Rape and Drink

Courts 'should assume women can't consent to sex when drunk': Rape report's controversial proposal 

• Dame Elish Angiolini calls for change to consent law to cover intoxication
• Blood tests would establish if woman was too drunk to consent to sex
• Positive result would likely make it impossible for man to plead innocence

When I first read this article I thought GOOD but after some thought my mind has changed slightly. I abhor Rape I will not watch even scenes on film etc. I have heard all the arguments that it about domination control etc., RUBBISH it is about sexual gratification and you are not a real man if you have to rape women. Yet I do have a problem with this drink problem.  If a man is drunk and has sex could he claim rape? If both are drunk can they both claim rape? What if you are married and have sex with your wife or husband who is drunk would this be rape?

One wonder if we returned to complete monogamy and sex was encouraged in Marriage only rather then the modern day version where it is treated the same as having a glass of wine or just as a means of physical pleasure would we have the problems we have today?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3108406/Courts-assume-women-t-consent-sex-drunk-Rape-report-s-controversial-proposal.html#ixzz3byvWSlfD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

marriage is not merely the expression of a love

Quote “Another is that I stand adamantly against the bullying and vilification of people of minority sexual identities”

Quote “marriage is not merely the expression of a love people have for each other. It is, or is intended as, a life-long union between two people who exemplify the biological duality of the human race, with the openness to welcoming children into the world. Even when children do not arrive, the differentiated twoness of marriage indicates its inherent structure.”

I oppose same-sex marriage (and no, I'm not a bigot)

OPINION

By Michael Jensen

We are told there are those in favour of same-sex marriage, and then there are the bigots. But allow me to make the case for traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman, writes Michael Jensen.

The passing of the Irish referendum on same-sex marriage has triggered a round of Australian advocates announcing that it is now "our turn". We lag behind the UK, many European countries, some states in the US, and (perish the thought!) New Zealand, and we ought to get with the programme.

The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, in line with the new ALP dogma, has announced that he is introducing a private members bill into Parliament next Monday. He has said:

It's time for our laws to reflect the values of modern Australia and to include everyone as equals ... It's time for marriage equality.

Whatever our religious views about marriage ... I believe we have to change this law which discriminates against adult couples on the basis of who they love.

How could anyone stand opposed? The terms in which the pro-marriage redefinition case are stated make it sound as inevitable as the dawn, and as unstoppable as the tide. And these same terms make opposing a redefinition of marriage sound primitive and even barbaric. There are those in favour of change, we are told, and then there are the bigots.

But simply saying "it's time" doesn't make an argument. Neither does the need to keep up with the O'Haras, the Smiths, and the Pedersens. Neither does the support of TV stars, comedians, or even Bono. At best, these are arguments from fashion.

It is not even the case that "all the surveys say Australians want it" is a sufficient argument. The surveys say that Australians want capital punishment. Wisely, our politicians don't listen to surveys on that issue (and I agree with them). They should exercise leadership, not follow opinion.

Get The Drum in your inbox

Subscribe to get The Drum delivered to your email twice a day, plus top news headlines and alerts on major breaking stories.

Could it be that if you haven't heard the case opposing a change to the marriage law, it is because the language of those advocating it has been so emotive that the contrary case can't be heard above the noise? Could it really be said that a civil disagreement has taken place? I am not confident that it has.

I would like to make the case for traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman; but to do so with some important qualifications.

One of them is this: if the Marriage Act changes, this is not the end of the world for me. There are greater causes in this world than this. I am more distressed by our inattention to children in detention, or our national greed problem, than by the possibility that the definition of marriage might be changed.

Another is that I stand adamantly against the bullying and vilification of people of minority sexual identities.

Nevertheless, I don't think that the case for change is anywhere near as convincing as its proponents think it is. The case has been made almost entirely in terms of "equality" and its alleged opposite: "discrimination". The argument is that applying the word "marriage" to some relationships and not to others is unequal treatment, and thus discrimination. These are both apparently self-evidently bad.

But it is the duty of the law to judiciously discriminate and to appropriately recognise difference with, at times, unequal treatment of things that are not the same. It isn't automatically wrong to discriminate per se.

In fact, it may be the case that offering supposedly "equal" treatment is incoherent, as it is in this case. It is crucial to notice that the proposed revision of marriage laws involves exactly that: a revision of marriage. In order to offer the status of marriage to couples of the same sex, the very meaning of marriage has to be changed. In which case, what same-sex couples will have will not be the same as what differently sexed couples now have.

It will be called marriage, but it won't be marriage as we know it. It won't be "marriage equality": it will be an entirely new thing.

This is where Bill Shorten again misunderstands what marriage is. As we now understand it, marriage is not merely the expression of a love people have for each other. It is, or is intended as, a life-long union between two people who exemplify the biological duality of the human race, with the openness to welcoming children into the world. Even when children do not arrive, the differentiated twoness of marriage indicates its inherent structure.

