There is one thing that can be counted on with absolute certainly in this relativistic world: there is a protected species which no one even dares to cross, certainly not in the mainstream media. This group can now get away with anything, and the MSM refuses to offer a contrary point of view.
It is as if there is an ironclad law which is now in effect: “Thou shalt not speak ill of this group”. And when anyone does dare to speak out, they are instantly and thoroughly crucified by the MSM and the forces of political correctness. The pressure to conform is relentless, crushing and total.
The group I refer to is of course the militant homosexual lobby. Although very small in number, they seem to have unlimited power to push their agenda anywhere and anytime. And woe betides anyone who even remotely seeks to stand in their way.
Indeed, the blackmail, intimidation and hatred are so great, that often the militant homosexuals get just what they want: an immediate retraction and apology. It takes a very strong and courageous person to resist this homosexual blitzkrieg. Unfortunately it seems that most people are simply not up to the task.
Consider this recent example of the instant crucifixion of a contrarian voice. It is an appalling and pathetic story. It involved a very short-lived voice of sanity. A doctor made some very sensible and incisive comments, but was instantly mauled by the attack dogs of political correctness and the gaystapo.
So what hideous things did he say? What horror came forth from his lips? He simply stated the obvious: tax-payer funded IVF should really be used for those who are biologically infertile, not the socially infertile. Thus single women and lesbians have no right to claim access to IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies.
For this Dr Andrew Pesce, recently elected AMA federal president, was viciously attacked, and forced to withdraw his remarks. The story in today’s Sunday Herald Sun simply makes one’s blood boil. The poor man is mentioned first, and the rest of the article is filled with his critics.
Not one voice was allowed to defend the guy. But at least three people were interviewed to attack the man. This has now become so typical of the MSM. If anyone dares to challenge the sacred beliefs of the homosexual mafia, all hell breaks loose.
The journalists will simply call all their homosexual buddies and get heaps of quotes condemning the offender. But will the media try to get some balance and interview folk from the other side? No way. That would be too close to fairness, balance and objectivity, something which is conspicuous by its absence in today’s MSM.
This is how the press report begins: “Dr Andrew Pesce, elected AMA federal president in May, told the Sunday Herald Sun that IVF should not be a ‘lifestyle choice’ and use of the treatment by same sex couples went against the ‘natural order’. ‘Fertility treatment is there to treat diseases that cause infertility, it shouldn’t be there as a lifestyle choice,’ Dr Pesce said.
“‘For example, single women (who choose IVF) don’t have a disease, they just don’t have a partner. Same-sex couples, they don’t have disease but they are using an option that gets around the natural order of things.’ Dr Pesce later contacted this newspaper and said his comments were ‘clumsy’ and a mistake. He said single women and same sex couples should have access to IVF, but could not give a reason for his earlier remarks.”
And the rest of the article is just one attack after another on this man and his perfectly sensible remarks. But one has to ask how this guy could make a 180 degree turnaround in such a short period of time. The answer seems to be pretty clear. The gaystapo attacks simply became unbearable, and he had to compromise his views and do the PC thing to assuage his enemies and escape the hatred.
But his opponents quoted in the article really seem to be the ones in need of major correction. Homosexual activists trotted out the usual bluff about “discrimination”. And former AMA head and practising lesbian Dr Kerryn Phelps said his views were “not rational”. Oh really? Just what exactly was irrational about them? They seemed to make perfectly good sense.
Why in the world should anyone be entitled to IVF when they choose a lifestyle which guarantees they will be unable to have kids? Even a poodle presumably knows that in order to have offspring, it needs to mate with an opposite sex canine.
Yet we seem to think that singles and lesbians have some divine right to something which they have deliberately made themselves unavailable for. I might as well chop off my legs and then demand the right to walk, and insist that taxpayers fix me up immediately with a set of prosthetic limbs.
I might as well pluck out my eyes, and then talk about “discrimination” for not being able to see, and demand that taxpayers help me regain my sight. I might as well burn down my home and then loudly shout about how my rights to housing are being violated, and that the state owes me a new one.
I might as well castrate myself, and then shout discrimination, and demand that tax payers fix me up with new reproductive facilities. So excuse me, just who is being irrational here? What the doctor said made absolutely perfect sense. Indeed, what he said was completely truthful.
But in today’s age of PC, truth doesn’t count for anything. It is not truth that these homosexual storm troopers want, it is total and complete subservience to their agenda. Anyone who does not bow down and worship at the altar of homosexual militancy will face their full wrath.
And by the way, I know what that is like. I have been at the receiving end of homosexual “tolerance” for many years now. You should read the hate mail that I get. In the past I have simply deleted all their vicious and nasty attacks.
I think that I will now start to save them, and maybe turn it all into a book. This might help others to know just what we are dealing with here. These people can be a particularly nasty piece of work. It appears that Dr Pesce quickly found this out. Sadly, he seems to have capitulated without putting up much of a fight.
And with every case of capitulation, the militancy of the other side will simply increase. If you want to know what living in a police state is like, stay tuned. It seems that we will all very quickly find out.
People should have equal opportunities, and in many ways they do.
We have equal opportunities to make statements.
If those statements happen to be insane, there is no guarantee at all that they will be accepted. Nor is there any rational reason for them to be accepted.
I claim the right to be “prejudiced” against insanity. If a matter is insane, is there any good reason for supporting it, rather than condemning it?
Claiming children as a “right” when you either have no biological equipment for producing children or have chosen to refuse to use it effectively is insane.
Allowing someone to use equipment for which they have no training (such as giving a child a real bulldozer to drive) or aptitude at all is insane, so in the case of same-sex pairs where half of the training & the aptitude is absent, is there any real difference?
What about the rights of any children so produced? Who consulted them?
Repairing medical damage to re-enable a couple who are so equipped to have children is quite a sane thing to do, in general. You might draw an exception, for example, were a potential parent to be mentally unsound or psychologically unstable. So why not continue to draw exceptions for the socially unsound or hormonically unstable?
Leon Brooks
Is SMH a Fairfax paper? If so say no more!
Stephen White
Thanks Stephen
Actually it is the SHS in which this story appeared, which is a non-Fairfax paper. They all can be pretty bad. But yes the Fairfax press tends to be even worse.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Absolutely Bill. I wrote mostly what you have written to the paper early today when I first saw the article. My response didn’t make the response section in the paper. But I still feel the same as you.
Two main points for me are: That firstly Dr Pesce did, when he realised the vilification that was about to come his way, apologies. And the militant fear mongers still called for his resignation! I worry about free speech. And secondly, excuse if this seems passionate, Children are not Commodities!! They should not be used to push agenda’s, they are not weapons in a fight! They are people.
Society begins to treat people as “things” and wonders why our young people have no respect for life and the others around them.
It really worries me Bill! We cannot continue to be quiet.
Please continue to speak the truth, Thanks.
