CYKIAE (Christ You Know It Ain't Easy)

What are the differences between homosexual parents and heterosexual parents that might lead to different outcomes for children? Here’s some of the scientific research – and it’s not good for the kids! Tag words: Jordan Peterson; 12 Rules for Life; Melissa Kearney; The Two Parent Advantage; Dr Sarantakos; Dr Schumm; Katy Faust; Them Before Us; discipline; self-control; self-regulation;

In my last programme I told you about the finding of Judge Vaughan Walker in Perry v. [I’ll be back] Schwarzennegger. He made this finding, but he couldn’t have been much wronger – my word, if he had tried: Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyondserious debate in the field of developmental psychology. The truth was revealed by Australian, Dr Sotirios Sarantakos, Associate Professor in the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at Charles Sturt University, and affirmed by Dr Walter R Schumm, Professor of Family Studies, Kansas State University when Dr Sarantakos’ findings, unsurprisingly, came under heavy fire from scientists who were pro the LGBT agenda. His findings were then reviewed by Dr Schumm, a scientist who applied scientific methods, not political agenda, to determine the truth. Don’t oppose their facts with your opinions, as the expressions goes. Or as Jesus said in John 8:32, the truth will set you free. In this programme I’m going to dig down into Dr Schumm’s findings on Dr Sarantakos’ findings. Tag words: Dr Sotirios Sarantakos; Dr Walter R Schumm; John 8:32; academic performance; sexual orientation; drug and alcohol abuse;

In the last programme I looked at some of the research into whether children with homosexual parents were in a worse position than children with heterosexual partners. The answer was that the science that made findings that there was no difference, was deeply flawed and driven by the LGBTQI+ movement political agenda to find that there was no difference. In this programme I’m going to be looking at the issue from the other side of the fence, aided enormously by the thorough investigation into the science by an Australian scientist applying the correct scientific method and avoiding the danger of bias, whose findings were verified later by an American scientist, who confirmed that there is, in fact, a serious downside to having homosexual parents. Tag words: Dr Sotirios Sarantakos; Dr Schumm; Andrew Kulikovsky; Dr Sotirios Sarantakos LGBTQI+; Obergefell Case; Pavan Case; Perry v Schwarzennegger; same-sex marriage; marriage; same-sex parents; heterosexual parents;

The totally ignored constituency in the question of homosexual marriage is children. Should couples in homosexual marriages continue to have the right to adopt children, or get children through egg or sperm donation, or through surrogates. This has always assumed to be OK but is that what the scientific studies are showing. It hasn’t been something that has received any consideration by the government especially given how successful the LGBTIQ+ community has been at pushing their agenda and silencing everyone else. In reality children are the ones with the greatest stake in that question, and we really need to look at it because the only people that can stand up for them are the adults. That’s what I’m going to do now, look at their plight and what should be done about it. The question, whether same sex couples should be allowed to adopt or get children through sperm or egg donation, or not, is an important one. It has to be decided on the basis of what gives the best result for children. Not whether the homosexual couples would really, really like to have a child or children of their own, but whether allowing them to do that is more likely than not going to cause harm to the child. Tag words: Katy Faust; Them Before Us; Andrew Kulikovsky; Wokeshevism; Melissa S Kearney; The Two-Parent Advantage; same-sex marriages; same sex couples; LGBTIQ+; sperm donation; egg donation; Obergefell v Hodges; Pavan v Smith; Robert L Spitzer; D Paul Sullins

One of the most decisive factors on how well a child is going to do when they grow up, is what level of education they achieved. All the studies indicate that a child from a broken home has a severe handicap there. The studies also indicate that a child living in a home with its married biological parents has significant advantages over children living in other situations. I’m going to share how that works, because you might not believe me, in this programme. Coz you trust the science don’t you. Tag words: Melissa S Kearney; The Two-Parent Advantage; Katy Faust; Them Before Us; divorce; marriage; patriarchy; cohabitating boyfriend; multigenerational households; the Bible; Proverbs; Hebrews; God; Millennials; broken homes; education;

