The Pickering Post
Thursday, 23rd November 2017

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


Dear Mr Abbott,

Phoebe

Phoebe is an 8 yo who attends Lloyd Street State School in East Malvern Vic. and she asks a lot of really important questions.

BLOG



I’m getting all mixed up with this gay thing. Our teacher Ms Green is very excited over marriage quality and has painted her face in a rainbow and we all have to do an essay on why gay is great but I don’t even know how to tell who is gay.

Ms Green gives us sex education but she doesn't tell us where things go if girls marry girls or if boys marry boys... it's really a bit confusing for me and my friends.

I have heard that some boys only like boys and some girls only like girls but it’s not like that in my class. We all like each other and all the boys like the state of origin and all the girls like “Frozen”.

They wear trousers and we wear skirts, and they stand up to do a ... well you know Mr Abbott, so how will I know if I’m gay Mr Abbott? What signs should I look for, will I start growing things? Will my brother Shamus start losing things?

I am a little bit worried now ‘cos I sometimes get an urge to kick Shamus’s football back to him. (So don’t think I’ll do that anymore.)

I know there are some kids who play stinky finger after school and some others who play doctors and nurses and stuff, but I really don’t think any of them are gay.

Actually I don’t think there is anyone in my whole school who is gay.

Ms Green’s girlfriend might know, I will ask her, she has painted her whole Kombi van in a rainbow because all their friends have been invited to Q&A again on Monday... golly it looks nice.

Anyway Mr Abbott if you could give me some clues what to look for I would be really appreciated.

Love Phoebe,
(8 and three quarters)



Comments

I hate gay knts all the same full fkn stop.

playing in the human body's sewer.....

And for what it’s worth, may I ask my readers to indulge me as I enter a
point of opinion in these momentous times, regarding the acceptability,…
indeed the desirability, of one’s being thought to be a person of an
alternative sexual persuasion, especially one that has been held in
extremely low regard for thousands of years in a majority of nations,
races, and religious persuasions.


I should have not thought it acceptable to admit suddenly to being
inclined to belong to that part of society if I felt that it was from
time immemorial to be unjustified and of insignificant demerit, so low
in esteem that countless millions have been murdered and punished
horrendously when practitioners of that cause. And suddenly “it is OK”.
No it is not.


The issue is, it seems to be, to hinge on the wanting to be considered
worthy by one’s workmates, it is at all times what WE THINK OF OURSELVES
that cuts the most decisive suit.


It is only the effect on our reputation in our work opportunities, in our
established society that, as a tool, it makes me to be thought to be
unworthy. As a weapon it highly effective. And that is unlikely to change
with the installation of a plastic facsimile of “marriage”. It can never,
in the comprehension of individuals be considered a valid appellation.


I could be a loving (altruistic} person or a lustful (self gratifying)
person , and this, I contend, is the basis for accepting or not coveting
the choice by those folks who have pushed the cause for same-sex unions in
this day and age as the world (as we know it) seems to stall, wallow, or
sink into a pit of perdition decreed in the far distant Biblical past, as
unavoidable by the prophets …who may, I might suggest, have not known
what they were talking about. I however feel that they knew a thing or
two, and their powers of perception may be disputed in the furtherment of
“progress”. But they have pretty close to the mark so far.


As to the validity of same sex unions being acceptable in the first
instance I must proffer the opinion that a same sex union may be a very
laudable one, it may also be one drawn by the short range perspective of
personal orgasmic satisfaction, shared, and embellished by the humane need
to share one’s life, as most animal forms species seem to do


As for “marriage equality”, it as a farcical misnomer. Homosexuals do not
want to be the same. To be different is the main platform of their cause.
It is only that we have no “acceptable” title to award them. So let’s make
one up. “De facto” seems ok, and they can still claim equality. And let’s
leave “married” for those dreadful “straights” who cause them so much
angst, and but for whom NONE of them would be HERE.


(“Straights”?....you mean they’re “bent”? Did they choose to name the
category? Interesting)


True it may be that heterosexual unions may be undertaken by the lure of
joyful sexual union , as a component of the union, but the traditional
marriage was,and still is I believe, taken in the forlorn hope that one
has found one’s life partner, with whom, one may share the possible
pleasure of perpetuating our species and incidentally or otherwise of
offering a child an environment and bringing the child/children up in a
secure warm environment. (Even so, a dodgy, shakey hope at the best of
times)..


On the other hand, the heterosexual contingent should not be expected, in
my opinion, to exist to be considered to be the breeder of offspring, only
then to offer them to same-sex couples as accessories, along with a new
car, a pet , a lively entertainment or as a status symbol.


Furthermore, the child is far more vulnerable if the sexual component of
the couple palls, and proves inadequate to hold the couple together, (Most
likely). The child is now abandoned, confused and distressed, just an
exmember of a little gathering of individuals who once shared a house.


Surely to lose a mother/father would be bad enough, but to lose a
substitute older person, half of the unit which to that time has been its
guiding light, would be troubling and deeply destabilising. And believe me
please, when I say that the sexual completeness of any union (hetero or
homo) is unlikely to be its chief asset as time passes. So everyone’s
adrift.


