have been hijacked by post modern ideologies long enough (mostly from the Left these days, but the Right had their turn too). The (Christian) values that we (still) cherish in the Anglosphere, and which others envy, are getting slammed from pillar to post.

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. Are you sure you live in this country?
      All your links, all your commentary, and all your obsessions originate from across the Pacific.
      This is not (yet) the 51st state (nor the 52nd if Newt gets in and colonises the moon).

      Delete
  8. That's more like it Professor! Ah Bob, what a relief to have a real character still embedded in politics. We need another Latham or Keating. Bring back Costello!

    ReplyDelete