Same-Sex Divorce

Now that the homosexual activists have succeeded in ramming same-sex marriage down our throats in so many parts of the West, the next obvious outcome is already taking place: same-sex divorce. And given that long-term relationships are not exactly a hallmark of the homosexual lifestyle, we can expect to see more and more homosexual divorce.

The truth is, most homosexuals don’t even want traditional marriage. What they do want is the social acceptance and symbolism it provides. The fight for same-sex marriage was never about homosexuals wanting to embrace heterosexual marriage. It was about making a political statement, and social engineering.

As many homosexuals themselves admit, a major reason why they want marriage is not so much to be like heterosexuals, or because they want to abandon their more free and promiscuous lifestyle, but because of its symbolic value. It will give them public recognition, approval and acceptance. This has long been the overriding goal of the homosexual lobby: complete social and public endorsement and approval. Thus by getting marriage rights, and, in turn, the last hurdle for gays, full adoption rights, homosexuals will have achieved their longstanding goal: legitimising the gay lifestyle.

A leading American homosexual who has championed the cause of gay marriage, Jonathan Rauch, admits that this will be an important effect of same sex marriage: “it will ennoble and dignify gay love and sex as it has done straight love and sex”.

But the concept of same-sex marriage is an oxymoron, for many reasons. Consider the lesbian couple who led the charge for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts a few years ago. They “married” in 2004. But earlier this month they filed for divorce.

Actually, their “marriage” lasted a bit longer than most. The idea of committed, long-term relationships is not the cup of tea for most homosexuals. A recent study of homosexual men in Amsterdam found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years. If that is a steady partnership, one wonders what a non-steady one is like. Moreover, the study noted that homosexual men with a “steady partner” have 8 casual sexual partners a year.

A leading Australian homosexual activist admits to this: “Monogamy is not a realistic choice for many of us . . . we don’t find one partner sufficiently fulfilling. People who argue that there would be no problem if all gay men would just be monogamous are ignoring both medical and emotional realities; with an unknown number of people already exposed to ‘the virus’ and an unknown incubation period, such advice is just too restrictive.”

He goes even further, saying that “it does seem clear that among gay men a long-lasting monogamous relationship is almost unknown. Indeed both gay women and gay men tend to be involved in what might be called multiple relationships, though of somewhat different kinds.”

Even Rauch admits that “male-male couples put a somewhat lower value on sexual fidelity within a relationship than do male-female couples,” although he goes on to say that the “somewhat” may not be that much of a big deal.

Thus long term homosexual relationships are rare, and for those male couples who do actually stay together for longer periods of time, the prevalence of monogamy is quite low. Studies continue to document this fact. In a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships, only seven couples claimed to have a totally exclusive sexual relationship. But these seven were in relationships lasting less than five years. The authors comment: “Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.” Thus the norm is having outside sexual activity.

As one commentator put it, “Even if we set aside infidelity and allow a generous definition of ‘long-term relationships’ as those that last at least four years, under 8 per cent of either male or female homosexual relationships fit the definition. In short, there is practically no comparison possible to heterosexual marriage in terms of either fidelity or longevity”.

But the folly in pushing for same-sex marriage is not just about this general lack of commitment among homosexual relationships. There are other social concerns. When the state gets in the business of promoting same-sex marriage, all sorts of negative fallout takes place.

A recent article by Brian Camenker about the situation in Massachusetts highlights these dangers. He looks at the harmful impact in education, in law, in public health, and in other key areas. Consider the schools, for example. Camenker documents how school children are being force fed homosexual propaganda:

“-At my own children’s high school there was a school-wide assembly to celebrate same-sex ‘marriage’ in early December, 2003. It featured an array of speakers, including teachers at the school who announced that they would be ‘marrying’ their same-sex partners and starting families either through adoption or artificial insemination. Literature on same-sex marriage – how it is now a normal part of society – was handed out to the students.

“-Within months it was brought into the middle schools. In September, 2004, an 8th-grade teacher in Brookline, MA, told National Public Radio that the marriage ruling had opened up the floodgates for teaching homosexuality. ‘In my mind, I know that, “OK, this is legal now.” If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, “Give me a break. It’s legal now,”.’ she told NPR. She added that she now discusses gay sex with her students as explicitly as she desires. For example, she said she tells the kids that lesbians can have vaginal intercourse using sex toys.