It has been my opinion also that granting rights to any minority without
full confidence, will in time lead to the newly furnished minority the
inclination to want MORE, and MORE rights, damaging the existing
institutions and offering only further “decadent” demands as the order of
the day falters and dwindles. And the world gains more and more exotice
couplings, multiples, animals, children….and believe me they are already
in the pipeline!


The loss of concepts in society, already mourned earlier in this
treatise, will surely make for a fragile society and a damaged one.,


By all means “equality for everyone” but if the appellation of “”marriage”
is bandied around, soon the losers will be those who are already “married”
and THEY WILL NOW NOT BE CONSIDERED EQUAL, but inferior, because of the
low esteem which the “ new fraternity” is already held,( and will be held
by schoolchildren in the playground for MANY GENERATIONS AS THEY TORMENT
THE UNFORTUNATE CHILDREN OF SAME SEX COUPLES. The stigma will not
disappear overnight, and well meaning teachers will pursue and hound the
children of heterosexual couples as barbarians.


Already the rot has set in. And so the educationsl system will be
undermined, home schooling will be the order of the day by the same sex
couples, their “children” will be maladjusted socially.
The slippery slope is here. To justify their denigration, the solution
will be, to ratify their campaign to encourage other deviant forms of
coupling to be brought inside the canon, pederasty, (currently called
pedophilia to make it less perjorative).

And it gets worse… Society, in a very short time will collapse, the court
system will jam, divorces and divorce settlement will become a nightmare,
insurance policies and tenets of common law and legislation will become
unwieldy. All in the name of equal rights being awarded to everyone to
enjoy the configuration of marriage.


It can never be equal. A life long union between to persons of the same
sex can never be more than a consensual union to share the gratification
of recreational orgasm, with the prospect of sharing a bed and
accessorizing the aforementioned assets, children, pets and possessions.
All self gratification.

Love is altruistic, lust is self gratification. The two things are not equal.

Please find another name for the same sex union and the problem goes away,
Almost.

mike I cant watch that show, it should be called the one siders.

I see the following item under the heading "No, same sex marriage isn't the biggest issue by a long shot" on the Bolt Blog, referring to an article in today papers by Piers Ackerman: Both Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Employment Minister Eric Abetz have accused the media of pushing the same-sex marriage bandwagon. Piers Akerman has evidence:
THREE days ago, a reporter put to Prime Minister Tony Abbott that “the biggest talking point in Australia at the moment, arguably, is that of gay marriage”.

It was the sort of proposition that would have challenged former NSW Labor Premier Neville Wran to respond with his famous line “are you from the ABC?"…

According to the latest of NAB’s authoritative surveys Biggest Issues Facing Australians Today, cost of living, access to health care, economy, employment/jobs, terrorism/security, housing affordability, ageing population, environment/climate change, law and order, asylum seekers, education, inequality/poverty, income, population growth/immigration, government red tape/regulation, taxation and infrastructure/transport all ranked well ahead of vague “other” concerns…

[Same-sex marriage] is but one of the Green-Left issues which the ABC pushes but there will be no inquiry into the minority culture which infects the majority broadcast network and its groupthink propagandists.

The Best Way to Deal With TROLLS
.
Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-best-way-to-deal-with-trolls/#MhSALpAvcmI2IH0J.99
.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

The Best Way to Deal With TROLLS
.
Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-best-way-to-deal-with-trolls/#MhSALpAvcmI2IH0J.99
.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

Former Salesman For Vaccine Maker Merck & Co. Wouldn’t Vaccinate His Son
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7YVPkCQxqz4
.
http://www.StopMandatoryVaccination.com –
.
“If you believe what you are told by the AMA and the CDC and your doctor, you’re not doing enough research.” In 1991 Scott Cooper and his wife researched vaccine safety and efficacy, determined vaccines are NOT safe or effective, and refused to vaccinate their son.
.
Interestingly, their son was much healthier than his vaccinated peers throughout childhood. At the time, Scott worked as a sales rep for Merck & Co., a large vaccine manufacturer, and he had dived deep into researching vaccines and the risk associated with vaccination........
.
The Vaccine Research Library
.
http://vaccineresearchlibrary.com

I'm sure the Sabbath falls on a Tuesday in leap years....

Bruce I think you might as well just piss into the wind, unless Larry does something this isn't going to stop.

Two Muslims have crashed a speedboat into the Thames Barrier in London...The Police think it might be the start of Ram-a-dam

Where the hell did the term "gay" come into being to refer to homosexual men. In my day 'gay' meant happy, bright. I cannot see the correlation.

Just love those cartoons eh...afternoon diddums.

a word of warning about the closet libral andrew lamming
when i sugested this was a filthy act
i was banned from his facebook page
i am in his electrote
take note librals there goes my and many others vote

''lamming you are on the nose''
you and turncoat should join the liars united party

I still think,

PHOEBE FOR PM!

A filthy act
those condoning it
are very suspect indeed

Thanks for the link Killwarren. I'll have a look later.

Sounds like a fine chap. Spends too much time in front of the flat screen unfortunately.

We'll recognise horse by the barcode across the forehead.

By Attorney General do you mean that pale puffy lawyer that can't even get his department to comply with the nations security requirements? If I were you I would find someone else to hide behind Phil.