Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Councillor says young children ‘should not be exposed’ to same-sex parenting books" video.

  1. And that’s fine but don’t expect the larger community to agree. The state government should immediately withdraw all funding to Cumberland council.
    4
  2.  @PJRayment  There are numerous studies going back decades suggesting there is no evidence to suggest same sex parenting has any harm on children. There are studies that show that the stigma children suffer from people like you does affect their mental health. And I’m sure there are studies that suggest same same parenting is harmful to children. Can you provide a reference to a study that suggests it is immoral?
    2
  3. @PJRayment  In the fact same sex relationships are legally recognised and same sex partners are legally entitled to be married. In that these same sex relationships are legally allowed to parents and be families. To deny reality is illogical. It is neither being objective or rational
    2
  4. @PJRayment  Once again marriage by federal law is the union of two people. It doesn't involve any of your religious bigotry. That is the reality. Your idiotic bible certainly doesn't have a single coherent narrative on marriage so again I haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
    1
  5. @PJRayment  I have no opinion on religious observance only what the High Court decides.
    1
  6.  @PJRayment  And there you have it, hilariously stupid religious opinion. Constitutionally you haven’t got a leg to stand on. What God? And Australian law doesn’t recognise any Ancient text. Laws on murder and property predate the bible by 600 years. I don’t nor does any Australian law recognise any idiotic ancient religious text legally. That’s your argument the bible told me. Hilarious.
    1
  7.  @PJRayment  Did you just try and use math in attempt to prove something you think is immoral or wrong. Hilarious.
    1
  8. @PJRayment  Nope you are completely and utterly factually wrong. Australian law legally recognises any union of two people as marriage and subsequently any family. I dont even understand what god is or how in your deluded illogical world you expect me to pay any attention to your whatever you think is talking to you. Reality is Australian law recognises as good and normal the marriage of two men or two women. It is even electorally popular the vast majority of Australians agree with me. You of course are perfectly welcome to follow your christian nationalist fundamentalist presuppositions, but not under any circumstances use public funds to censor peoples reading. A library in a Islamic school, do whatever. A public library you can f#$k right off.
    1
  9.  @PJRayment  Did you just suggest the Hebrew bible was written at the beginning of the evolution of the human species. Hilarious.
    1
  10. @PJRayment  Again I have no idea what god or even understand what god you are talking about, but most certainly keep up your conversations with whatever you think it is. Hilarious.
    1
  11. @PJRayment  Exactly how did this god of yours tell you how to behave. No god or whatever that is has ever told me anything.
    1
  12. @PJRayment  I haven't misrepresented anything. All I have presented is known facts and the reality of Australian law.
    1
  13.  @PJRayment  An analogy of 2+2=5 to express your opinion that the union of two people (that's what the law says) is wrong. Hilarious.
    1
  14. @PJRayment  Again I have absolutely no understanding of why I should pay any attention to a god ( again whatever you think that is). You of course are free to converse with whatever you like.
    1
  15. @PJRayment  While a god is mentioned in the preamble there is no definition or explanation of what a god is, however section 116 is quite explicit in no law shall be established for imposing religious observance. You are factually wrong. Your opinions about marriage and family unions are literally worthless.
    1
  16.  @PJRayment  No factually incorrect same sex marriageis perfectly legal. The Howard government in 2004 amended the marriage act to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That definition was changed in 2016 by the Freedom to Marry Bill. You are wrong. You clearly don't understand Australia's secular laws. I have no idea why you think it is wrong other than your illogical emotions.
    1
  17. @PJRayment  There was no Adam Phil, it is just a story in an ancient text. The oldest Hebrew texts date to about the second century BCE. There no doubt was some oral history for a time before that. Humans have been around for 250000 years. You are a special type of guy Phil.
    1
  18. @PJRayment  Nope I don't recognise any authority from any imagined entity from any ancient text. It/them/they makes no sense to me.
    1
  19. @PJRayment  Nope I see no evidence whatsoever of any sort of god of the bible. It is nonsensical to suggest it has any influence on me.
    1
  20. @PJRayment  The claim the bible is the basis of Western civilisation is ludicrously stupid. As explained previously laws on murder and property predate the bible by 600 years and still exist today in clay tablets and carvings in stone from Mesopotamia. They are in museums. Most of our values about democracy, freedom of speech, etc come directly from Ancient Greece and have nothing to do with the bible.
    1
  21. @PJRayment  Nobody designed marriage and the bible certainly doesn't have a single coherent teaching it goes from endorsing polyamorous relationships to celibacy (something I hope take notice of)
    1
  22. @PJRayment  Again I don't even understand what you mean by something that made everything. Why would creation even mean authority?
    1
  23.  @PJRayment  Everybody understood what an Almighty god was. That's just your christian nationalism popping out.
    1
  24. @PJRayment  of course a christian nationalist wouldn't see any relevance in the constitution that explicitly states no law should be established for imposing religious observance.