“-By the following year it was in elementary school curricula. Kindergartners were given picture books telling them that same-sex couples are just another kind of family, like their own parents. In 2005, when David Parker of Lexington, MA – a parent of a kindergartner – strongly insisted on being notified when teachers were discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and put in jail overnight.

“-Second graders at the same school were read a book, ‘King and King’, about two men who have a romance and marry each other, with a picture of them kissing. When parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin complained, they were told that the school had no obligation to notify them or allow them to opt-out their child.

“-In 2006 the Parkers and Wirthlins filed a federal Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents and allow them to opt-out their elementary-school children when homosexual-related subjects were taught. The federal judges dismissed the case. The judges ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the school actually had a duty to normalize homosexual relationships to children, and that schools have no obligation to notify parents or let them opt-out their children! Acceptance of homosexuality had become a matter of good citizenship!”

He examines numerous other areas where state-enforced social engineering is now taking place because of the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. He says, “Like everywhere else in America, the imposition of same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts was a combination of radical, arrogant judges and pitifully cowardly politicians.” And now everyone is paying the price. He concludes,

“It’s pretty clear that the homosexual movement’s obsession with marriage is not because large numbers of them actually want to marry each other. Research shows that homosexual relationships are fundamentally dysfunctional on many levels, and ‘marriage’ as we know it isn’t something they can achieve, or even desire. (In fact, over the last three months, the Sunday Boston Globe’s marriage section hasn’t had any photos of homosexual marriages. In the beginning it was full of them.) This is about putting the legal stamp of approval on homosexuality and imposing it with force throughout the various social and political institutions of a society that would never accept it otherwise. To the rest of America: You’ve been forewarned.”

Indeed, the rest of the world has now been forewarned. Whether it heeds these warnings is a moot point.

[1331 words]

38 Replies to “Same-Sex Divorce”

  1. I think the views expressed by Bill about the rationale in the gay community for pushing for marriage, legal recognition of their relationships are true. It also opens them to the potential benefits of marriage. The notion of sexaul preference is also a dangerous one – a homosexual union is just another form of preference sexually. This seems to me to be potential slippery slope as the term ‘sexual preference’ could justify other forms of sexual behaviour.
    The American Psychological Association took homosexuality off its ‘treatable disorders’ legend due to political pressure more than for sound psychological reasons as I understand it. The politicization of the gay lifestyle has meant that it is difficult, fraught with danger in fact, to treat homosexuality, or to suggest that it be treated, as something can be changed at the psychological level. This has also meant that to seek treatment has been marginalised, to the detriment of the person concerend.
    What is to be the Christian response? To speak anti-gay messages in public probably achieves little, but neither does acquiescence. To judge according to the Law is not our response either if we take St Paul seriously. Christ alone is the fulfilment of the Law. Pointing out the sin of homosexuality in a public away only leads to pointing back, as who is without sin?
    I would take action if my children were being taught in a school that homosexual behaviour is just another lifestyle. Heterosexuality and homosexuality just ‘alternatives’.That is not for children to be discussing in my view. However, neither would I want what has happened in the past where gays have been vilified, attacked physically.
    Eugene Moreau

  2. One high profile celebrity – namely Ellen Degeneres – has been through 3 in the last decade 2 of her ‘mates’ married fella’s.
    The following should always be noted….
    extensive documentation of homosexual relating as a community of people, are characterised:–
    ? relational instability;
    ? gross promiscuity;
    ? no demonstrated acceptance of same-sex monogamous union;
    ? free from real commitment and shows negligible fidelity;
    ? beset with enormous health risks; and related welfare cost penalties to the State
    ? and exhibit excessive rates of domestic disputation and violence.

    There is moreover [the world over], nor quantitative demand of/or for, registration of union.
    Any truly compassionate society or nation should discourage rather than encourage further extension of the adaptation of lifestyles culminating in high health risk to both themselves and the community generally. Agreeing to provide facility for artificial creation of children is, at best, questionable if not totally unwise.
    Concerning complex custody disputes partners adhering to the homosexual lifestyle are disproportionately represented.