Well I was wrong! Australia didn’t invent no-fault divorce. Who did, makes it truly shocking that Gough Whitlam would have copied his idea of all people. It seems that the father of no-fault divorce was that early proto-type Trump figure, Ronald Reagan, when he was the governor of California. Times have certainly changed haven’t they! In 1969 he passed the first no-default divorce laws in America. He later described those laws as his greatest mistake, and he was right! Contrast the views about 50 years after Gough Whitlam introduced no fault divorce into Australia with the Family Law Act of the leading feminists who pushed the then new Labor government of Gough Whitlam to introduce no-fault divorce laws.  Elizabeth Evatt is one of those. She says she still had no regrets about those laws. She’s an intelligent woman, and she was one of the main people involved in bringing in those laws. She was the Chair of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and then she was appointed as the first Chief Judge of the new Family Law Court. No one would have seen the consequences of no-fault divorce than her, from the lofty heights as Chief judge of the Family Law Court, she would pretty well have instantly that those laws were being taken advantage of, not by women subjected to domestic violence, although there were of course women in that category, but also by a flood of people who were just bored with their marriage, perhaps because it wasn’t living up to the standards of a Hollywood RomCom. It wasn’t as exciting as when we first met. As the military would say, children were collateral damage to this easily available divorce – but nothing to worry about. Kids are resilient – right! Elizabeth Evatt, in the book Women and Whitlam wrote: I have not wavered from my support for the general principles of the Family Law Act. The model it established was admired around the world, and remains one of the great legacies of Gough Whitlam and his Attorney-General, Lionel Murphy. Does this lead us to the conclusion that what happened with the divorce rates soaring was what she was hoping for when she pressed for the introduction of no-fault divorce. Consistent with socialist policies which want the family ended and its role taken on by the state. So how would children suffer from divorce, in what ways and what did no fault divorce do to the institution of marriage. Tag words: Katy Faust; Them Before Us; Gough Whitlam; Ronald Reagan; Family Law Act; Elizabeth Evatt; divorce; Adverse Childhood Experiences;

Your divorce will destroy your children’s lives. There’s no argument that broken homes have a major adverse impact on how children perform really badly at school and university and then very often fail at life itself. Tag words: Melissa S Kearney; The Two-Parent Advantage; Katy Faust; Them Before Us; marriage; married parents; divorce; no-fault divorce;

Get a divorce and give your children cancer. When a child’s parents divorce, when the child’s biological family is broken up by divorce, the consequences affect the child’s physical and mental health, their academic performance at school, and beyond, if there is a beyond, and then it wrecks their ability to enter into meaningful, lasting relationships. Their physical and mental health can be ruined by your divorce. Do parents think about all of this stuff when they decide they want to get a divorce. If they don’t, they should, and if they do and go ahead with their divorce, then maybe they’re just evil. So what happens? Tag words: Donna Jackson Nakazawa; Katy Faust; Them Before Us; divorce; broken homes; fathers; Henrik Ibsen;

Divorce inevitably sees a big decline in the involvement, the biggest decline is usually of the father but the same applies to the mother for a variety of reasons, of the parents in their childrens’ lives. All of the research shows that for a child to grow up with everything it needs, it needs to grow up with its biological mother and father living together in the one household. As I said in Part 5 of this series mothers can’t be fathers, and fathers can’t be mothers. Consequences – there are consequences for a child, for their parents, and for society from not having a child brought up living with its mother and father. The problem is that we never really hear from the children who are caught up in divorces about what they think. About whether the idea that kids are resilient, is true, or just a self justification for the parents who are prioritising their lives and desires ahead of their childrens’. So in this programme I’m going to give the children their voices, let you hear what happens to them because you’re involved in shattering their lives, because your own children of your divorce are never going to honestly tell you how they feel because they know that you don’t want to know. As Tom Cruise said in A Few Good Men, you probably couldn’t handle the truth. Tag words: Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; Katy Faust; Them Before Us;Marripedia; divorce; two homes; children of divorce; Peaches Geldof; Bob Geldof; Paula Yates;

Shocking, traumatic events have a way of drilling deeply into the very core and heart of human beings. The shock children experience when they learn that their parents' marriage has died is, for them, the worst moment that they’ll ever have in their lives. This event’s especially traumatic for children completely unaware of the trouble in their parents' marriage. One day everything’s fine, those children are totally oblivious to the fact the entire foundation of their lives is about to disappear. One moment they’re safe and secure; the next, everything they thought was a permanent fixture in their life is gone. Children of divorce will never forget the moment their parents announced their separation or when Dad bailed, or the day Mum never came home. The emotional scars of those fateful moments remain even decades later. The consequences are often the ruination of their lives and very often too, the lives of people that they will connect with when as adults they’re looking for something that may always elude them – a stable, permanent relationship because they can’t give that themselves. From this programme I’m going to start to look at the catastrophic effect that divorce has on children, but also on the people involved in the marriage too. It would be better to lose your parent in the collapse of the Twin Tours on September 11 than to have your parents; marriage break up. Tag words: Melissa Kearney; The Two-Parent Privilege; Katy Faust; Stacy Manning; Them Before Us; marriage; divorce; Gen Xers; Millennials; Family Law Act; Gough Whitlam; Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; GK Chesterton; Marxist theory; Judaeo-Christian; Bolsheviks;Communist Russia; Joseph Stalin; Pandora; Jordan Peterson;

