Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Unashamed Social Engineering

Jan 13, 2010

The quote in the last line of the newspaper article said it all: “It’s on the vanguard of social change.” Yep, that’s for sure. This is all about social manipulation and using the political and legal process to push a radical agenda. What passes for government nowadays is simply unashamed social engineering.

I refer to a story in today’s Herald Sun about a new law change which has come into effect. It is about a lesbian couple who have taken advantage of a new law in Victoria allowing non-birth parents to be named on birth certificates. The story opens as follows:

“Little Drew Hardy-Hughes and her two mothers are now legally recognised as a family in Victoria. Sweeping January 1 changes to the state’s reproductive laws mean that non-birth parents can now be named on birth certificates. Drew’s parents Eilis Hughes and Kristen Hardy, of Werribee, were among the first lesbian couples to act on the landmark legislation. The birth certificate of their two-year-old daughter, conceived using a known donor, will now list Ms Hughes as the birth mother and Ms Hardy as the other ‘parent’.”

The quote about social change comes at the end of the story: “Victorian Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages spokeswoman Erin Keleher, said the department was delighted it can recognise rainbow families. ‘It’s on the vanguard of social change,’ she said.”

Plenty of questions come to mind here. Just how many Victorians even knew that such a law change had taken place? Just how many Victorians were even consulted as to whether they approve of such radical social changes? Why are we allowing the democratic process to be subverted by radical minority groups? Since when do activist minorities get to railroad their agenda over the will of the majority of Victorians?

Most important of all is why have we allowed the wellbeing of children to be stomped under foot so that radical homosexual activists can cater to their selfish interests? Why in the world do politically correct agendas take precedence over the right of every child to be raised by his or her own biological parents?

This is nothing other than radical social engineering. A radical group of politicians and legislators have gotten into bed with a radical group of minority activists, and are turning society upside down to suit their distorted agendas.

In the past the weak and the vulnerable were the first object of government protection and concern. Now it seems that a handful of radical homosexual lobbyists are the ones getting all the attention and favour of governments – and the children can just be damned.

Never mind the incontrovertible mountain of social science evidence which demonstrates how the biological two-parent family is simply the best structure in which to raise children. Never mind that virtually every society throughout human history has known the importance of the institutions of marriage and family.

When societies allow the selfish demands of adult activist groups to trump the needs and interests of children, then we know that society has become terminal, and it is only a matter of time before its descent into barbarism is complete.

Two thousand years ago the Roman scholar Pliny the Elder said this: “What we do to our children, they will do to society.” Quite right. When we treat our children as mere guinea pigs in adult social experiments, we really have forfeited the right to be called civilised.

We are now rapidly moving into all the brave new world scenarios so many have warned us about. When we can treat our children as fodder to satisfy the lusts of activist minority groups, then we have well and truly lost our way.

Of course the Labor Government in Victoria has been pushing a radical social engineering agenda for years now. And the homosexual activists are the biggest winner. As the birth mother said of the law change, “Symbolically it’s huge. It says that we are a family unit and no one can dispute that.”

She’s got that right. This is about redefining the family out of existence. And as is always the case, verbal engineering precedes social engineering. By claiming that two women in a lesbian relationship are a family is to redefine it out of existence. First change the language, then change society. That is always how the radicals have operated.

This is but another case of the activist minorities – aided and abetted by brazen and seemingly unaccountable bureaucrats and politicians – holding the rest of society to ransom. And everyone suffers as a result. But the children are the biggest losers here. But in a world where adult desires are the only concerns going, who cares?

[778 words]

40 Responses to Unashamed Social Engineering

  • Bill

    I am well aware that the social science literature is over whelming that a child needs both parents in order to reach their full developmental potential in all areas from health to emotional well-being to academic success. But is there any specific literature that tests how children do in hetero as opposed to homo families?

    The reason I ask is that I could imagine the objection – all that matters is the two-parent family irrespective of the sex of each parent. Whether it is a lesbian, homosexual or heterosexual couple, it doesn’t matter, as long as both parents are present.