Now, I didn't pluck this definition from the sky, nor is it simply a piece of religious teaching. It is the meaning of marriage that emerges from all human cultures as they reflect on and experience what it is to be male and female. It is only in the last 15 years that anyone has seriously thought differently.

I prepare many couples for marriage each year. Most of them already cohabit. When I ask them about marriage, they almost always indicate that it is for them the beginning of a new family unit open to welcoming children.

A child is a tangible expression of our sexed twoness.

To remove the sexual specificity from the notion of marriage makes marriage not a realisation of the bodily difference between male and female that protects and dignifies each, but simply a matter of choice.

This is precisely what many pro-revision advocates themselves argue: that a new definition of marriage would establish marriage as a new thing altogether. As Brandeis University's E.J Graff puts it, a change in marriage law would mean that marriage would "ever after stand for sexual choice, forcutting the link between sex and diapers".

Instead of the particular orientation of marriage towards the bearing and nurture of children, we will have a kind of marriage in which the central reality is my emotional choice. It will be the triumph, in the end, of the will.

The revisionist case has not provided a clear and reasonable definition of marriage beyond saying that if two people want to call their relationship by that name, they should be able to by choice.

Now, having put that opinion forward, I fully recognise that there are many people of intelligence and good will who disagree. I do not expect to convince everyone. What I do hope is that my contribution here will not be derided as bigoted or homophobic out of hand, but that it will be seen as part of a civil discussion.

Rev Dr Michael Jensen is the rector at St Mark's Anglican Church, Darling Point, and is the author of My God, My God: Is It Possible To Believe Anymore?

Why shoud we pay for Childcare

There has been a lot about Child Care in the news later. What I would like to know WHY SHOULD THE TAX PAYER PAY FOR CHILDCARE?

Back in the 1970’s when I had a young family we got none of this the most we got was Child Allowance and people without children complained about that. My wife would work in the fields to earn extra money when the Children were pre school age, my generation had that antiquated idea that Parents brought up their children.  I was lucky enough to have a job, when the children got older, to be able to take the children to school and they were picked up my mother at the end of school. This was when my wife worked full time, thankfully this only lasted for a couple of years until my wife and I started a B&B then a HMO where she would be their when the kids went to school and when they returned.

On a radio programme I heard a man complaining he was earning ONLY £30,000 and his wife was on ONLY £20,000 a year and they needed this to exist especially as Child Care was £350 a week which was £18,200 a year. Well all I can they have an expensive life style and his wife in reality after childcare earns £1800 or £34.61p. Well in their case I suggest she takes a weekend job or a barmaid’s job and look after her kids.

If we are to subsidise families surely a fairer way is to do away with Childcare Payments and increase Child Benefit this could be used for Childcare because the system is totally unfair to stay at home mums who get nothing for looking after their own children. To me the Government and supporters of working parents are trying to make a stigma of just one parent working and how far away from the extreme where children are all put together in a group. The group itself would do the parenting not the Parents? I believe ancient Greek Philosophers suggested this idea so it not new, my problem is what affect does this have on the children?

UN and ISIS

The United Nations may do a lot of good things but they are also  very corrupt read the following http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-nations-corruption-and-the-need-for-reform/. What has infuriated to me is they will jump down the throats of democratically elected Government on what they consider Human Rights violations. A prime example is when they sent a Looney Left-wing Brazilian Official to attack our stance on the Spare Room Subsidy, Yes someone from Brazil the country where Human Rights are practically non-existent. Yet when it comes to ISIS what do they do NOTHING but talk. Surely an organisation like this could say to the its members all of you put Troops in their to wipe these murdering nut cases out . ISIS is a threat to the World not just the Middle East and they are winning. The corrupt UN can not keep relying on a few local forces, USA and UK to beat these murdering barbarians. You can not negotiate with this evil manifestation of Human being  you need boots on the ground to defeat them

UN WAKE UP AND DO WHAT YOU ARE PAID TO DO

Obama and Jade Helm 15

When Obama was first elected I thought Democracy had really won in the USA because they elected a BLACK President it proved to the World you can rise to the Ultimate position of Power no matter what your Colour.

BUT he has become one of the most disliked Presidents in US history and polarised the USA and it is not the Colour of his Skin but the Colour of his Politics. Below is a report from a friend of mine in the US. I find it hard to believe but I will let you judge

 Is this for real???  We will find out.  Have you heard about JADE HELM 15.    Find out why we build a village for the military to prepare fighting in the Middle East and the village (Cost 3 million$) looks like an American city with American Christian Churches (with steeples) , and hospitals (they don't have either in Muslim area; they have mosques, they are preparing for the wrong place, even parking meters.  We are training our Military to control Americans and put them into FEMA camps.   They are getting rid of any high ranking officers that don't agree to do these things.  Are you ready for it.

Obama's preparing for action...  To view this as a web page, click here

Fellow Lover of Liberty,

JADE HELM 15 sounds like the latest thriller from Lee Childs or Robert Ludlum.

But it’s not. It’s a power play like we’ve never seen before.