Peter Baldry
I too have been attacked by homosexuals for suggesting that homosexual promotional material was unsuitable for a magazine which had an audience including children. I have posted a comment on the HS website in favour of Dr Pesce’s original remarks. What chance my comments will be published?
Peter Coventry
Thanks Bill for your bravery and persistence.
You raise an interesting point about disabilities being qualification for medical assistance. At one time the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental disorder, which qualified the person for therapy. Now it has been removed from the ‘pyschological bible’ as a disorder so presumably homosexuals are acknowledged as people who do not require a remedy. They want to be treated as though there were nothing wrong with them. Yet we are expected to approve both normality and abnormality in this select group. Madness reigns for now but who knows maybe one day political correctness will be found in the DSM as a social disorder?
Karen Siegmann
“everything is permissable(that doesnt come against the 2nd commanment(love your neighbor…) the summation of all covenant law) but not everything is beneficial.”1cor10
if a gay couple has the money for the treatment, and the treatment will bring peace to their lives(peace a fruit of the spirit) and it will also give them a child to which they can be devoted parents to, why should someone’s religious beliefs be able to trump the equal protection of their pursuit of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
john robeson
Thanks John
It is a bit hard to know how to reply to you, not knowing where you are coming from. Let’s assume that you are a Christian, given your quote from Scripture. With all due respect, you are wrong in everything you have said.
1 Cor. 10:14-33 of course has to do with eating foods offered to idols. It has nothing at all to do with same-sex marriage and adoption rights. And we never have a biblical right to do that which is wrong. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in both Testaments. And biblical peace is the result of the Holy Spirit’s residence in believers. It has nothing to do with the gratification of selfish desires of homosexuals who wish to pursue their own agenda.
But if we deal with purely secular arguments, it is overwhelmingly clear that children do best when raised by their own biological parents. All other relationship structures are fraught with danger when it comes to the wellbeing of children. I have documented this numerous times on this website. Forty years of social science research is quite clear on this. Every child has a fundamental right to be raised by his or her biological parents, not by two men or three women or a football team.
And as I mentioned in the article, governments have no obligation to treat cases of social infertility, nor do tax payers. If you choose a lifestyle that renders childbearing impossible, then it makes no sense whatsoever to cry discrimination or violation of rights.
And there is no law anywhere denying a homosexual the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and have children. So you have not added anything to this debate, except parrot the standard homosexual clichés. You are certainly not thinking biblically here.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
These sodomite terrorists think they can do and say what ever they like to us, but if we say one little thing that upsets them, then their true colours start to show. They call us abusive names, every name in the book like homophobias, biggots, they threaten to kill us or sodomise our children. They flaunt their abomatable lifestyle and gay parades in our face and thats ok because we are viewed as people who must cower down to them. Hyprocrites who are held to a different standard and we are supposed to accept them unconditionally? They like to have the image of change through peace yet offend them slightly and their teeth will show and all of the demons will come to the surface.
Rom 1:26-32: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
Donna Opie
Big mistake. Doing U-turns and apologising for speaking the truth never appeases bullies; it only redoubles their efforts. The only way to deal with them is to stand up to them. I know this is sometimes easier said than done but as I observe in rugby, those tacklers who go in hard suffer less injury than those who go in feebly. We must never forget that this is a spiritual battle where morality and truth are turned upside down. And as you said Bill in a previous reference to Revelations 21 it was the cowardly as well as the rest of the abominations who were thrown into the fiery lake. Let us pray that when our turn comes to stand, that God will give us the strength to make no apologies for speaking the truth.
Perhaps folks need practising speaking up before they are really presented with a major test.
David Skinner, UK
Prostitution of Medicine
Thanks Bill. As our culture turns from life to death, it necessarily crosses the “grey zone” of disease. Doctors as the guardians of illness and disease have therefore become the battle zone, and medicine is now the cultural high ground which must be won by the social elites irrespective of the health, probity or sanity implications of the particular social agenda being advanced.
The MSM mafia have been very strong for decades, but you are correct, that they are becoming stronger, and this is getting increasingly noticeable. This has particularly occurred amongst the Liberal party which have become almost the same flavour as the political left on issues such as homosexual “marriage”.
But there are many issues where medicine is overtly prostituted – condoms for kids, contraception, euthanasia, deliberate covering up of the toxic effects of addictive drugs, and the links to narcoterrorism, the scam of the “sexual health check-up” resulting in “I went to the doctor and was given the all clear” when we know that the commonest disorders, like warts and herpes do not even show up with usual tests and are not tested for; that condoms actually work against all STI’s when most of the skin is not covered; the over-stated so-called safety of the contraceptive pill, indefinite maintenance therapies like methadone which work so effectively they can keep a nation addicted to opiates despite a heroin drought….
Truly the list seems endless.
So sanity, rationality, the propagation of the civilization, wisdom and propriety must be banned, outlawed and generally violated. Albeit always in the name of “tolerance”.
Even China’s notorious one child policy is now being revised in Shanghai – because of the ageing of the population and the an inadequate future work force. Similar arguments apply to the issue of the relative infertility of the homosexual lifestyle choice. Does no one think it strange that such arguments can be canvassed and indeed salient in totalitarian China, but not within the Western democracy of Australia where purportedly free speech is “guaranteed”?
In case you think I am exaggerating, can you imagine really having a debate about surrogacy, lesbian IVF, or homosexual marriage 20 years ago??
It seems to me more than a little paradoxical that at a time when the tools of Science are stronger than ever before, and the evidence and Science opposing the cultural liberal agenda is at its strongest, that the voices of the cultural left shriek most shrilly in demand of “my” rights. So truth itself is imperiled and embattled, and in many cases falls to steel booted popularism.
Bill you are courageous and a hero. Keep flying the flag of truth and wisdom. It is lone and heroic voices like yours which make this country – still – bearable….
If not for long…
God bless you all,
(Dr.) Stuart Reece
In fact what the good doctor said (the first time) is a principle that applies to all medical treatment.
It is not the cost nor ideology but simple medical welfare. One should always choose the simplest treatment that may be effective, one should avoid invasive procedures if an effective alternative exists and one should not choose medical intervention when lifestyle choices can ameliorate the problem.
Why is there so much emphasis on lifestyle choices when it comes to obesity, diabetes, cholesterol… and such a complete absence of correct information let alone lifestyle advice when it comes to HPV and cervical cancer, AIDS and IVF?
For example, has anyone ever really explained to a young woman why she has to have a regular pap smear when she reaches a certain age? It’s because sexual activity leads to HPV and HPV leads to cervical cancer. But has anyone ever said, “Look if you’re not sexually active don’t worry about it?” Is anyone ever likely to say, “Keep your pants on and you don’t have to worry at all about cervical cancer?
Not likely, who’s going to anger the Gods of PC and sexual self determinism, their priests will crucify you.
And stand by our policy on this:
“Statutory recognition of the principle that no child should be conceived to be borne and reared deliberately deprived of a father as in the cases of single women and lesbians accessing artificial reproduction technologies including IVF”
I agree with Peter Baldry children are becoming a commodity and should never be treated as such.