    Damien Spillane

  • I’m quite shocked to hear this has happened in my home State, right under my nose. Typically, these tales reside within the more politically liberal boundaries in Europe, and increasingly in the US. But at home? In our backyard?

    You wonder how much research, if any, our state legislators put into investigating the potential impacts on our children under same-sex unions. Or is there focus elsewhere other than our future generations?

    By coincidence, I received today in the post my last order from In it was my copy of Out From Under which you had reviewed in October last year. I’ll be reading that book with greater interest and concern now that these scenarios are being made legally possible in my own backyard.

    Mathew Hamilton, Victoria

  • Thanks Damien

    But when you say “as long as both parents are present” you answer your own question. Only a heterosexual couple can qualify as comprising both parents (mother and father). Two mere adults do not equal two parents. And yes the studies are clear on this. For example studies have measured a child’s outcome in various measures when raised in various social structures (heterosexual family, homosexual family, single-parent family, etc) and the child raised in the heterosexual home by two biological parents does better on every social indicator.

    The data makes it clear that simply having adults around does not cut it. It is having your own biological mother and father present that makes all the difference. And what will the birth certificate show? It matters little to the child who is shacking up in a household. What matters – in terms of medical history and other concerns – is who are the biological parents.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks Mathew

    Yes that book is very good indeed and is just what our social engineering politicians should be reading to see what the real world of children raised by homosexuals is like.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • We used to expect church leaders to speak out against such known evils, but the silence today is deafening. Feeble church leaders, themselves influenced by socially “progressive” theological teachers, are to blame. They know nothing of biblical Christian morality and have a very selective belief in Christ’s teachings – forgetting that He who showed love and compassion actually spoke and warned more about judgment and hell.
    Lindsay Smail

  • The article states:

    “It’s better for a child to know if they were donor- conceived and it’s better for a child to have both parents named on a birth certificate.”

    Yet both parent’s names are not on the birth certificate at all. There is only one biological parent so named. And sooner or later, the kid is going to be looking at the certificate and asking her two mums: “So, which one of you is my real mum? And who is my dad? Is it ‘uncle’ Joe?”

    Seems a natural set of questions to be asking and they don’t sound overly conducive towards being “better for a child”.

    Mathew Hamilton, Victoria

  • I’m a little saddened by some of the comments on that article you reference – eg., three earlier comments express disgust – fantastic, however two of them haven’t bothered to spell check what they wrote and one of them hasn’t bothered to read the article properly.

    I think it’s great that people are [trying to] stand up for what is right in the face of the media, but it would be great if they could make an effort not to reinforce the media stereotype that people opposing homosexuality are wilfully ignorant and uneducated.

    Like many others i’m quite shocked this has happened without much public awareness…

    Alison Keen

  • Alison, although I usually read the comments, I am becoming disillusioned because all they portray is a gut reaction to (mainly) the headline.

    The media call the comments (allowed only selectively, of course) the equivalent of the letters column (also vetted by editorial staff).

    However, a letter is usually more considered and generally better thought through (as you point out) because of the process of writing itself.

    By contrast, an email or online comment is dashed off so quickly that there is little time for reflection, thought or even corrections of typing spelling and grammar.

    John Angelico

  • The Victorian government is morally bankrupt. They don’t even try to pretend they have a speck of decency. Their goal is to be seen as a model of decadence. They take pride in their depravity and will continue on to greater depths of debauchery because they enjoy the support of the electorate. The radical minority would have no influence if their agenda led to the political defeat of their benefactors. That is not likely to happen because the majority of Victorian voters applaud what their government does and those who don’t are too gutless to do anything about it. As far as I can see the Victorian Church is comatose.
    Des Morris

  • Hi Bill
    Here is a case of an extremist politically correct government trying to obliterate any reference to Christianity. The British Overseas Territories of St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha – islands in the South Atlantic – have a constitution stating that the Islands wish to respect “Christian and family values”. But the UK Government has directly suggested that it remove references to Christian values from the Constitution.
    Des Morris

  • Very little forethought has been given by our legislators I will warrant.