    Neil E. Ryan

  3. Eugene, I think you are confusing the sin (homosexuality) with the sinner (the homosexual). It is always right to condemn sin, as Christ did, but display compassion towards the sinner, also as he did. What you seem also to be overlooking is that Bill has indicated situations in which the State is imposing its will on society regarding homosexuality; nowhere has the State, or indeed the Church, ever advocated violence against homosexuals.
    Dunstan Hartley

  4. Thanks Dunstan. I am not sure that Iwas saying the church advocated anything like violence but that in the past homosexuals have suffered violence because thay have suffered condemnation for their lifestyle. The idea that you can separate the sin from the sinner is unworkable in this context as homsexuality is an identity issue so to criticise it is to criticise the person. I didnt tackle the things Bill said on the state’s interventions and impositions on this issue because I thought he was simply correct, but to get it out of the political arena is no longer an option I dont think – people vote and all that.
    I should also say that Christ’s relationship to sin is not one of condemnation but of putting it to death – finished. The diificulty then as I understand it at this point in time is that as Christians if we take a public stance on homosexuality as wrong we basically evoke a negative response. It highlights the church – itself a loaded word – as being wowsers or moral do-gooders of some such thing and does not get the message across that God is love, a love that vast and embracing etc etc The gospel gets lost in moral conflict and reinforces what many in the gay community believe anyway, that God is against them.
    Eugene Moreau

  5. Thanks Eugene

    But you seem to be confusing issues here. The fact that Jesus paid for our sins says nothing about our obligation to be salt and light in this world. God is righteous and we are to reflect that righteousness, even in the social arena. By your reasoning, we should not publically condemn or work against rape, murder, slavery, pollution, or any other vice, simply because we might look like wowsers in doing so.

    Sorry, but we have responsibilities as citizens as well as responsibilities as believers – we are to stand up for what is right, regardless of how we might be perceived. I am glad Wilberforce did not worry about being labelled a wowser as he publically fought the slave trade.

    And if a pimp wants to set up a brothel next to where I live, or a drug dealer wants to set up shop outside my children’s school, I certainly will speak up – loud and strong. This has nothing to do with the issue of Jesus dying for our sins. It has to do with being salt in light, and reflecting the righteousness of God in an unrighteous world.

    Sure, if I am personally dealing with a homosexual and seeking to win him to Christ, I may use a different approach. But I can also speak out in a prophetic manner against evil in the world. The prophets did it all the time – both to Israel and to the pagan nations.

    And I don’t accept your acquiescence to the homosexual activists and their claim that ‘homosexuality is who I am”. Homosexuality is a sin like anything else. It is not what defines us. It is not our identity. But I have written on this elsewhere.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  6. Eugene, we do condemn homosexuality in the same breath that we condemn sin in our own lives. Have you never heard of nations being called to repentance? This is precisely what the nations are being called to now. You might be righteous but I know that in and of myself I am not.

    1 Peter 4:16: “However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God? And, If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?'”

    As for your being unable to differentiate homosexuality from the person, you also have fallen for the biggest lie out which is that homosexuality is as innate as colour is in a black, yellow, white or brown person.

    The next thing is that you will be quoting the pink holocaust: Folks really need to listen to what this man is saying which is that heterosexuals have a lot to learn from homosexuals whom he regards are at the very cutting edge, avant garde, of exploring all manner of sexual life-styles that are unhindered by constraints or self-control. Naturally Mixner’s philosophy has huge implications with regard to the stability, cohesion and the very existence of the family.

    David Skinner, UK

  7. Thanks Bill. I dont think we are that much disagreement here. I was questioning whether a public speaking out on this particular issue actually makes things worse.
    Homosexuality is an identity issue for the homosexual. I agree that we see our identity differently.
    I am glad Wilberforce fought too but he was also in a position of power with the ear of the PM. Speaking out against rape and murder is not perceived as an attack on a whole social group. How do we represent Christ in this particular case? He is righteous and full of grace and truth. He is the Father’s love incarnate. Salt and light then in what way?
    Eugene Moreau

  8. Bill, you may be able to enlighten me on this issue, as I know very little about it. The media has reported that Fr Peter Kennedy of the controversial St Mary’s Parish in Brisbane, has been ‘blessing homosexuals’. Is he validating the lifestyle, or has he welcomed them into the flock, but still openly condemned the sin?? I’m curious to know what the answer is here.
    Teresa Binder

  9. Eugene, you say that separation of the sin from the sinner is unworkable in this context (homosexuality). However, you may wish to reconsider that statement in the light of an analogous situation in which the sinner and the sin, according to you, might also appear to be incapable of separation: the woman taken in adultery (John 8: 1-11); especially verse 11. Jesus said: “Nor do I condemn you. You may go. But from now on, avoid this sin.”
    In the final analysis, isn’t this what he is asking of homosexuals?
    Dunstan Hartley

  10. Thanks Teresa

    I mostly know about the story from the media. My understanding is that he certainly has not condemned homosexual behaviour. But some of my readers might be better placed to answer your question. Any takers?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  11. Teresa, If Fr Peter Kennedy is blessing homosexual relationships he will, without doubt, bless all those other “committed” and loving relationships found in Leviticus 18 chapter 20. And before people start yelling, “Yes, but that’s the Old Testament,” these same permutations and combinations that “come in all shapes and sizes” are condemned outright in the New Testament.