Its hard enough for young people being reared in todays world without being robbed of this very important right.
I for one would not be happy to learn of tax funded IVF for the purposes of single woman or homosexual couples. I would also object to the same group having access to adoption in Australia.
Tony Zegenhagen
Dear Bill,
Thankyou for bringing this to my attention. I will email the doctor in support of his original view. To withstand the onslaught of the homosexual lobby, you need the inner strength that The Holy Spirit supplies as a natural consequence of letting THEM (Father,Son and Holy Spirit) LOVE you. Without this objective reality experienced subjectively, you have no chance of successfully standing in the gap.
Lou d’Alpuget
Dear Bill,
Have also, just finished my submission to the senate regarding the definition of marriage, in support of the traditional view of marriage. Please all, put in a submission to out number the homosexual submissions.
Blessings in THEM,
Lou d’Alpuget
But the reality is Jesus promised that this would be the way it will be. Men love the darkness they walk in. And truth is light. One of the most important thing that anyone who values truth should know is that you will receive persecution. Bill is right in pointing out that most people will shrink back when attacked by the militants. So the extremists exploit this – attacking gets results (or, so they think – in one respect it’s good because you get to point out their true colours. Rational debate is foreign to them, violence is their methodology.)
We must remember that Jesus didn’t promise a rosy life but persecution and hardship for following him. It’s not easy to hear this – I struggle with this often. But Ephesians makes it clear we are in a war whether we like it or not. We fight not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of this dark world and spiritual forces of evil.
So our culture attacks those who speak truth about homosexual behaviour, abortion, false religions – especially Islam, crime and punishment, fair economic principles, etc. – what do you expect when most people don’t believe that spiritual forces of darkness exist? I guess those pigs just spontaneously jumped off the edge of a cliff then (see – pigs do fly!), but Jesus was still just a great teacher (just don’t look too closely) and a good excuse for Christmas and Easter holidays… So, expect the truth to be unwelcome, but speak it anyway in love.
But still, to those who actually have regard for truth, it never gets less amazing to see people confronted with their own lies act as if they held the moral high ground! It would be laugh-out-loud funny if it wasn’t so widespread and didn’t cost so many lives. And that is ultimately the reason for fighting for truth – lies destroy people.
Mark Rabich
This was one of my favourites;
‘Providing a reality check, Radical Women spokeswoman Alison Thorne told the Melbourne rally that marriage was an oppressive institution designed to condemn women to lives of slavery, but same-sex couples should nevertheless be equally entitled to it. She then led the crowd in a chant: ‘‘Kevin Rudd, ALP, we demand equality.’’’
This would be like William Wilberforce crying out about the injustice of not allowing whites to be slaves! Oh what an injustice!
What a bizarre cacophony of contradictions is the modern leftist, feminist, gay rights activist!
Damien Spillane
Thanks Damien
It is a great quote isn’t it? Thanks for the tip on this.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I think it’s sad that a well respected & knowlegeable Dr. whom society has entrusted to care for the sick would be set upon so miserably because he voices true comments about IVF and the like by minority groups. I had no idea that the media had become a law unto themselves. Laws are there to protect the people of the land, all the people not just the loudest. 1 Tim 1:8 says laws are good if they are used by lawful men. We need to continue to pray for those in authourity, including the media and those leading the watch like Bill.
Leanne Miller
In Britain, Lady Hale (who, for many years, was the key person driving the Law Commission’s anti-marriage agenda) said back in 1980: “Logically, we have already reached a point at which we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose.” And yet apparently denying that she said this she was only too ready to extend the rights of civil partnerships to homosexuals.
Apart from schools being strategically targeted by the gays, there is also the ubiquitous family – orientated venue, the weekend football game. http://www.thelocal.se/21026/20090731/
Damien Spillane, I noticed this lethal comment in the link you supplied: ‘‘This is the civil rights movement of our decade. One day the forces of love will prove more powerful than the forces of fear.’’
This subtle and serpent-like argument takes us by surprise and is knocking many of us completely off balance. This is because the word “love“, though still packaged and loaded with the Christian definition and significance of agape (sacrificial love), has almost universally in the west been downgraded to mean romantic and narcissistic love. We don’t do “agape” anymore – we are consumers – especially of porn: http://www.thelocal.se/12640/20080625
The phrase in the above quote, “the powerful forces of fear,” serves the double purpose of reducing the god given emotion of hatred to irrationality, phobia and at the same time to uncool, Neanderthal prejudice – racism. We are therefore being accused of being mentally unbalanced, out of date and prejudiced on a par with racism.
Ben Summerskill, head of Stonewall in the UK, is recorded as saying recently in the Pink News that marriage is “just an intellectual and academic name” and that, “we know there are quite a lot of gay and lesbian people who wouldn’t want marriage.” The gays are appropriating marriage, an essentially Christian means of grace, in order to destroy it completely. http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/08/marriage-as-a-m.html
David Skinner, UK
I am so amazed by this forum im not even sure where to begin, Donna, “Sodomite terrorists”? You don’t think thats a little hyperbolous? If your so worried about this issue why don’t you actually do something about it rather than having a whine about how the “radical homosexual lobby” is demanding equal rights, you understand they are demanding EQUAL rights and to deny that you sound absolutely insane. As Leon Brooks points out you are more than entitled to have insane points of view, as you do, but don’t be surprised that the media does not want to publish it, its revolting.
David Line
Thanks David
But some of us are trying to do something about it, including having a public forum in which alternative points of view can get a hearing, since they are largely censored out of the MSM. Why, even you get to have your voice raised here.
And let me call your bluff: homosexuals of course already do have equal rights as individuals. What they want are special rights as couples, something which no government is under obligation to cave in to. And if they want to overturn the historically valuable institutions of marriage and family, they can try, but don’t be surprised if others will not give in without a fight.
And thanks for another good demonstration of PC tolerance: name calling and ad hominem attacks always beat logical argument.
A quick skim shows most believe Dr Pesce spoke sanely the first time, and has been savagely stabbed in the back, particularly by his predecessor as AMA President Dr Phelps – a confirmed member of the gay lobby.
John Angelico
David Line, Western European governments no longer hesitate to legislate against freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom to debate.
In 1974, Richard Wurmbrand, a Christian who had miraculously survived years of imprisonment and torture in Romania, under the communist regime, which was also a product of materialistic and atheistic belief and who had witnessed scenes of the utmost cruelty and barbarity whilst in prison, was being interviewed in America. The interviewer asked him, “Do you think American Christians are going to experience what you experience?” “No,” he answered thoughtfully, “I don’t think it’s going to come. I think it’s already here; in America, I experience ten times more demonic spiritual oppression fighting to make me draw back (to keep silent) than I ever experienced in a dungeon.”