    When the mother/mother relationship breaks down for instance, who will the birth mother go to for child support?

    In this case she now has two choices, the biological father, and the ‘other parent’ on the birth certificate.

    Like all social engineering experiments there will be multitudes of unintended consequences.

    Finally, yes, we all have a responsibility to educate ourselves and to begin to defend Christian Culture in this crazy world. Lets not just blame our church leaders. To that end I am re-reading a couple of Chuck Colson’s books to help me in some personal dialogues that have opened up with my own kids who embrace the post-modernist worldview.

    Rob Robertson

  • Whilst feelings of disgust and despair at our society and government are natural in light of this bizarre decision, Christians should not leave it at that.

    I tend to agree with Rushdoony and the reconstructionists that the old order and institutions are generally too far gone to make working for their revival profitable. They have intimately wedded themselves to humanism are therefore doomed to increasing and ultimate failure. Christians should not waste much time engaging in feelings of disgust without action, nor the largely futile action of reform. What we need to work on is the reconstruction of society on a Biblical basis. This means starting with ourselves and our families and then creating new private institutions, for medical care, education, poor relief etc. working and ready to progressively take over as the old institutions fail.

    In this case, for example, all the Victorian Registry has done is made their birth certificate increasingly useless and irrelevant. If there is a need for a document which truly reflects a person’s parentage (and I believe there is for social and medical reasons), then this gap in the market could be filled initially by churches listing parents on stand-alone certificates or on baptism certificates. Later when the need is more acutely felt, an enterprising individual could found a company to issue reliable certificates (say in two classes – one based on the sworn statement of parents and the other based on DNA testing).

    Mansel Rogerson

  • Bill,

    That this has happened is without question an absolute abomination and utter evil. My wife and I have discussed our disgust and anxieties about one day having to explain to our kids why their friends at school have two mums / two dads etc. [Christian schools are looking more and more attractive… but that’s another topic]

    I’m curious about your emphasis on “biological” parents. Where does this leave kids who are adopted into stable heterosexual marriages? There are many good reasons for adoption — eg. an infertile couple taking an unwanted child who may otherwise have been aborted, or an orphan from overseas.

    Jereth Kok

  • Thanks Jereth

    When the ideal cannot be met, then we must accept second best. The research clearly shows the importance of both biological parents, but that is not always possible. Thus we need to help and support those who find themselves in less than ideal situations – eg., single parents who have lost a spouse through death or desertion, or adoptive parents, when the biological parents have died, and so on.

    It is one thing to deal with imperfect situations which is no particular fault of anyone. But it is quite a different matter to deliberately bring a child into the world and have him or her raised in alternative lifestyle households. In the former we try to deal with an unfortunate situation. In the latter we are deliberately depriving a child of the fundamental right to a mother and father.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • That’s a pertinent point with regards to adoption of children. In light of the multitude of studies that show children raised by their biological, married parents is the best scenario for the interests of children, and that adoption of children into married, heterosexual households is 2nd best, why intentionally design any other type of “family” makeup?

    As far as adoption goes in Australia, my understanding is that there are not enough babies to cater for demand. As “supply” is limited, preference should be given to couples who provide the best environment for children. Homosexual couples do not fit this mark.

    This reason, in part, is probably why gay lobbyists have pushed for homosexual access to IVF treatment. They are discriminated from applying for adoption (and justifiably so) and have successfully managed to pursue the IVF route which initially was only open to couples who could not biologically conceive as opposed to couples who cannot conceive owing to purposeful design of their own relationship.

    Mathew Hamilton, Victoria

  • Bill, you will doubtless be aware that the legislation that allows this tragic misrepresentation of the truth about a child’s lineage was passed last year in the Victorian Parliament. Passed by just one vote, a vote from a Liberal MP who regretably failed to truly protect the best interests of children.