    Don’t waste time being curious, Teresa, RUN FOR IT.

    David Skinner, UK

  12. Thanks again Eugene

    You ask about how we can be salt and light in these situations. I have written on this quite extensively in other posts, but a quick reply. We are told in Proverbs 14:34 that “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.”

    So one obvious response it seems to me is for Christians to work for righteousness in the political, social, legislative and culture arenas, and work against unrighteousness. This can take a million forms. I take it that abortion, homosexuality, etc. are clearly unrighteous activities. Thus we should work against them in the public arena. That might mean voting against same-sex marriage, or voting against a pro-abortion political candidate, or working in an AIDS clinic, or staffing a crisis pregnancy counselling centre, etc. The sky’s the limit here.

    That is what I mean by putting our faith to work in the public sphere. That seems to me to be part of what being salt and light is all about. This has always been the story of Christian mission: wherever missionaries went, they both preached the gospel and were involved in social good: building hospitals, teaching literacy, working with the poor, working against unrighteous practices and customs, etc.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  13. There seems to be some confusion about the distinction between homosexuality the sin and homosexuality the mental illness.

    To become a homosexual requires a deliberate choice – this is a sin.

    Once a person has become a homosexual, there is little they can do to change it, without outside help – this is a mental illness, a very severe one.

    Wether one is homosexual or heterosexual or something else, being so is not a sin, it is the actions that are the sin. I also must add that thought is also sin in this instance. It’s not the initial attraction that is a sin, we cannot avoid that, it’s what we do or think next.

    Tim Pearce, WA

  14. Eugene has a point about speaking out. In our post modern world we are expected to allow each person to have their own beliefs and to not criticise them.

    I suspect that one/part of the reasons that we as Christians are excluded from this right is because we are perceived as criticising others views/beliefs.

    I agree that we have absolutes and are justified in our criticisms, however, given the ‘social norm’, we need to exercise greater wisdom in when and where we state our views. As an extreme example, there would be little value in going into a gay bar (I hate the way the word gay has been prostituted) and preaching about the sin of homosexuality.

    We are getting to a point where we may be arrested for publicly stating, even factual information, against homosexuality. Whilst there is value in having martyrs, there is also value in convincing one person at a time.

    Tim Pearce, WA

  15. Thanks Tim

    Of course you will be roundly condemned for saying this is a mental illness. But that is simply because of the success of the homosexual activists to force their agenda: homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders in 1973 after intimidation and protests by radical homosexuals, both within and without the APA. The story is told in pro-homosexual author Ronald Bayer’s 1981 book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  16. Homosexuality is not the sin. It is the curse of sin. It is God taking his restraining hand off us and giving us up to those lusts and passions that will keep us in bondage and slavery that in many cases lead to a shortened life. The sin is not acknowledging God and chasing instead after idols. In the same way that death is not natural but a consequence of the fall, so is all behaviour that inevitably leads not only to a first death but a second eternal one. It is all there is Romans 1. (There is no mention of societal factors) ( death wish of homosexuals) (Kevin greening -risks and drugs and the face of homosexuality ) (suicide of Garry Frisch, founder of ( double suicide in Cornwall)

    “Madam do you want your little boy and little girl to become gay?”
    “Oh yes, I just want.”

    David Skinner, UK

  17. Bill,

    Yes, I knew about that meeting. I got suspicious and did an Internet search some time ago. It was a stacked meeting, I think it may have barely had a quorum.
    I had thought it was in the 60’s, but then again, ‘The Flintstones’ were having a gay old time then and there were no homosexual connotations.

    Does anyone here know when and how the homosexuals took over the word gay ?