Whilst our governments desperately want to compartmentalise private and public, and secular and religious, they do not hesitate to intrude into every area of our lives; they invasively legislate for every thought, emotion and sneeze. In the UK, no longer is the Department of Education called as such but, instead, the Department of Children Schools and Families. It has blatantly assumed the role of social engineer and reduced parents to becoming mere operatives. In addition, Dr Katherine Rake of the government funded Family and Parenting Institute has said, “We want to transform the most intimate and private relations between women and men.” Where is the separation of public and private here?
The LGBTs, insecure in the deepest recesses of their psyche, try to identify with the black civil rights movement. But homosexuals have never had to fight to sit at the front of a bus, use a white-only lavatory, attend public school or vote. No they want much more than this.
Equality for the LGBTs means having the liberty to tear up the road map of convention and established custom that protects families, marriage and ultimately OUR children. Meanwhile they are beckoning the rest of us to follow and also think outside the box. This means that sexual relationships defined by adultery, fornication, rape, sado-masochism, bestiality, incest, paedophilia, dogging and exhibitionism will all become normal – just so long as they can be described as “consensual” “loving,” “caring“, “involved” and “committed.”
But to the LGBTs even these constraints smack too much of traditional heterosexual morality and are therefore deemed to be homophobic. Equality to them is the human right for absolute freedom.
David Skinner, UK
David Skinner is right – cowering is rewarding the bullies. But as Christians it is worth remembering that God does not think highly of it. If Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego were alive today I know what they would say.
And Damien, good quote. In fact the whole ‘we demand marriage’ rant is quite strange when one considers why we have so many defactos nowadays. Wasn’t it because marriage being defined a few years back as being ‘just a piece of paper’? But apparently now it is worth something after all? Enough to weep over when courts overturn the people’s will? Enough to raise millions of dollars to fight? Enough to fine people and send them to jail and demonize them unjustly and etc. etc. Whatever…
‘Cognitive dissonance’ is the appropriate term here, I believe. All for the noble cause of legitimizing anal sex and doing whatever else you feel like, stuff the consequences…
I recently read the point that the only time God sent direct judgement down on mankind was Sodom and Gomorrah, and it wasn’t because they were just ‘inhospitable’ to Lot’s guests. And this was centuries before moral law and civil law was codified into the book of Leviticus amongst the ceremonial laws.
I feel sorry for those who genuinely want to leave the homosexual lifestyle. The political gay extremists give these people no hope whatsoever by forcing them to link their identity, their whole being, with a behaviour, rather than a just habit that can be broken if they’d just give their lives over to God who is more than willing to redeem and heal. And of course you look so much worse if you are allegedly attacking someone for who they are, rather than actually just responding to something they do and want to force you to celebrate. They then get to play the ‘victim’ card.
To David Line:
To echo what Bill has written, everybody in Australia already has the exact same opportunity and limitations on who they can and cannot marry. Equal rights for marriage already exist this very day. ‘I can’t marry who I love’, the standard rejoinder to this, is a load of tripe. I can’t marry my mother, for example, (even though she is now a widow), and I love her. And just how would you logically stop someone claiming that they could marry a child, based on the arguments of the gay activists? And whilst you at it in calling the thoughts here “revolting”, please do describe for us in detail the activity it is you suggest we endorse as healthy and good.
Cue Sound Effects, crickets chirping.
When you come up with any decent logical argument to support same-sex ‘marriage’, I’m sure we’d all like to hear it. But if it’s just a rehash of what you get from the extremists, I can assure you, we’ve heard it all before and the arguments are total rubbish even if they are wrapped in slick marketing and left unscrutinized by the mainstream media. Sorry, but the truth doesn’t need that kind of embellishment, so it can seem a little boring at times. But lies can kill, and the gay lifestyle certainly does that, despite the emotional feelgood publicity. I urge you to stop and think about what it is you are advocating. Maybe your reaction of being “amazed” might subside a bit.
And, btw, given the reactions to the passing of Prop 8 in California last November, I think the term ‘sodomite terrorists’ is pretty accurate. Do some research because you might just find out how ‘loving’ these activists are when the will of the people via democracy says “no” to them.
I think the solution is before our very eyes.
We should, if we belong to a political party, as I do (the DLP) simply raise thsi issue publicly and also directly with the relevant State and Federal ministers of health and with the PM’s Office especially. When the do the usual ducking and weaving and running for cover or even defending the indefensible on PC grounds of alleged discrimiantion, these should be treated as golden opportunities to use their own statements against them publicly using reason and the natural law. They will begin to look silly in the eyes fo the public. As for militant homosexuals, they will jsut have to get used to the idea of being opposed through the political process.
Michael webb
Bill, I am sorry to hear that you receive hate mail from homosexuals and their fellow travellers. I have received similar reactions. One can turn the experience to one’s advantage by analysing and psychologically unravelling their behaviour which is overtly on the offensive but is probably symptomatic of inner defences. Homosexual activists have a problem with conflicted wants. They want the respectability of social acceptance but they have to reconcile this with their insiders’ knowledge of practices that cannot generate self-respect no matter how much they generate self-justifying rationalisation. Human beings try to avoid contradiction, even if imperfectly, and they do not take kindly to inner conflicts which can be difficult to resolve because of their shadowy nature. They will resort to irrelevant “fixes”, like demanding others change their view of them. Western society can introduce all the liberalising laws it wants but that won’t stop homosexuality from being inherently flawed. We could also introduce laws protecting paranoiacs against discrimination and legalise paranoiac marriages etc., but would that make paranoia any less of a problem? The critic might reply to that analogy by saying that paranoiacs, unlike homosexuals, are not complaining about being picked on. To which I would reply “Oh yes they do!”
With regard to Dr Pesce, he should be firmly encouraged to speak his mind as to how he came to recant. What pressures were put on him in private? He is in a responsible position and therefore has a duty to explain himself to the public on a very public ethics issue.
John Snowden
Michael Webb on militant homosexuals. I don’t know a single person who likes militant homosexual, “in your face” activists. They seem to be suffering the fate of noisy, abrasive, self-righteous feminists. There was a US survey of public attitudes to lobbyists. Homosexual activists were among the most disliked. I don’t see why this vulnerability can’t be politically exploited. Their intolerance of dissent in a democratic society is and should be an achilles heel.
John Snowden
But should we not be pointing the search light more and more on ourselves as Paul does in Romans 2? How many of us would want all our thoughts to be put on a screen for all to see? I would agree with all that Donna Opie has said; but should we not highlight the fact that in Romans 1: 26 it says “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections”? Gave who up? Surely, as with Romans 2, the spotlight is on us, the 98-98% of population who are men and women having sex with one another. Homosexuality is a consequence, a fruit of our idolatry. Homosexuality is the punishment for not giving God the glory, for not hallowing his name. God says, OK, I will release the reins and let you go and see where it takes you.
David Skinner, UK
Thanks John. Bringing the errors into full pubic view and firmly and with charity not backing down, even when these militant groups demand that we back down is the way for more members of the public as well as business and political leaders to take courage. Now for those political leaders to try and hedge their bets as they have done over marriage by still sending messages out about civil unions is something that needs challenging. We should tease out all the implications of if you give ground to our opponents they will take a mile. There should be no smooth ride for politicians but currently they are having that smooth ride. This quiet life needs to be disrupted continually by truth telling.