It’s Obama’s rehearsal for implementing Martial Law, rounding up people who disagree with him, and throwing them into camps he’s arranged specially for the purpose. It all sounds like fiction, doesn’t it?

It’s not.

Barack Hussein Obama has crossed a serious line -- and now I need your help and financial support to put it right. >>Please click here to help.>>

Let’s review Obama’s sneaky plan.

Stage 1: He completely bypassed the U.S. Constitution and all the rules of Congress, and awarded upon himself the power to impose a totalitarian version of Martial Law -- RIGHT HERE IN AMERICA!!!

Stage Two: Obama set up a huge, multi-state military exercise scheduled for July. Its codename is Jade Helm 15. It’s a dry run for his ultimate plan to crush America and bring it under his total control. He’s going to declare Martial Law and dig his statist, socialist claws deep into the fabric of our everyday lives. 

Special forces are set to swarm the American Southwest and operate undetected among civilians in a massive military exercise involving 1,200 service members and masses of materiel in eight Southwestern states during the summer. They are training to round up and suppress Americans. They will remove our firearms. They will pit American against American. They are even using children as props to be snatched from their families.

This so-called Realistic Military Training has some residents fearful the drill is a preparation for martial law.

Damn straight we’re fearful! Obama’s Martial Law Executive Order was one thing, but now he’s made a power play for tyranny ANYTIME HE WANTS!

But wait! There’s one other thing you must know.

Stage 3. Buried in Executive Order 13295 during the Ebola scare, Obama’s instructions to FEMA instructs them to create “quarantine camps” and allows for the  “... detention ... of individuals to prevent the transmission...of communicable diseases...[with] any degree of respiratory distress.” 

That’s right! You can be rounded up for asthma, the sniffles, a head cold. And yet there is not one word in the Executive Order about doctors, nurses, medical facilities or volunteer services. These are NOT medical camps - they’re concentration camps!

Obama has hijacked our country, bypassed Congress, and really stuck it to the American people!

He has grabbed blank-check dictatorship powers that are a violent assault on our personal liberty, property rights and the rule of law.

And now he’s getting ready to impose it through the military! He’s getting ready to grab our guns, round up dissenters like us, subdue the people and instantly create a Soviet-like statist regime.

Here at American Liberty PAC, we warned you of his intentions. We knew it wouldn’t be long coming. And now he’s moving stealthily but with devastating purpose. 

Obama will learn how to have total, DICTATOR control. Remember, he learned it from his terrorist mentor, Bill Ayers...

...who was once asked what his violent Weathermen group would do when they achieved their goal of a communist takeover of America. He said:

“50 million Americans will need reeducating in concentration camps located in southwestern American states, and about 25 million will have to be eliminated.”

*************** ELIMINATED!!!!*********************

Obama has put all his pieces in place. He’s ready to go from July.

Martial Law, Military Suppression in the South West, Concentration Camps ready to go.

That’s our America under the lethally dangerous Obama.

We must -- and will -- stop his diabolical plan. Will you help?

The bad news is that Executive Orders can only be revoked by another Executive Order. And Obama is never going to do that.

The only good news here is that there is still a way to ensure his plans can never be implemented.

Congress has the power to pass legislation that would make all his takeover plans illegal, and cut all funding to every last one of them.

In fact, it's the ONLY thing that can stop Obama's evil totalitarian take-over of our America.

So we're going to fight to defang and defund these abominations. Which is why I am asking you to support American Liberty PAC in this crucial battle.

We're going to demand that the House of Representatives, in its role as defender of the Constitution, immediately pursues remedies to neutralize and defund Obama’s Martial Law Executive Order and his Quarantinable Communicable Diseases Executive Order.

We must send an urgent message back to Washington -- to the majority House and Senate Republicans and especially the Tea Party patriots -- that we need them to step up and do their duty at this perilous time.

It's now or never. We must defund his Executive Orders and derail his plans!

His outrageous power grabs are unprecedented, unconstitutional and illegal.

Naturally, the mainstream media -- and all of Obama's liberal media buddies -- are just ignoring it. Some are going as far as to deny it.

So here at American Liberty PAC, we're going to do the heavy lifting and get the word to where it matters: Washington, D.C.

Already, several Congressmen have stepped up and introduced legislation that will put an end Obama's outrageous power grabs.

But we must get a lot more attention drawn to this issue.

I hope you will help us. To put it simply, we need your financial help. I know that when you click through to DONATE, you are not only giving us the go-ahead to take this fight to Washington...

...but you are also helping to ensure that the House of Representatives and its Republican majority understands that the country really means it...

...and that Congress must stop its partisan bickering and derail, defund and anti-legislate against the biggest power grab in history -- and Obama’s communist plans for our America.

This is a huge campaign. As Obama moves even more of his pieces into place, (he just put out a bid for “ambulance” contracts to service the FEMA camps with no doctors) I need your support more than ever before.

So, please, do it right now, click to DONATE and send your most generous contribution to help me and American Liberty PAC save our America.