    Tim Pearce, WA

  18. Teresa,

    As with most forms of Christianity the sinner is welcome but not the sin. In the Catholic Faith if a person openly and publicly persists in a serious grave sin and refuses to confess then that person is rightly refused Holy Communion and may be eventually excommunicated. This is because of the public nature of the sin. If such a sin is private then the Church demands that the sinner refrains from partaking of Holy Communion until he/she has attended Confession. Of course attendance at Mass and other Liturgy/prayers/events is not forbidden (actually welcomed and encouraged to attend) whilst in a state of serious grave sin.

    A serious grave sin is also committed by a person who may not actually commit a certain sin but who may endorse that sin by supporting it or by their silence or by receiving a benefit from it. For example the serious grave sin of abortion may be committed by the woman (“patient”), the abortionists, the nursing staff, the clinic’s receptionist, the clinic’s cleaner (if they are aware of the purpose of the clinic) etc as well as an ordinary person in the street who refuses to condemn it. This applies to the voter who casts their vote for a candidate/politician who supports abortion or who refuses to condemn it.

    (The Queensland State election is to be held on 21st March next. My local member is a Conservative but I won’t be voting for him as he supports abortion etc. Not only won’t I be voting for him for this reason alone but I am duty bound to inform him of the reason. This I have done as well as advising the President of the Party to which he belongs. I will re-enforce this after the election).

    Thus a Catholic Priest/Bishop/Archbishop/Cardinal/Layperson who refuses to condemn abortion (or embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia etc) or homosexuality also commits a serious grave sin. Their silence gives assent.

    Father Kennedy is not openly condemning the serious grave sin of homosexuality and thus he, himself, is in a state of serious grave sin. As you know Jesus welcomed and embraced all sinners but he always added and voiced a disclaimer “Go and sin no more”. Father Kennedy has declined to teach the second part of the message of Jesus “Go and sin no more”. The other members of the congregation at St Mary’s are in sin by their knowing and public support of Father Kennedy and his “creed”. “Blessing” openly practising homosexuals is a serious grave sin which clearly demonstrates Father Kennedy’s support of their choosing to persist in their sin.

    Thus the members of Mafia and those who benefit (family, friends, associates etc) from the crimes commmitted are in a state of serious grave sin. The same applies to drug smugglers and those involved drug manufacture.

    This is the origin of the law of being an accomplice before and/or after the fact and the harbouring (giving support) of a criminal. The principle also applies when one is a witness to a serious crime. For example if I happen to be walking in a park and witness a woman being raped but continue on my way without rendering assistance of some kind then I have committed a serious grave sin. This is the sin in the parable of the Good Samaritan. If I witness a person in difficulty in water but I go about my own business without attempting to help then I have committed a serious grave sin. If I witness some serious harm or misfortune fall upon someone, say a homosexual, and think or utter a thought of “Serves them right” I have committed a serious grave sin against the Charity of God.

    So in summary all sinners are welcomed and embraced but the sinner must repent and do their utmost not to sin again. If they are sinning publicly, as is Father Kennedy, then a public repentance and repudiation of that sin together with a demonstration of sincere remorse is required, more so when that person occupies a position of authority and influence ie priest, politician, beaucrat etc. In the situation of Father Kennedy he has refused to change (repent/repudiate) and thus must be removed for the common good. The Church does not exclude them; they exclude themselves from the Church.

    St Paul, as you know, urges us to constantly pray and one reason for this is to arm ourselves against the temptation of sin. We must pray at all times whether it be in the car on the way to work, at work, stepping into a lift and using that time ascending or descending, in the bathtub/shower, relaxing on the verandah etc.

    Muslims may pray five times a day but Christians must pray constantly.

    John FG McMahon, Queensland

  19. Eugene, point taken regarding the way in which we should approach individuals on this particular issue. But you must appreciate that these problems have only arisen since the homosexual lobby has taken it upon itself to force society to accept that lifestyle as perfectly normal; and indistinguishable from marriage.
    From what you have written, are you in effect implying that Dietrich Bonhoffer and others erred in confronting the Nazis?
    Dunstan Hartley