Michael Webb
John R,
There is no specific legal protection of their right to the pursuit of happiness – one pursues happiness within the limits of the laws of the land. If one’s happiness lies in killing another, for instance, this right is curtailed.
There is legal protection of their right to life, but it is not at stake in this issue.
There is legal protection of their right to liberty insofar as they are not imprisoned and are free to roam or leave this country as they please.
The fundamental principle of human rights law is that a person’s right ends where it begins to impinge on another person’s right or public morality/national security/public good. The right to liberty does not extend automatically to do as one pleases; it is curtailed by its imposition on another’s rights.
The competing right is question is the right to reproductive health of a heterosexual couple who are infertile not by choice as opposed to the homosexual couple’s fully informed choice to be infertile.
The question of whether allowing homosexual couples the right to IVF furthers the public good must also be considered when we choose to use taxpayer’s money to treat people with no disease, as Bill pointed out.
There is a legal right to freedom of religion and this freedom is exercised in attempting to inform the debate on any contentious ethical issue. One person’s religious beliefs does not in itself trump another person’s right to life or liberty, but as we have demonstrated there is no danger to life or liberty and no legal right to the pursuit of happiness, so you do not present a satisfactory competing right at all.
Andrea Tan
Of course, IVF is just morally wrong, full stop, and should not be offered to anyone for any reason.
The gaystapo just need people to stand up to them.
Louise Le Mottee
Another great article thanks Bill.
Louise; I’m curious, why do you believe that IVF is morally wrong?
Glen Grady
Good quote from Damien. Amazing that the Left scoffs at marriage — except among sodomites.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane
Hi Bill,
Great article! I completely agree with you that Dr. Pesce’s comments were totally rational and common sensical. I enjoy reading your articles, thanks for the strong doses of truth!
People should have equal opportunities, and in many ways they do.
We have equal opportunities to make statements.
If those statements happen to be insane, there is no guarantee at all that they will be accepted. Nor is there any rational reason for them to be accepted.
I claim the right to be “prejudiced” against insanity. If a matter is insane, is there any good reason for supporting it, rather than condemning it?
Claiming children as a “right” when you either have no biological equipment for producing children or have chosen to refuse to use it effectively is insane.
Allowing someone to use equipment for which they have no training (such as giving a child a real bulldozer to drive) or aptitude at all is insane, so in the case of same-sex pairs where half of the training & the aptitude is absent, is there any real difference?
What about the rights of any children so produced? Who consulted them?
Repairing medical damage to re-enable a couple who are so equipped to have children is quite a sane thing to do, in general. You might draw an exception, for example, were a potential parent to be mentally unsound or psychologically unstable. So why not continue to draw exceptions for the socially unsound or hormonically unstable?
Leon Brooks
Is SMH a Fairfax paper? If so say no more!
Stephen White
Thanks Stephen
Actually it is the SHS in which this story appeared, which is a non-Fairfax paper. They all can be pretty bad. But yes the Fairfax press tends to be even worse.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Absolutely Bill. I wrote mostly what you have written to the paper early today when I first saw the article. My response didn’t make the response section in the paper. But I still feel the same as you.
Two main points for me are: That firstly Dr Pesce did, when he realised the vilification that was about to come his way, apologies. And the militant fear mongers still called for his resignation! I worry about free speech. And secondly, excuse if this seems passionate, Children are not Commodities!! They should not be used to push agenda’s, they are not weapons in a fight! They are people.
Society begins to treat people as “things” and wonders why our young people have no respect for life and the others around them.
It really worries me Bill! We cannot continue to be quiet.
Please continue to speak the truth, Thanks.
Peter Baldry
I too have been attacked by homosexuals for suggesting that homosexual promotional material was unsuitable for a magazine which had an audience including children. I have posted a comment on the HS website in favour of Dr Pesce’s original remarks. What chance my comments will be published?
Peter Coventry
Thanks Bill for your bravery and persistence.
You raise an interesting point about disabilities being qualification for medical assistance. At one time the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental disorder, which qualified the person for therapy. Now it has been removed from the ‘pyschological bible’ as a disorder so presumably homosexuals are acknowledged as people who do not require a remedy. They want to be treated as though there were nothing wrong with them. Yet we are expected to approve both normality and abnormality in this select group. Madness reigns for now but who knows maybe one day political correctness will be found in the DSM as a social disorder?
Karen Siegmann
“everything is permissable(that doesnt come against the 2nd commanment(love your neighbor…) the summation of all covenant law) but not everything is beneficial.”1cor10
if a gay couple has the money for the treatment, and the treatment will bring peace to their lives(peace a fruit of the spirit) and it will also give them a child to which they can be devoted parents to, why should someone’s religious beliefs be able to trump the equal protection of their pursuit of their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
john robeson
Thanks John
It is a bit hard to know how to reply to you, not knowing where you are coming from. Let’s assume that you are a Christian, given your quote from Scripture. With all due respect, you are wrong in everything you have said.
1 Cor. 10:14-33 of course has to do with eating foods offered to idols. It has nothing at all to do with same-sex marriage and adoption rights. And we never have a biblical right to do that which is wrong. Homosexuality is clearly condemned in both Testaments. And biblical peace is the result of the Holy Spirit’s residence in believers. It has nothing to do with the gratification of selfish desires of homosexuals who wish to pursue their own agenda.
But if we deal with purely secular arguments, it is overwhelmingly clear that children do best when raised by their own biological parents. All other relationship structures are fraught with danger when it comes to the wellbeing of children. I have documented this numerous times on this website. Forty years of social science research is quite clear on this. Every child has a fundamental right to be raised by his or her biological parents, not by two men or three women or a football team.
And as I mentioned in the article, governments have no obligation to treat cases of social infertility, nor do tax payers. If you choose a lifestyle that renders childbearing impossible, then it makes no sense whatsoever to cry discrimination or violation of rights.
And there is no law anywhere denying a homosexual the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and have children. So you have not added anything to this debate, except parrot the standard homosexual clichés. You are certainly not thinking biblically here.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
These sodomite terrorists think they can do and say what ever they like to us, but if we say one little thing that upsets them, then their true colours start to show. They call us abusive names, every name in the book like homophobias, biggots, they threaten to kill us or sodomise our children. They flaunt their abomatable lifestyle and gay parades in our face and thats ok because we are viewed as people who must cower down to them. Hyprocrites who are held to a different standard and we are supposed to accept them unconditionally? They like to have the image of change through peace yet offend them slightly and their teeth will show and all of the demons will come to the surface.
