Uni students do a 180 on abortion

There's a new movie out called "180". Worth a watch.

A wide range of uni students are interviewed one-on-one or one-on-two, and go from pro-abortion to pro-life and pro-adoption.

What changed their minds?

Find out : 180movie.com

All we need is love, Google-style (pro-homosexuality)

So I'm a little behind the times, but I just found out today that Google, my favourite big tech company in the world, is in favour of the destruction of society's most basic instution : marriage.

A little extreme, you'll say.

Here's a one-liner version from their blog :

we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love

For such a smart company as Google, this statement is jam-packed with dumb assumptions :

Fundamental rights?

If it's all relative, then there's no such thing as a "fundamental" right - or are Google themselves "fundamentalists" of some kind? Watch out for those extremist fundamentalists like Google.

Or if it's not all relative, and there are such things as "fundamental" rights, then its obvious that there might also be a "fundamental" definition to marriage. Y'know, like one that maybe, perhaps, excludes homosexual partnerships.

Should not

And then of course there are strange assertions like "should not". By what law? Who says? A lot of people I know aren't too keen on being told what they should do with their life. "Should not" sounds a lot like moralising. Has Google supplanted Yahweh? I think they'll find they're not quite as ready for the task as they think...

Eliminate

By definition, if there is such a thing as a "fundamental" right, it is fundamental. It is impossible to eliminate. You can transgress (violate) someone's fundamental rights but you can't eliminate them.

For example, I have a right to my laptop, and if the government decides to pass a law banning laptop ownership, then I do not lose my right of ownership - the government is transgressing my rights and hence abusing its power.

You can eliminate non-fundamental rights. A non-fundamental right is granted by human will, and it can be revoked by human will.

But a fundamental right, by definition, is not capable of being eliminated.

Whatever their sexuality

Paedophiles, anyone?

Bestiality?

Like, if Google wants to be consistent, why aren't they campaigning for equality for people who want legal recognition of their sexual relationship with their pet goat?

They're not consistent. So they're either blind, or they're pulling the hood over our eyes, and the issue isn't at all what they claim it to be.

Right ... to marry

I have a right to be identified as a Black American. I feel like a Black American. Ok, so my skin suggests otherwise, but it's bigotry and discrimination to say I'm not a Black American, when clearly I am one. I feel like one.

"Wait a mo", you say, "Black American by definition excludes white boys like you". You have a point.

Marriage also by definition excludes homosexual unions.

The Person

Dude - how bigoted and antiquated you are. You need to seriously catch up with the times. Why settle for one? I quite like my threesomes.

And hey, the PETA folk will tell you that pigs are people. Humano-porcine sexual relationships must also be recognised, unless you're an intolerant fascist prude.

They Love

Awwww - all we need is love. That legitimises everything.

Like sex with my 12 year old neighbour.

Well, seriously, try telling her she shouldn't.

Maybe Mohammed wasn't so bad after all, sexually penetrating his 9 year old wife. So long as it was love.

Pity of course that love changes so fast. On again, off again. But that's what divorce is for.

Hey, might as well just give people temporary marriage licenses they can optionally renew - better than forcing people through the hassle of divorce when love takes its random course in another direction...

But seriously, if "marriage" is so unfundamental that we can redefine it from heterosexual to anysexual, it really is a bit extreme to exclude non-sexual and lifelong friendships. Y'know, Harry and I are housemates, and find each other quite agreeable, and really would rather never go through the hassle of finding another housemate. Don't get me wrong - there's nothing "between us" - you catch my drift - we're definitely just mates, in the best Aussie sense of the word. Good mates. He's a good bloke, and so am I. We just wanna, y'know, have some kind of recognition for our commitment to mateship.

We really care about each other. That's gotta be love, you agree?

So marriage it is then, for Harry & I. And Brigette, when you finally drop your prudish two-party restriction.

What now for homosexuals?

It's clear that there's nothing inherent to marriage itself that homosexuals need in order to "enjoy" their homosexuality. Marriage inherently is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is inherently not so.

I don't call my love for icecream "marriage", but somehow that doesn't detract from my enjoyment of icecream, and I don't see it as a matter of equality. Homosexuality is no different.

So why all the fuss to pretend that the fundamental definition of marriage is not quite so fundamental when perceived new rights are?

The answer is clear : the agenda is to reshape society into a utopia that sheds all vestiges of Biblical morality. Others have tried and failed but people keep on trying. Strange they're so utopian when they deride all concepts of "heaven" - they are themselves believers, they just think they're the gods who'll make heaven on earth.

Sorry Google - nice sentiment, no substance.