  20. Hardly Dunstan. We fortunately are not confronting the Nazis. Confrontation achieves little, however. Regrettably, as Christians, we are in the position in our society of speaking out against sin, hardly a hearable or listened to word in the public space, without being able to speak about the true remedy for sin in the great act of redemption of Christ and the ongoing life in the Spirit. This truly limits us I think.
    David – if you are in Christ, and you are – then you are righteous in Him. You may not act accordingly or think accordingly in all circumstances but Paul syas He has made provision for the flesh. I seek to live in the righteousness I already have and I dont see how it can be any other way as righteousness in, of, from myself is not within my reach. I dont think I’ll be quoting the person concerned you mention, David. Hardly. I recall talking about the slippery slope of the notion of ‘sexual preference’ in one of my comments somewhere. And I did not say that we cant distinguish sin and sinner.
    I must say thanks to Bill for continuing discussions with me. I have upset the applecart on more than occasion. I remember working for hours on a response to a feminist website that argued, quite extensively, for abortion. I put the thing in the site’s comments section as normal and I think it lasted just a few hours before getting the chop, disappeared.
    Eugene Moreau

  21. David. Sorry to add a bit more. Maybe what Steve McVey has to say in his series called 101 lies you hear in church on Sunday. If you put his name into youtube you will find it ok. His ‘Lie 83’ looks at the idea of ‘Positional Righteousness.’ I hope I have not misunderstood you. Steve’s series I think is very helpful.
    Eugene Moreau

  22. There are some days I really can’t figure out why people have been sucked in to the homosexual militant lobbyists. I mean, if ‘love’ is all you need, then please explain to me why a brother and sister – or even two brothers can’t get ‘married’?

    What is so difficult to understand about it – no one is discriminated against – every adult can marry someone unrelated of the opposite sex because that is what marriage is.

    But what is even stranger to me is that this is happening as we live in an age where companies jealously guard their corporate identity. A counterfeit in the marketplace is met with the full weight of the law because, for one, it lessens the value of the original even though the original is unchanged. But if you accept the logic of the militants, such a tactic is wrong because you would have to first explain how the original is intrinsically affected by the presence of the counterfeit in the marketplace. Ever heard the phrase, “Well, how is it going to affect your marriage?” Technically correct, but next they’ll be telling us Mercedes-Benz should not be concerned if someone started rebadging old Datsun 120Ys with the famous logo and passing them off as the latest and best in German engineering. A few years down the track and people might not have the same opinion of the Mercedes-Benz brand, and this is what they are trying to protect.

    I found it especially ironic that Apple opposed Prop 8 in California, when they historically send the lawyers in to anywhere where their identity might be infringed upon. If you look at their marketing, it’s obvious that as a company they understand public perception (and therefore, the definition) of a brand or product is important, not just the product itself. Pity they can’t connect the dots.

    And we are not talking about some pretentious corporate identity thing that would hardly affect society if the company disappeared. We are talking about the institution of marriage, the foundation of every civilization. Don’t mess with it. It’s ultimately the ground you stand on, given to us by God himself.

    Mark Rabich

  23. Mark,

    Great analogy. I haven’t come across that one before. Thanks.

    Mansel Rogerson, Melbourne

  24. Hi Bill,

    Undoubtedly some people will do some weired stuff but in all honesty, as long as it does not effect me, kids, the community at large or break any laws then I will not stand in their way. Problem is the gay community is effecting the community at large. Case in point; I have a friend whose child went to a certain kindergarten where a lesbian couple had a child attending. The kinder had an annual fathers day activity where the father, grand father, uncle or family friend were invited to come for a session. The gay couple protested against this claiming it was sexist and forced the kinder into renaming it to parents day!! What the $%#$?? These types of things really get under my skin. Now I am not going to soap box because this is Bill’s site but honestly. I am also against the gay community redefining the word marriage. The word marriage when used in the context of couples refers to a man and a women in union. If gay people want to form a union then they should use another term.

    Ben Green

  25. Thanks Ben

    The charge is often made that only “religious bigots” are against same-sex marriage. Thus it is good to see an atheist such as yourself having the same concerns. Indeed, I suspect that the majority of Australians – whether religious or not – are quite unhappy with the way the homosexual militants have been forcing us to embrace their agenda, and how so many governments are aiding and abetting their cause by coercing us to accept this social engineering. Most ordinary Australians know that marriage is about one man and one woman, not two women, or three men, or a football team. But PC governments have been siding with the homosexual activists to force us to redefine marriage out of existence.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  26. Eugene Moreau, a lot of what you say doesn’t really seem to have a basis in fact or in clear thought. I appreciate that you are out there standing up for, and speaking out about your beliefs, something that I wish a lot of other Christians would learn to do, but your thinking leans toward sympathising with sin and/or fatalism.