Rom 1:26-32: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
Donna Opie
Big mistake. Doing U-turns and apologising for speaking the truth never appeases bullies; it only redoubles their efforts. The only way to deal with them is to stand up to them. I know this is sometimes easier said than done but as I observe in rugby, those tacklers who go in hard suffer less injury than those who go in feebly. We must never forget that this is a spiritual battle where morality and truth are turned upside down. And as you said Bill in a previous reference to Revelations 21 it was the cowardly as well as the rest of the abominations who were thrown into the fiery lake. Let us pray that when our turn comes to stand, that God will give us the strength to make no apologies for speaking the truth.
Perhaps folks need practising speaking up before they are really presented with a major test.
David Skinner, UK
Prostitution of Medicine
Thanks Bill. As our culture turns from life to death, it necessarily crosses the “grey zone” of disease. Doctors as the guardians of illness and disease have therefore become the battle zone, and medicine is now the cultural high ground which must be won by the social elites irrespective of the health, probity or sanity implications of the particular social agenda being advanced.
The MSM mafia have been very strong for decades, but you are correct, that they are becoming stronger, and this is getting increasingly noticeable. This has particularly occurred amongst the Liberal party which have become almost the same flavour as the political left on issues such as homosexual “marriage”.
But there are many issues where medicine is overtly prostituted – condoms for kids, contraception, euthanasia, deliberate covering up of the toxic effects of addictive drugs, and the links to narcoterrorism, the scam of the “sexual health check-up” resulting in “I went to the doctor and was given the all clear” when we know that the commonest disorders, like warts and herpes do not even show up with usual tests and are not tested for; that condoms actually work against all STI’s when most of the skin is not covered; the over-stated so-called safety of the contraceptive pill, indefinite maintenance therapies like methadone which work so effectively they can keep a nation addicted to opiates despite a heroin drought….
Truly the list seems endless.
So sanity, rationality, the propagation of the civilization, wisdom and propriety must be banned, outlawed and generally violated. Albeit always in the name of “tolerance”.
Even China’s notorious one child policy is now being revised in Shanghai – because of the ageing of the population and the an inadequate future work force. Similar arguments apply to the issue of the relative infertility of the homosexual lifestyle choice. Does no one think it strange that such arguments can be canvassed and indeed salient in totalitarian China, but not within the Western democracy of Australia where purportedly free speech is “guaranteed”?
In case you think I am exaggerating, can you imagine really having a debate about surrogacy, lesbian IVF, or homosexual marriage 20 years ago??
It seems to me more than a little paradoxical that at a time when the tools of Science are stronger than ever before, and the evidence and Science opposing the cultural liberal agenda is at its strongest, that the voices of the cultural left shriek most shrilly in demand of “my” rights. So truth itself is imperiled and embattled, and in many cases falls to steel booted popularism.
Bill you are courageous and a hero. Keep flying the flag of truth and wisdom. It is lone and heroic voices like yours which make this country – still – bearable….
If not for long…
God bless you all,
(Dr.) Stuart Reece
In fact what the good doctor said (the first time) is a principle that applies to all medical treatment.
It is not the cost nor ideology but simple medical welfare. One should always choose the simplest treatment that may be effective, one should avoid invasive procedures if an effective alternative exists and one should not choose medical intervention when lifestyle choices can ameliorate the problem.
Why is there so much emphasis on lifestyle choices when it comes to obesity, diabetes, cholesterol… and such a complete absence of correct information let alone lifestyle advice when it comes to HPV and cervical cancer, AIDS and IVF?
For example, has anyone ever really explained to a young woman why she has to have a regular pap smear when she reaches a certain age? It’s because sexual activity leads to HPV and HPV leads to cervical cancer. But has anyone ever said, “Look if you’re not sexually active don’t worry about it?” Is anyone ever likely to say, “Keep your pants on and you don’t have to worry at all about cervical cancer?
Not likely, who’s going to anger the Gods of PC and sexual self determinism, their priests will crucify you.
http://comingdawn.blogspot.com/2008/09/interesting-cultural-taboos.html
Michael Hutton, Ariah Park
I believe his first statement to be correct.
And stand by our policy on this:
“Statutory recognition of the principle that no child should be conceived to be borne and reared deliberately deprived of a father as in the cases of single women and lesbians accessing artificial reproduction technologies including IVF”
I agree with Peter Baldry children are becoming a commodity and should never be treated as such.
Its hard enough for young people being reared in todays world without being robbed of this very important right.
I for one would not be happy to learn of tax funded IVF for the purposes of single woman or homosexual couples. I would also object to the same group having access to adoption in Australia.
Tony Zegenhagen
Dear Bill,
Thankyou for bringing this to my attention. I will email the doctor in support of his original view. To withstand the onslaught of the homosexual lobby, you need the inner strength that The Holy Spirit supplies as a natural consequence of letting THEM (Father,Son and Holy Spirit) LOVE you. Without this objective reality experienced subjectively, you have no chance of successfully standing in the gap.
Lou d’Alpuget
Dear Bill,
Have also, just finished my submission to the senate regarding the definition of marriage, in support of the traditional view of marriage. Please all, put in a submission to out number the homosexual submissions.
Blessings in THEM,
Lou d’Alpuget
But the reality is Jesus promised that this would be the way it will be. Men love the darkness they walk in. And truth is light. One of the most important thing that anyone who values truth should know is that you will receive persecution. Bill is right in pointing out that most people will shrink back when attacked by the militants. So the extremists exploit this – attacking gets results (or, so they think – in one respect it’s good because you get to point out their true colours. Rational debate is foreign to them, violence is their methodology.)
We must remember that Jesus didn’t promise a rosy life but persecution and hardship for following him. It’s not easy to hear this – I struggle with this often. But Ephesians makes it clear we are in a war whether we like it or not. We fight not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of this dark world and spiritual forces of evil.
So our culture attacks those who speak truth about homosexual behaviour, abortion, false religions – especially Islam, crime and punishment, fair economic principles, etc. – what do you expect when most people don’t believe that spiritual forces of darkness exist? I guess those pigs just spontaneously jumped off the edge of a cliff then (see – pigs do fly!), but Jesus was still just a great teacher (just don’t look too closely) and a good excuse for Christmas and Easter holidays… So, expect the truth to be unwelcome, but speak it anyway in love.
But still, to those who actually have regard for truth, it never gets less amazing to see people confronted with their own lies act as if they held the moral high ground! It would be laugh-out-loud funny if it wasn’t so widespread and didn’t cost so many lives. And that is ultimately the reason for fighting for truth – lies destroy people.
Mark Rabich
This was one of my favourites;
‘Providing a reality check, Radical Women spokeswoman Alison Thorne told the Melbourne rally that marriage was an oppressive institution designed to condemn women to lives of slavery, but same-sex couples should nevertheless be equally entitled to it. She then led the crowd in a chant: ‘‘Kevin Rudd, ALP, we demand equality.’’’
http://www.theage.com.au/national/wedding-protest-sealed-with-a-kiss-20090801-e58u.html
This would be like William Wilberforce crying out about the injustice of not allowing whites to be slaves! Oh what an injustice!
What a bizarre cacophony of contradictions is the modern leftist, feminist, gay rights activist!
Damien Spillane
Thanks Damien
It is a great quote isn’t it? Thanks for the tip on this.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I think it’s sad that a well respected & knowlegeable Dr. whom society has entrusted to care for the sick would be set upon so miserably because he voices true comments about IVF and the like by minority groups. I had no idea that the media had become a law unto themselves. Laws are there to protect the people of the land, all the people not just the loudest. 1 Tim 1:8 says laws are good if they are used by lawful men. We need to continue to pray for those in authourity, including the media and those leading the watch like Bill.
Leanne Miller
In Britain, Lady Hale (who, for many years, was the key person driving the Law Commission’s anti-marriage agenda) said back in 1980: “Logically, we have already reached a point at which we should be considering whether the legal institution of marriage continues to serve any useful purpose.” And yet apparently denying that she said this she was only too ready to extend the rights of civil partnerships to homosexuals.
This article, written by Stanley Kutz, in 2003, shows just how late it is in the day and how the light is fading fast.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp?pg=1
http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402020917.asp (MYTH OF SWEDEN)
http://www.thelocal.se/17132/20090124 Almost one in three children in Sweden is from a broken home and 50,000 children are involved in a divorce each year, according to statistics from Save the Children Sweden.
Apart from schools being strategically targeted by the gays, there is also the ubiquitous family – orientated venue, the weekend football game.
http://www.thelocal.se/21026/20090731/
Damien Spillane, I noticed this lethal comment in the link you supplied: ‘‘This is the civil rights movement of our decade. One day the forces of love will prove more powerful than the forces of fear.’’
This subtle and serpent-like argument takes us by surprise and is knocking many of us completely off balance. This is because the word “love“, though still packaged and loaded with the Christian definition and significance of agape (sacrificial love), has almost universally in the west been downgraded to mean romantic and narcissistic love. We don’t do “agape” anymore – we are consumers – especially of porn:
http://www.thelocal.se/12640/20080625
The phrase in the above quote, “the powerful forces of fear,” serves the double purpose of reducing the god given emotion of hatred to irrationality, phobia and at the same time to uncool, Neanderthal prejudice – racism. We are therefore being accused of being mentally unbalanced, out of date and prejudiced on a par with racism.
Ben Summerskill, head of Stonewall in the UK, is recorded as saying recently in the Pink News that marriage is “just an intellectual and academic name” and that, “we know there are quite a lot of gay and lesbian people who wouldn’t want marriage.” The gays are appropriating marriage, an essentially Christian means of grace, in order to destroy it completely.
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2007/08/marriage-as-a-m.html
David Skinner, UK
I am so amazed by this forum im not even sure where to begin, Donna, “Sodomite terrorists”? You don’t think thats a little hyperbolous? If your so worried about this issue why don’t you actually do something about it rather than having a whine about how the “radical homosexual lobby” is demanding equal rights, you understand they are demanding EQUAL rights and to deny that you sound absolutely insane. As Leon Brooks points out you are more than entitled to have insane points of view, as you do, but don’t be surprised that the media does not want to publish it, its revolting.
David Line
Thanks David
But some of us are trying to do something about it, including having a public forum in which alternative points of view can get a hearing, since they are largely censored out of the MSM. Why, even you get to have your voice raised here.
And let me call your bluff: homosexuals of course already do have equal rights as individuals. What they want are special rights as couples, something which no government is under obligation to cave in to. And if they want to overturn the historically valuable institutions of marriage and family, they can try, but don’t be surprised if others will not give in without a fight.
And thanks for another good demonstration of PC tolerance: name calling and ad hominem attacks always beat logical argument.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Bill, over at Andrew Bolt’s blog on the Herald-Sun, this topic
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/doctor_operates_on_wagging_tongue/
has already generated over 100 main responses with many additional subsidiary comments as well.
A quick skim shows most believe Dr Pesce spoke sanely the first time, and has been savagely stabbed in the back, particularly by his predecessor as AMA President Dr Phelps – a confirmed member of the gay lobby.
John Angelico
David Line, Western European governments no longer hesitate to legislate against freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom to debate.
In 1974, Richard Wurmbrand, a Christian who had miraculously survived years of imprisonment and torture in Romania, under the communist regime, which was also a product of materialistic and atheistic belief and who had witnessed scenes of the utmost cruelty and barbarity whilst in prison, was being interviewed in America. The interviewer asked him, “Do you think American Christians are going to experience what you experience?” “No,” he answered thoughtfully, “I don’t think it’s going to come. I think it’s already here; in America, I experience ten times more demonic spiritual oppression fighting to make me draw back (to keep silent) than I ever experienced in a dungeon.”
Whilst our governments desperately want to compartmentalise private and public, and secular and religious, they do not hesitate to intrude into every area of our lives; they invasively legislate for every thought, emotion and sneeze. In the UK, no longer is the Department of Education called as such but, instead, the Department of Children Schools and Families. It has blatantly assumed the role of social engineer and reduced parents to becoming mere operatives. In addition, Dr Katherine Rake of the government funded Family and Parenting Institute has said, “We want to transform the most intimate and private relations between women and men.” Where is the separation of public and private here?
The LGBTs, insecure in the deepest recesses of their psyche, try to identify with the black civil rights movement. But homosexuals have never had to fight to sit at the front of a bus, use a white-only lavatory, attend public school or vote. No they want much more than this.
Equality for the LGBTs means having the liberty to tear up the road map of convention and established custom that protects families, marriage and ultimately OUR children. Meanwhile they are beckoning the rest of us to follow and also think outside the box. This means that sexual relationships defined by adultery, fornication, rape, sado-masochism, bestiality, incest, paedophilia, dogging and exhibitionism will all become normal – just so long as they can be described as “consensual” “loving,” “caring“, “involved” and “committed.”
But to the LGBTs even these constraints smack too much of traditional heterosexual morality and are therefore deemed to be homophobic. Equality to them is the human right for absolute freedom.
David Skinner, UK
David Skinner is right – cowering is rewarding the bullies. But as Christians it is worth remembering that God does not think highly of it. If Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego were alive today I know what they would say.
And Damien, good quote. In fact the whole ‘we demand marriage’ rant is quite strange when one considers why we have so many defactos nowadays. Wasn’t it because marriage being defined a few years back as being ‘just a piece of paper’? But apparently now it is worth something after all? Enough to weep over when courts overturn the people’s will? Enough to raise millions of dollars to fight? Enough to fine people and send them to jail and demonize them unjustly and etc. etc. Whatever…
‘Cognitive dissonance’ is the appropriate term here, I believe. All for the noble cause of legitimizing anal sex and doing whatever else you feel like, stuff the consequences…
I recently read the point that the only time God sent direct judgement down on mankind was Sodom and Gomorrah, and it wasn’t because they were just ‘inhospitable’ to Lot’s guests. And this was centuries before moral law and civil law was codified into the book of Leviticus amongst the ceremonial laws.
