A Bill permitting pairs of homosexuals to adopt children was passed in the New South Wales lower house of parliament yesterday.

Premier Kristina Keneally said she “consulted her conscience” — then voted for homosexual adoption.

She said, “It’s something that I, not just as a Christian and a Catholic, but as the leader of this state, want to be able to support.”

How about that?

Such churchy-sounding attempts at fence-straddling only earn contempt from both sides of the debate.

* * *

Two of NSW’s three accredited adoption agencies — Anglicare and CatholicCare — threaten to stop providing adoption services if forced to process adoptions by homosexual couples.

The other, UnitingCare, supported the bill, saying it would benefit children etc.

*  Anglicare spokesman, Peter Kell, also trying to please everybody, said, “Anglicare is not seeking to perpetuate and condone discrimination against gay people . . . .”

As one supporting common sense on this issue, it’s a pity he spoils his credibility by apologising for being right.

* The so-called Uniting Church has, of course, got this one all wrong, as is their habit.

The fact that they call themselves a Christian group is confusing, and they should give it up.

* Worst of all is pretend-Catholics who, like Mrs Keneally, “search their consciences” and then decide that they know better than the Church and better than God.

* * *

The Bible consistently says that homosexual relations are wrong.

One famous text in the Book of Leviticus: “You shall not have intercourse with a man as you would with a woman. That is an abomination.” (“Abomination” as in “outrage” or “disgrace”)

The Old Testament also says that people doing such things should be stoned to death – indicating how seriously the Jewish religion regarded such sins.

The New Testament records Jesus stopping some Jews stoning an adulterous woman, thus endorsing more merciful attitudes.

But to the woman he said, “Go, and sin no more.”

He was very strict about sin, but compassionate to sinners who repented.

* * *

Anyway . . . children must be taught that all sex outside of normal marriage is unacceptable.

Living in a household whose adults, by word and example, flout Christian standards . . . .

That is something children must be protected from at all costs.

In June 2010, New South Wales MP, Clover Moore, introduced a bill to legalise adoption by homosexual couples.

One adoption agency, Anglicare, threatens to withdraw its adoption services if such laws are introduced – and has written to MPs urging them to vote against the bill.

Anglicare’s chief executive, Peter Kell, says adoption is not a “gay rights” issue — but must be based, first and foremost, on the interests of the child.

“Men and women complement each other, and the optimal care for children really consists of being in a family with both a mother and a father” he said.

* * *

Now NSW Cabinet looks like “exempting” both Anglicare and Catholic Agency, Centacare, from the legislation.

Community Services Minister, Linda Burney, says Cabinet will discuss amending the bill to allow these agencies to refuse involvement in adoptions by homosexual couples

She said, “I think the exemption is sensible, and I think it’s important that it’s there.”

* * *

The word “exemption” is, of course, very out of place in this debate.

The child’s interests come first.

Those seeking to protect helpless children from inappropriate placement are not seeking an “exemption” for themselves . . . .

No, they are seeking to assert the rights of the child – and the rights of God.

The State has no business trampling on those rights

Governments who disregard this understanding must be defied, disobeyed and undermined.

* * *

Adults’ perceived “rights” must never trump those of the child. 

Discrimination isn’t always bad.

In the context of adoption, discriminating in favour of traditional married couples is good.

Mr Joe Hockey, Australia’s Federal Shadow Treasurer, said yesterday that a Coalition government would abandon the present government’s mandatory internet filter plan and instead go back to the Howard government policy of offering free end-user filters to parents.

Shadow Minister for Communications, Tony Smith, added that a mandatory ISP-level filter scheme “would not be workable or effective”. 

A well-heeled lobby has been spreading myths about how:

(1) ISP-filtering would unacceptably slow broadband reception

(2) ISP-filtering would convert Australia into a police state where freedom of speech will disappear.

Many experts say that myth number (1) simply isn’t true.

Myth (2) could only apply if we stupidly let it happen.

* * *

The above arguments are, in fact, not the point.

The point is that if porn, advocacy of violence, crime, suicide etc. endangers vulnerable net users, including children, we must use ALL possible methods to eliminate it.

The Coalition arguments insult our intelligence.

Government policy is not merely to filter at ISP level, but also to encourage parents to do their bit, plus additional funding for Police to intercept peer-to-peer exchange of illegal material and to apprehend offenders, plus extending filtering to offshore-sourced content as well as domestically-hosted content.

* * *

The Coalition is turning a blind eye to reality.

Australia’s children are increasingly not safe — they face increasingly the likelihood of being exterminated or sexually exploited or recruited into perverse lifestyles . . . .

The Australian Crime Commission reports escalating sexual exploitation of little children by older children.

The Greens Party advocates putting adoptable children in the care of pairs of homosexual men.

Greens (and many Labor MPs) favour late-term abortion — children old enough to be born alive, needing only to be delivered intact, dismembered in the mother’s birth canal.

* * *

The ALP is showing common sense on the internet-filter issue.

The Coalition merits only our disgust.

Many thinking voters are looking out for morally-OK independents to vote for and — in the Senate — will perhaps support smaller parties such as the DLP, Christian Democratic or Family First.

The World Doping Agency removed caffeine from its list of substances banned in sport six years ago.

But the president of the agency, John Fahey, has been quoted as being still unhappy about caffeine overuse in some sports — AFL footballers in Australia being mentioned in this context.

Some experts would like caffeine re-listed as a banned substance above certain levels.

* * *

How much caffeine is too much?

People consuming 300mg of caffeine per day get withdrawal effects if they stop using it – so perhaps that’s too much.

300mg is what you get from 4 cups of medium-strength coffee or 6 cans of Coca Cola or about 3 cans of “energy-drinks” like Red Bull.

Coca Cola Company is now trialling a more worrying product, called “Mother”, containing over 100mg in the small 250ml can.

Caffeine-containing drinks are misused by juveniles who mix it with alcohol.

This is dangerous. Some of the effects of alcohol are masked.

People consuming the mixture are reported to be 3 times more likely to indulge in anti-social acts – in particular, driving with above-limit blood alcohol levels.

* * *

Coca Cola is also bad for teeth, partly due to the heavy load of sugar, but exaggerated by its content of phosphoric acid.

Coca Cola is the world’s largest single corporate buyer of sugar.

Tooth decay is now the commonest disease in the world.

Before 1886 it is said to have been rare – that being the year John Pemberton invented and started selling Coca Cola.

If you are ever put in a situation where you cannot avoid drinking Coca Cola, rinse your mouth with water as soon afterwards as possible.

Preferably never drink it – or its clones (Pepsi etc.)

* * *

Last year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ordered Coca-Cola to run “corrective advertisements” in Australian newspapers.

One of their celebrity-featuring magazine advertisements had claimed that the ideas that Coca-Cola could make children fat or harm their teeth were “myths”.

Using so-called celebrities is a dirty trick if you are flogging a health-endangering product to gullible youth.

Falsely disputing links between a product and ill health is something we might expect of the vermin who manufacture and sell cigarettes.

If Coca Cola Company behaves that way, people should avoid their products.

Dear Kiddies, Mr Abbott said yesterday that if he becomes Australia’s Prime Minister, families will receive $300 a year per child as part of reintroducing indexation for the child-care rebate.

Mrs Abbott was with him. She works in what they call an occasional child-care centre.

Dear Kiddies, the adults are getting this child-care issue all wrong.

*  Occasional child-care is a GOOD thing. It provides somewhere for us to be looked after if Mummy gets sick or for some reason suddenly needs a break.

*  Ordinary child-care (child-care-in-cold-blood, as you might say) is very different and is a BAD thing. It means Mummy not caring for us — not because something cropped up to make it impossible — but because she herself decided that instead of looking after us she would go out to work, leaving us with a paid carer.

* * *

Mr Swan, who belongs to the other party, criticised Mr Abbott’s family policies.

So he should, you say.

Not really, dear Lambkins, Mr Swan has no more idea of what we kiddies want than the other bloke.

His comments were about an alleged connection between Coalition policies and what Coles will charge for groceries.

Did Mr Swan mention that Mr Abbott’s child-care scheme is wrong because kids hate it?

Or because kids want their Mum at home?

Or because kids want all child-care centres bulldozed tomorrow (except perhaps the “occasional” type mentioned above)?

He did not.

* * *

Dear Kiddies, every time a clear-cut, black-and-white moral issue affecting us kids comes up, the adult experts start shouting at each other about money.

Is money all they are interested in?

What about more basic questions?

Like, what is a baby?

Is it — he or she – you or me –merely a lifestyle-accessory for the Mum?

These big people (big bodies, not necessarily big intelligences) think it’s normal to have a child and then start looking around for somebody else to care for it (preferably at taxpayers’ expense) while they toddle off and do something else.

Don’t they know that parenthood is the greatest privilege that God offers them?

The Australian Federal Government in 2008 set up a National Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies.

The Centre has run workshops — and now published a booklet—on the theme of “Bringing Muslim Perspectives into Australian Schools”.

All paid for by you and me out of our taxes.

* * *

Their booklet complains that Australian school textbooks mostly have “a western or European perspective”.

Why not? Our system of government is based on ideas brought here from Christian countries in Europe — and Islamic refugees arrive here by the boatful seeking to escape the “benefits” of Muslim culture, hoping instead  to reside somewhere with a western, Christian-oriented, worldview or perspective.

The booklet does NOT mention that in many Muslim-majority nations women are stoned to death for adultery and young girls undergo female circumcision.

* * *

The booklet claims that Muslims worship “the same God that was worshipped by Abraham, Moses and Jesus.”

This is false. The God of Catholics is a Trinity. God, who is one and unique in his infinite nature is three really distinct persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

This understanding is unacceptable to Muslims who dismiss it as blasphemy.

* * *

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the  Australian government to fund a Centre for Excellence in Catholic Studies.

When Mr Abbott yesterday merely said his coalition might enable parents of Catholic school children to claim school fees as a tax deduction, there was a “furious” response from the Australian Education Union, which called the plan ”regressive”.

Australians need to understand that any education not explaining our world in terms of being created by a Creator, who created us and all things out of love, and who has come to this world in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, who is both God and man . . . .

Any education leaving out this foundation for all other knowledge is a form of child-neglect, cruelly unjust to the young.