    We need revival in our hearts and in our nation – it doesn’t come from sympathising with sin, nor from fatalism – just the opposite, it comes from transparency and brokenness, contrition before God and a strong desire to refuse to accept our own sin and public sin, to invite and allow the presence of the Holy Spirit to remove from within us that which is not of God. Black and white truth is called for, and that leads to division. But some accept and other don’t – we are not hear to be acceptable to all, to be peacemakers at the expense of God’s truth.

    It is not our job to question whether we should take a stance – we are called and anointed to do so, whether we think there will be any positive outcome or not. Silence IS acceptance and carries with it culpability.

    And while Wilberforce was a major force in the abolition of slave trading, there are other aspects to the story involving earlier pioneers who were foundational in establishing a grass roots movement, such as James Wedgwood (of Wedgwood fame). They didn’t wield political power, and when they were speaking out against abolition it was very much against public and political opinion.

    In the case of homosexuality, if you are not convinced of the destruction that it brings upon a person, let alone what the activism is bringing upon our nation’s children, then read up. We don’t say to paedophiles, “well it’s an identity issue and we sympathise with you, and really we love you, and it would be nice if you could stop what you’re doing, but we don’t want to condemn you or seem to be moralising because we know how deep this thing goes, and how much it is accepted nowadays, but really if you’d like someone to talk to, you know, I’m here for you and God bless you.” No we say – “it’s sin, turn from it, repent and be saved”.

    If you can’t see that the same black and white approach is required with homosexuality (as in adultery which is rampant in our churches too, and lust for riches and… but I digress) then you’ve missed the truth. It’s sin, it’s a curse, it’s very destructive to those practicing it and to our children’s generation – (didn’t you read this, and so many other articles on this website?) and it is a major barrier to a life in Christ which needs to be removed. Please, let’s get real.

    Garth Penglase

  27. Thanks everyone, I have a clear answer to my question. As always, the media is so brutally biased, that it is difficult to know what is going on.
    Teresa Binder

  28. Hullo Garth. I am not sure if in your offer of help you are being a smart alec or not. Are you intimating that I might be a sort of closet gay? If you are, sorry to disappoint you. I’ve been married to the same woman for 28 years, have three adult sons and intend to say married to her til I kick the bucket. Or are you intimating I need help because I am not a Bill sycophant? Poor chap I must be.
    If it’s a genuine offer of help, thanks but no thanks. What you have written suggests you have not understood what I have said.
    Life in Christ is not only if our ‘barriers’ are removed, otherwise we’d all be up the creek – do you mean get your life right and then God will work in your life – (if that’s what you are saying, and by your second paragraph you dont seem to be saying that) – that is a denial of reality. I am not convinced of the destruction that a homosexual can bring upon him or herself by living that life??? I cannot see how you got that impression. I am also convinced that moral fingerpointing, wielding Scripture like a moral baton, pointing out this wrong and that does not do the work of the Spirit. Paul’s great discussion of the Law indicates this. We may call pointing out people’s moral failures and abominations a prophetic act but if Christ is not preached -as Paul says in his resolve to preach nothing but Christ and Him crucified – then all we do is present a worldview, another philosophy – one of umpteen in the marketplace of ideas, however right we are, and of course we are right because we wield the Word (Scripture I mean not the Word as in John 1). We come across as society’s judge, and sometimes jury, rather than bearers of the greatest message of all. The message is not given.
    I think Bill has taken up the Weltanschauung approach to the use of Scripture and so I also think he is essentially a political person, at least in the website. The sorts of things on the website in fact remind of right wing American outfits like the Institute for Religion and Democracy.
    I am not sure how you figure I am trying to be acceptable to everyone?? I wouldnt be on here would I if that were so. I seem to be a rarity on Bill’s site.
    My comment on identity was not ot excuse anybody but a recogniton of a need for understanding of what goes on in people. If, for the gay, homosexual behaviour and being a homosexual are of the same parcel then we know something, how to pray for one thing as He is the true identity changer, a whole new one in fact, better than anything that we could possibly have imagined. Isnt that what we want, people to know Him? In other words, yes we want repentance that is true metanoia a whole new understanding. I have not heard of any instance of public recriminations leading someone to this point. Maybe you have.
    Eugene Moreau

  29. People talk about the faithfulness demonstrated by homosexual couples one towards the other. Isn’t it marvellous they say and yet they fail to realise that by engaging in such acts that they are being unfaithful to God’s created order. “How can anyone debate the practice of two men using their respective waste passages as a playground in order that it may become legally acceptable is totally beyond my understanding.” – Nicholas Fairbairn, MP for Fife, in the House of Commons, when the legislation regarding homosexual practice was first debated.