    1
  25. @PJRayment  I don't know where you made the crap about section 116 (did you imagine it in your head). 116 originator was Tasmanian AG Clark who was keen about religious freedom. It was Barton and Higgins who were concerned that a reference in the preamble did not indicate an implicit federal power to legislate with respect to religion. Initially neither the preamble or 116 were passed as there was debate. Your claim of universal recognition of one god (again whatever that is) is not supported by the data (the constitutional debates). When Patrick Glynn motion was successful he argued that the words would recommend the constitution to thousands to whom the rest of its provisions may for ever be a sealed book. Higgins added the clause to prevent federal intervention and it was eventually passed as 116.
    1
  26.  @PJRayment  I have no idea WTF you are talking about “wrong”. As previously explained same sex relationships and parenting is legal and reality in Australia (a secular country). I have no idea what idiotic, stupid, illogical, half arsed, moronic, ridiculous, and ludicrous standard you opinion it is “wrong”.
    1
  27. @PJRayment  There are literally thousands of published peer reviewed scientific papers that prove beyond reasonable doubt the theory of evolution. It is observable and real. The bible creation story is laughable in its inaccuracies.
    1
  28. @PJRayment  What is a discipline of evolution? There are millions of people that think the earth is flat., and I'm sure you are one of them. Belief in the creation story is exactly that. I don't believe in evolution it is observable scientific fact.
    1
  29. @PJRayment  Multiple peer reviewed published scientific papers provide the evidence the creation story of the bible is ludicrous.
    1
  30. @PJRayment  Yes there are a couple of scrolls that date to around 650 BCE. There are Mesopotamian texts that date to 2500-3000BCE that describe laws personal and property.
    1
  31. @PJRayment  Nothing wrong with being ancient if it was accurate. The bible isn't even remotely coherent or univocal.
    1
  32.  @PJRayment  You imagine your god entity or whatever you think it is, I don't. I don't even understand what it is to believe in a god entity or whatever that is.
    1
  33.  @PJRayment  You would have to explain whatever a god is to you, but it makes no sense to me.
    1
  34. @PJRayment  It appears your god is so impotant, it is completely unable to provide any evidence of its existence. It is so helplessly stupid it couldn't even design a baby so it didn't die of brain cancer before it's first birthday. I'm mean what a ludicrously idiotic system, either that or it is a turd burglar.
    1
  35. @PJRayment  People simply adhere to their religious dogma. People do amazing and wonderful things without even knowing anything about the christian bible
    1
  36.  @PJRayment  Read you bible. I know the references you find them, but the fact you are clueless as to the references to polygamous relationships and advocacy of celibacy in the bible is telling. You are special.
    1
  37. @PJRayment  Again I have no understanding what is meant by your description of everything. The Big Bang doesn't describe the making of anything only a process.
    1
  38.  @PJRayment  What sort of a dickhead creates something and then insists on total control, oh thats right Hitler and your god
    1
  39.  @PJRayment  There was no agreement on what a god was in the debates about the constitution.
    1
  40.  @turnerfamilyinozi  Dimwits here have no understanding of the difference between public libraries and private libraries. Religious nutjobs can have or not have whatever stupid literature they want in their own libraries, but they should not be allowed under any circumstances to impose their religious nutjobbery values on the public and the availability of our reading material.
    1
  41. @PJRayment  And finally once again the union of two people by marriage is federal law.
    1
  42. ​@PJRayment There is no evidence whatsoever of the creation story in the bible There are literally thousands of peer reviewed published scientific papers that show evolution to be an observable phenomenon. From the very beginning the bible creation story is factually incorrect. Light is created before the sun exists. Physical clay tablets exist in museums that have been scientifically dated. Just believing something existed is evidence of nothing. The bible is not accurate, not in its geography or historical accounts. The bible teaches slavery so yes amazing things. There is no evidence whatsoever your imaginary god exists. No I don't believe in anything. I accept Physical evidence of things that exist in reality. Atheism is simply the lack of evidence of a god. It is not a dogma. Christianity and modern western liberal secular civilisation have nothing in common. The Ancient Greeks philosophy influenced western society.
    1
  43.  @PJRayment  We don’t dump all religions into one, but you reject all other religions as nonsense except your on. Non belief is not a religion and it is nonsensical to suggest so.
    1
  44. @jamesgreig5168  Not remotely offended, and secondly there is nothing logical about the decision whatsoever.
    1
  45. @PJRayment  Yes you are correct in that all theist religions are nonsensical, and what's wrong with that?
    1
  46. @PJRayment  Non belief is simply that. I can't believe something I see literally no evidence of.
    1
  47.  @PJRayment  Marxism isn't a religion it was a political and social ideology (a failed one at that). Nobody worshipped Marx.
    1
  48. @PJRayment  Phil you're a presupp fundamentalist everything you say is nonsensical. Almost.
    1
  49. @PJRayment  I'm not going to bother referring to specific studies as all you will do is dismiss them as biased and I don't really care what your worthless opinion is on scientific studies as you deny the theory of evolution. You are special in that regard.
    1
  50. @PJRayment  Yes I understand you reject evolution and accept the creation story in the bible. Again you are special in that regard. Very special.
    1