Never before in the history of the world has marriage between people of the same sex been recognised by law. But here we are today with most Western countries having recognised it and passed laws to that effect. And it has made a difference beyond comprehension. It is all good? It it all bad? Is it a bit of both? Let me tell you a bit about it in the context of children’s rights in the world of same sex marriage, because the impact it has on children’s rights is massive. Tag words: Jordan Peterson; Beyond Order; same-sex marriage; the Cinderella Effect; Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; marriage; throuples; polygamy; Darwin’s Theory of Evolution;Survival of the Fittest; Karl Marx; miscegenation; Loving v Virginia; Stolen Generations; Obergefell v Hodges; Pavan v Smith; God; Christian; Kay Faust; Them Before Us;

Do you want your own harem? Marriage has changed enormously in Australia since 12 June 1975 when the Family Law Act became law. Marriage between a man and a woman for life, with few exceptions, became marriage until you got bored and wanted to move on. All of the people that thought these changes would just loosen things up for those in a terrible marriage found that they’d opened the floodgates for large numbers of unexpected people to get divorced. In America from 2015, after the Supreme Court case of Obergefell v Hodges, and then in Australia soon after the November 2017 referendum, a new kind of marriage, that hadn’t existed anywhere in the world before – same sex marriage - came in. In a future programme I’m going to look at how children have fared from same-sex marriages, but now another ancient type of marriage, never known in the West, is now rearing its head seeking to be legalised. This series of programmes is looking at the whole question of how children fare growing up in those different life style situations. If it's damaging for them, then we should think about what limitations we should put on those alternative relationships, including preventing people in those relationships from having, or being able to have, children. So let’s start with the common ancient form of polygamous marriages. Articles appear regularly in the media promoting our new found freedom to cast off the ancient shackles that have bound us and letting adults do whatever they like. Tag words: Jordan Peterson ; Katy Faust; Them Before Us; Family Law Act; Obergefell v Hodges; Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; monogamy; polygamy; throuple; Cinderella

The parties in a traditional marriage are a man, a woman and later, very often, one or more babies. In this scenario, the baby happens as a matter of biology.  When you change the law to say that a same sex married couple can enjoy all of the benefits that a heterosexual married couple you can’t, of course, mean the natural outcome of a child. The only way that can happen is if the couple obtain either an egg or a sperm, or both, from some other party. So when a homosexual couple has a child, the child will be missing one or both biological parents in its everyday life. What does that mean? Tag words: Katy Faust; Them Before Us; intent based parents; adoption; Big Fertility; Mitsutoki Shigeta; Mark Newton; Peter Truong; paedophile; David Farnell; Wenyu Li; Sperm donor; egg donor; surrogate;

The biggest issues, badly affecting children’s rights, have been same sex marriage and science. Science in many forms, some not yet arrived although they’re being talked about, like artificial wombs for men. The science topics will be talked about in future programmes, this programme’s about the Love is Love movement around the world that ushered in what is labelled “same sex marriage” – picking up on the Christian word, marriage, that had previously uniformly meant the union for life of one man and one woman. Like no fault divorce, our governments around the Western world rapidly and totally remodelled the institution of marriage that had existed for thousands of years without ever really asking why it was structured the way it was and with it have destroyed and are continuing to destroy children’s rights. This takes me back to what GK Chesterton said in Part 7 of this series – if you’re a properly intelligent human being, you don’t pull down a gate without knowing what it’s there for. With these two changes we pulled down the very cornerstones of our society without knowing what doing what we did would mean. The core proposition of this series of programmes is that it is the right of every children on earth to grow up with their biological mother and father. This is what Article 20 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, says. Australia (and every country on earth except for the United States) area signatories. And all that Convention does is what all of the science, studying the effect of these radical changes on children, shows is absolutely essential for a well-developed child. There is some poorly conducted research that suggests otherwise. So let’s look at the Love is Love gate that was pulled down and what came down with it. Tag words: Tag words: Katy Faust; Stacy Manning; Them Before Us; Love is Love; GK Chesterton; UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; Glenn Scrivener; Defense of Marriage Act; DOMA; Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; Obergefell v. Hodges; Pavan v. Smith; Heather Barwick; Millie Fontana; children; motherlessness; fatherlessness;

To get married or not. If children are involved then there’s really only one answer if you’re a woman - yes. If you’re a man, then the answer’s really the same – but not as obvious. But for the unconceived child of these two, this isn’t even a question. The consequences for them, from this biological process that they have no say in, makes it vital that you’re married. Because if you have children without being married to the other biological parent, you’ll almost certainly damage your child – perhaps very deeply, perhaps ruining their entire lives. And that is a sin. Tag words: Jordan Peterson; Katy Faust; Stacy Manning; Louise Perry; marriage; Them Before Us; traditional marriage; same sex marriage; love; romance; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; Dr. Louann Bizendine; The Female Brain; Beyond Order; What Is Marriage?; Ryan T Anderson; Sherif Girgis;Robert George; consent-based marriage; conjugal marriage; Glen Scrivener; Dr Elizabeth Evatt; Women and Whitlam; Anglican Archbishop Marcus Loane; Gough Whitlam

The richest, brightest and the best women are getting married and staying married. They’re not doing what the feminists are telling them – and that’s making them and their families richer than the women who are following the advice of feminists and avoiding the so-called patriarchal trap of marriage. Is it possible that the feminists got it wrong? Tag words: Jordan Peterson; Mary Eberstadt; How the West Really Lost God; Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; Andrea Dworkin; Germaine Greer; Kate Millett; marriage; liberal feminists; radical feminists; Marlene Dixon; STEM field; Charles Murray; Coming Apart; W. Bradford Wilcox; When Marriage Disappears: The Retreat from Marriage in Middle America; UK Divorce Reform Act; Lord Stow Hill;

There are lots of good reasons why a man and a woman should get married rather than shacking up or just randomly having sex. Here are 4 of the biggies: 1.    If you have children and you, the biological parents, aren’t married, there’s a really good chance that you’re going to ruin the lives of your children. It should be a human right for a child to have the parents who are married and living together with their child; 2.    If you’re a woman, being married is what you really want; 3.    If you’re a man, you really need to get married – you might not think so, but all of the science is against you if that’s what you think; and 4.    Financially, socially, and in almost every way imaginable, you and the whole society you live in will be more prosperous and happy. There are always exceptions – but this isn’t something you should want to gamble with, and one outstanding feminist backs me up. Or probably more realistically I’m backing her up. Her name is ... Tag words: Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; Glen Scrivener; Gough Whitlam; Dr Elizabeth Reid; Women and Whitlam – Revisiting the Revolution; Family Law Act; John 1:3; John 10:6 to 8; Mark 10:9; Galatians 3:28; Monogamy; Sexual Revolution;

This programme asks the important question. If you give a baby girl a Barbie doll when she’s born, well something a little softer at that tender age, then the hard plastic Barbie doll later when she’s a bit older, will she turn out to be a girlie girl incapable of doing science, technology, engineering and mathematics – those STEM areas that mean so much to radical feminists? Alternatively, if when she’s born you give her a pair of knuckle dusters, will she be a brilliant scientist, who knows another Oppenheimer, who will build a bigger and better bomb. We can only hope eh! The radical feminists accept that there are biological differences between men and women. I don’t think that’s much of a concession. I gave you the science about that in the last programme. I also mentioned that radical feminists say that although men and women have different bodies below the neck, they tell us that from a biology point of view – men and women have the same brains. The only difference between men and women, the radical feminists want us to believe, is how we’re brought up – the doll thing. It’s usually called the debate between nature and nurture. So let’s see ... Tag words: Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; radical feminists; liberal feminists; STEM; Barbie doll; nature or nurture; Sarah Blaffer Hrdy; Jennifer Doudna; Walter Isaacson; The Code Breaker; James Watson; The Double Helix; Google; James Louann Brizendine ; Damore; The Female Brain; Will Knowland;

When I was growing up I heard this nursery rhyme a lot. It’s an old traditional nursery rhyme about what little boys and little girls are made of. What the nursery rhyme’s telling us is that boys and girls, and so men and women, are very different to each other. But today, picking up on Marxist ideology, that there are no individuals and everyone is the same, regardless of our gender. Liberal feminists, in particular, say that there aren’t even any physical differences between men and women. Radical feminists accept that there are physical differences between men and women but, under what they call the socialisation theory, they say that the way boys and girls are treated growing up has a dramatically negative effect on women. That theory, accepts physical differences but insists that there aren’t any innate psychological differences between men and women. Any differences we observe must be the product of nurture, not nature. So who’s right? And what does it matter in the context of children’s rights to a mother and a father. Tag words: Louise Perry; The Case Against the Sexual Revolution; Kary Faust; Stacy Manning; Them Before Us; Lia Thomas; Liberal feminists; Radical feminists; transgender; testosterone; osetrogen; Dr Louann Brizendine; The Female Brain;

“Star Wars – Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back”, has probably the most unique scene in any movie, or any book for that matter, that you’ve ever come across, and what it has to say is what this programme is all about. Let me play this short excerpt from the movie. Tag words: Star Wars; The Empire Strikes Back; Darth Vader; step-father; step-parents; H. J. Sants; genealogical bewilderment; sperm donor; egg donor; Katy Faust; Stacy Manning; Them Before Us; baby boom era; Donor Conceived;