    So what about the conditions and imperatives placed on us, the relatives, friends, the church and the community, with regard to a gay wedding? How are we supposed to respond? Do we have responsibilities? Should the church door be wide open to all?

    Jesus said in Matthew 7:13, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it”

    The book of Ephesians has for may years been held up as a book about church unity but my reading of it is that it is increasingly about warfare; indeed, it ends with some of the most vivid instructions on how to wage it. Church unity is not the same as the universalist’s mantras “inclusion and diversity.” The letter to the Ephesians, as a consequence, orders the church to enforce this selection and to exclude those within the church fellowship who are clearly not called, or who behave as such, until as such time as they are brought to repentance.

    Although Jesus Christ is the final judge, there is a burden of responsibility laid upon us all. The universal church does have responsibilities in making sure that there is a clear distinction between the Christian and all others. Like an invading and infiltrating army we have to be in society but not of it. Above all, like troops, in Normandy, during D-Day, engaged in fierce hand to hand fighting, we need to recognise friend from foe.

    Paul, in writing to the Ephesians clearly describes how the Christian must separate themselves from gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. He describes those outside the family of God as: “Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.” Further on he said:

    “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity…because these are improper for God’s holy people…have nothing to do with the fruitless seeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret…Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.”

    Nothing could be more unequivocal than 1 Corinthians 5:12-13: “It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, ‘You must remove the evil person from among you’.”

    Romans 16:17: “I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.”

    As for Steve Mcvey, that explains everything Eugene.

    David Skinner, UK

  30. John FG McMahon, thank you for yet another distinction between Islam and Christianity.
    I am sure also that you would agree that one of the main reasons that homosexuality is infecting our society is that we have for so long become comfortable with civil partnerships or people just living together. What we used to call “living in sin” has opened the flood gates not only to homosexuality but polygamy, polyamory, incest, bestiality, paedophilia. and necrophilia. Until we regain the purpose of marriage as enunciated in the Bible which is to create the family, or become a part of an existing family, we haven’t a leg to stand on.

    David Skinner, UK

  31. Eugene, I think I am beginning to understand you, let alone homosexuals! I maybe wrong but it seems to me that you are suggesting that as Christians we already possess this brand new identity and that in many respects we are already in heaven and that there is no more changing to be done. We have arrived; we are perfect. That is not what the Bible says: it talks about the Holy Spirit putting His seal on us as a down payment, a guarantee towards our inheritance that is not yet.

    As for your suggestion that the good news is nothing more than letting people know that God loves them, this is not born out by accounts in the book of Acts, where people suddenly became aware of their sinfulness and cried out for salvation, not salvation from this world but salvation from the wrath of God.

    David Skinner, UK

  32. David is right to point out that the rot set in when society and government began to normalise and reward heterosexual cohabitation or what should more rightly be called ‘living in sin’. A lot of churches would still classify homosexuality as a sin, but not too many seem prepared to challenge the trend for people to live together.

    Ewan McDonald.

  33. Well, for an exercise in typical fatalistic political correct head-in-sand mocking defiance, you could hardly get better than this:

    Why do people have such a problem with separating their behaviour with their physical make-up? No matter what Katrina Fox claims about herself, if she as a woman is still of child-bearing capability, only sex with a man can validate the complete function of her sexuality, as un-PC it is to say that. Her own body testifies against her. Long-standing habits may be hard to break, especially when they are connected to one of the deepest parts of our psyche, but our physical makeup strongly testifies against its abuse in the form of homosexual unions. You may as well step off a cliff in defiance of gravity. If only the consequences of homosexuality were more immediate, then maybe people might acknowledge the reality of them. But of course these days, if it isn’t immediate, it isn’t real.

    I’ve written a letter, but I’m not holding my breath…

    Mark Rabich

  34. Hi, Mark, what we all need to understand, let alone homosexuals who have their own bondage, is the wonderful promise of Jesus Christ when he said in John 8:31: “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

    What truth? True about our old natures which will be with us until we die; about the devil who tempts us and then when we are down accuses us;and about Father God and all that he has done for us in Jesus Christ, is doing for us though the Holy Spirit and will do for us in the future.

    The truth that this life has to be lived through faith and not through sight or emotions.

    Only the truth, will set Katrina Fox and all of us free.

    David Skinner, UK

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *