Newlywed couple had better start praying before the day they are declared dead

Even as the founder of The Trolling Academy, which promotes safety online, I found it hard to identify with the plight of Rhys and Ether Curnow who were targeted by flame trollers (‘Internet trolls target newlyweds‘, June 23).

The couple, part of the Campaign for Marriage (C4M) group, were attacked by trollers for trying to deny same-sex couples the same right to marriage that they have. One troller said they should “go and die in hell”. If Christianity is true, then based on the Romans 2 chapter of the Bible they will rot in hell as it says those who condemn homosexuals will be condemned themselves.

Flame trollers can currently be prosecuted under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. This makes it unlawful to send messages which are “grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”

From my point of view the comments made by Mrs and Mr Curnow’s campaign that, “children do best with a married mother and a father” is grossly offensive. It is as offensive as saying children brought up in Black families are less intelligent than in White ones because one academic once said so, after using a culturally biased IQ test.

Their website says that equal rights to marriage would mean ‘people’s careers could be harmed’ is also grossly offensive, and I have reported their website to the police. That is like saying that if a business employs Black people that it will affect the careers of White people and is grossly offensive also.

From my point of view as a trolling expert, Mrs and Mr Curnow should not have expected anything less than ‘flame being fought with flame’ for these bigoted views they posted online.

Becoming the perfect role model and distance dad: Avoiding DNA Thieves that destroy childhood

Today David Cameron spoke about the problem of absent fathers. This makes a change from the usual Tory rhetoric of attacking single mothers.

I would like to have children, or a child, as a decedent who can take up my family’s tradition of being a Freeman of Llantrisant (in the case of a boy) or pass it onto their husband (if a girl). I would even fight for their right to this if in the case of a boy they had a male partner.

But, if I have children, I am not going to let any opportunist neo-feminist take them off me and deny them their chance to have the perfect male role model. If I have children they will be my flesh and blood and there is no way I am going to let anyone deny me access to them – no one.

So because I am not one of the easiest people to live with, I think I should accept that if I have children with a female partner,  however much she says she loves me, there is a good chance they will get taken off me, as I don’t have the competencies to raise them on my own. If you assume that a child would ideally have a stable relationship for at least the first 16 years of a child life – I don’t think someone could put up with me for that long! Therefore, in order to avoid any harm to my children I should not need a partner to have them, who might turn out to be a DNA Thief.

So, as far as I can see, the only chance to have a dependent and not lose them to a DNA thief is as follows-

1. I have a child via a surrogate mother.
-If same-sex couples can, why can’t I and remain a bachelor?

2. Have the child looked after by foster parents near to where I live and keep regular contact with them.
– If rich people can send their children to boarding school or the Courts can force fathers to only see their children at weekends because state endorsed DNA thieves get a monopoly on raising them, why can’t I outsource my childcare to a family who already have children and the experience of raising them?
– Surrogate parents get paid and monitored by the local authoirty. Those parents would have a financial incentive to stay together, and my children would have a better upbringing that they otherwise would as they would have the stability of two parents and me as a role model at the same time.
– So on that basis, if women can’t hold down a relationship with me, why should I deny my children a stable up-bringing and the chance to have me as a role model in a stable environment?

The Equality Act 2010 makes marriage a protected characteristic. So I should have the right to not get to married. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives me a right to found a family and the right not to associate with those I don’t want. Also, on top of this, the case of R v R means there is no legitimate expectation for a relationship between two people to be a sexual relationship. Therefore, taking the two together the right to found a family should not be based on the requirement of a sexual relationship. Therefore I should be able to have a child without having a partner in order to create them, who may be a neo-feminist who turns out to be a DNA Thief.

There are so many neo-feminists who murder potential children in the name of ‘choice’. Therefore, I should not have to take a risk of being with such a fetus-killing-feminist. If they want control over their body then want control over my sperm! Why can’t I be pro-choice and pro-life at the same time, just because I’m not willing to have a child with a potential DNA thief, and don’t have the ability to be a single-dad? I should be allowed to become a become a distance dad who is the perfect role model instead of being put in a position where I could be forced to be a absent father.