I feel sorry for those who genuinely want to leave the homosexual lifestyle. The political gay extremists give these people no hope whatsoever by forcing them to link their identity, their whole being, with a behaviour, rather than a just habit that can be broken if they’d just give their lives over to God who is more than willing to redeem and heal. And of course you look so much worse if you are allegedly attacking someone for who they are, rather than actually just responding to something they do and want to force you to celebrate. They then get to play the ‘victim’ card.
To David Line:
To echo what Bill has written, everybody in Australia already has the exact same opportunity and limitations on who they can and cannot marry. Equal rights for marriage already exist this very day. ‘I can’t marry who I love’, the standard rejoinder to this, is a load of tripe. I can’t marry my mother, for example, (even though she is now a widow), and I love her. And just how would you logically stop someone claiming that they could marry a child, based on the arguments of the gay activists? And whilst you at it in calling the thoughts here “revolting”, please do describe for us in detail the activity it is you suggest we endorse as healthy and good.
Cue Sound Effects, crickets chirping.
When you come up with any decent logical argument to support same-sex ‘marriage’, I’m sure we’d all like to hear it. But if it’s just a rehash of what you get from the extremists, I can assure you, we’ve heard it all before and the arguments are total rubbish even if they are wrapped in slick marketing and left unscrutinized by the mainstream media. Sorry, but the truth doesn’t need that kind of embellishment, so it can seem a little boring at times. But lies can kill, and the gay lifestyle certainly does that, despite the emotional feelgood publicity. I urge you to stop and think about what it is you are advocating. Maybe your reaction of being “amazed” might subside a bit.
And, btw, given the reactions to the passing of Prop 8 in California last November, I think the term ‘sodomite terrorists’ is pretty accurate. Do some research because you might just find out how ‘loving’ these activists are when the will of the people via democracy says “no” to them.
These can get you started:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=769imWn-f30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFyPnvz-iI
Mark Rabich
I think the solution is before our very eyes.
We should, if we belong to a political party, as I do (the DLP) simply raise thsi issue publicly and also directly with the relevant State and Federal ministers of health and with the PM’s Office especially. When the do the usual ducking and weaving and running for cover or even defending the indefensible on PC grounds of alleged discrimiantion, these should be treated as golden opportunities to use their own statements against them publicly using reason and the natural law. They will begin to look silly in the eyes fo the public. As for militant homosexuals, they will jsut have to get used to the idea of being opposed through the political process.
Michael webb
Bill, I am sorry to hear that you receive hate mail from homosexuals and their fellow travellers. I have received similar reactions. One can turn the experience to one’s advantage by analysing and psychologically unravelling their behaviour which is overtly on the offensive but is probably symptomatic of inner defences. Homosexual activists have a problem with conflicted wants. They want the respectability of social acceptance but they have to reconcile this with their insiders’ knowledge of practices that cannot generate self-respect no matter how much they generate self-justifying rationalisation. Human beings try to avoid contradiction, even if imperfectly, and they do not take kindly to inner conflicts which can be difficult to resolve because of their shadowy nature. They will resort to irrelevant “fixes”, like demanding others change their view of them. Western society can introduce all the liberalising laws it wants but that won’t stop homosexuality from being inherently flawed. We could also introduce laws protecting paranoiacs against discrimination and legalise paranoiac marriages etc., but would that make paranoia any less of a problem? The critic might reply to that analogy by saying that paranoiacs, unlike homosexuals, are not complaining about being picked on. To which I would reply “Oh yes they do!”
With regard to Dr Pesce, he should be firmly encouraged to speak his mind as to how he came to recant. What pressures were put on him in private? He is in a responsible position and therefore has a duty to explain himself to the public on a very public ethics issue.
John Snowden
Michael Webb on militant homosexuals. I don’t know a single person who likes militant homosexual, “in your face” activists. They seem to be suffering the fate of noisy, abrasive, self-righteous feminists. There was a US survey of public attitudes to lobbyists. Homosexual activists were among the most disliked. I don’t see why this vulnerability can’t be politically exploited. Their intolerance of dissent in a democratic society is and should be an achilles heel.
John Snowden
Kenneth Gunn a councillor of the Scottish National Party has recently made some very forthright statements on homosexuality: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-13547.html.
But should we not be pointing the search light more and more on ourselves as Paul does in Romans 2? How many of us would want all our thoughts to be put on a screen for all to see? I would agree with all that Donna Opie has said; but should we not highlight the fact that in Romans 1: 26 it says “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections”? Gave who up? Surely, as with Romans 2, the spotlight is on us, the 98-98% of population who are men and women having sex with one another. Homosexuality is a consequence, a fruit of our idolatry. Homosexuality is the punishment for not giving God the glory, for not hallowing his name. God says, OK, I will release the reins and let you go and see where it takes you.
David Skinner, UK
Thanks John. Bringing the errors into full pubic view and firmly and with charity not backing down, even when these militant groups demand that we back down is the way for more members of the public as well as business and political leaders to take courage. Now for those political leaders to try and hedge their bets as they have done over marriage by still sending messages out about civil unions is something that needs challenging. We should tease out all the implications of if you give ground to our opponents they will take a mile. There should be no smooth ride for politicians but currently they are having that smooth ride. This quiet life needs to be disrupted continually by truth telling.
Michael Webb
John R,
There is no specific legal protection of their right to the pursuit of happiness – one pursues happiness within the limits of the laws of the land. If one’s happiness lies in killing another, for instance, this right is curtailed.
There is legal protection of their right to life, but it is not at stake in this issue.
There is legal protection of their right to liberty insofar as they are not imprisoned and are free to roam or leave this country as they please.
The fundamental principle of human rights law is that a person’s right ends where it begins to impinge on another person’s right or public morality/national security/public good. The right to liberty does not extend automatically to do as one pleases; it is curtailed by its imposition on another’s rights.
The competing right is question is the right to reproductive health of a heterosexual couple who are infertile not by choice as opposed to the homosexual couple’s fully informed choice to be infertile.
The question of whether allowing homosexual couples the right to IVF furthers the public good must also be considered when we choose to use taxpayer’s money to treat people with no disease, as Bill pointed out.
There is a legal right to freedom of religion and this freedom is exercised in attempting to inform the debate on any contentious ethical issue. One person’s religious beliefs does not in itself trump another person’s right to life or liberty, but as we have demonstrated there is no danger to life or liberty and no legal right to the pursuit of happiness, so you do not present a satisfactory competing right at all.
Andrea Tan
Of course, IVF is just morally wrong, full stop, and should not be offered to anyone for any reason.
The gaystapo just need people to stand up to them.
Louise Le Mottee
Another great article thanks Bill.
Louise; I’m curious, why do you believe that IVF is morally wrong?
Glen Grady
Good quote from Damien. Amazing that the Left scoffs at marriage — except among sodomites.
Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane
Hi Bill,
Great article! I completely agree with you that Dr. Pesce’s comments were totally rational and common sensical. I enjoy reading your articles, thanks for the strong doses of truth!
Many thanks Brianna. Bless you.