    We all fought so hard against this Biil (now Act), it was disappointing at the time but even more sad now.

    Rob Ward

  • Thanks Rob

    Yes I am aware of the legislation and I am well aware of the Liberal who helped to make this happen. In this case praying to improve or remove the culprit may well be in order – not only the one Lib but the radical activists who make up so much of the Labor Party.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Dear Bill,
    It is a pity that our legislators don’t do their homework on the attributes of gay and lesbian relationships. If they knew the truth, this law would never even have seen the light of day. The facts are that homosexual relationships are inherently unstable, violent and open to diseases not generally seen in the hetero community. Rates of anti social behaviour, such as drug and alcohol abuse and suicide are also far higher. These are all negative realities which will directly effect children brought up in these homes, but as you say, our leaders don’t seem to care. They are more worried about the well funded and organised homosexual lobby which has infiltrated our media and legal professions and have a disproportionate amount of power to the 1-2% of the population they represent. We need leaders who know what’s right and pursue it at all costs – not spineless vote chasers and political spin artists who are only concerned with their own survival. Lets weed out the homosexual supporters at the next election. Please name names of openly homosexual polticians, so we may vote against them.
    Lou d’Alpuget

  • Tried unsuccessfully to post my comment in HS; the forum could have been closed. I thought I’ll share it here instead if it’s okay:

    Ever wonder why suicides, depression, brokenness in families, addictions, dejection and crimes are on the rise? The further the society deviates from God’s design and purpose, the greater the disorder and dysfunctionality in the society. The statistics and history are there for all to see.

    A child with 2 registered female parents and lesbianism are certainly not in God’s design and purpose. I am worried for the child when she will eventually and naturally come to know of the fact, and the psychological stigma she will have to deal with – a lesbian mother, a “missing” father, no father like in a natural family, the embarrassment, etc. – that’s how I would feel if I were the child.

    Richard Chieng, Perth

  • Thank you Bill. Sad news.
    By ignoring and opposing the God-given natural way of parenting, I believe there will be huge ramifications, including huge law suits, from some of the children who are entrusted into some of these types of ‘care’. (Undoubtedly there will be some exceptions, and some children will receive the grace and mercy needed to readjust from their unfortunate circumstances).

    Questions will one day be asked of this arrogance: ‘Whatever was society and government thinking?’ The damage caused by cigarettes, asbestos, and harsh government policy for the Stolen Generation, may — by comparison with this decision — appear minimal. And I mean, by comparison! Sadly, too many in our society, are blinded to the dangers — at the moment.

    May we continue to resist and stand firm for true family, amidst the seeming tidal wave of angry and ignorant social engineering.

    Trevor Faggotter

  • Bill, NSW is just as bad. The Government’s response to the NSW Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice entitled “Report 39: Adoption by same-sex couples” tabled on 8 July 2009 didn’t come until 6 January 2010 under the signature of Linda Burnley “Minister for the State Plan [sic, ???], Minister for Community Services”. I received it by mail yesterday in response to a submission I made.

    It’s only 1.5 pages, but functionally it says: ‘we have different opinions, so (Bill’s words fit admirably here) the children can just be damned.’

    It shows the Government’s gullibility and loss of perspective in that opinion and anecdote is allowed to negate objective evidence: The social-science evidence is unequivocal: kids do best with their own biological parents and there is a clear and measured degradation of outcome as the parenting moves further away from the ideal. But in practice that was deemed irrelevant:
    “[T]he NSW Government thanks the families who shared their stories as part of the enquiry. Their views were based on direct experiences of adoption or same-sex parenting and made real the issues under consideration. The mature and honest contributions of the children and young people in these families warrant special mention for the compelling insights they provided.”
    In other words anecdotes and self evaluation outweigh objective research – reminding me of the syndrome whereby compelled captives start identifying with their captors.

    The report also states that “Lesbian and gay foster carers make a highly valued contribution to the NSW out-of-home care service system” and “there are many same sex couples who foster children on behalf of both government and non-government agencies.”

    As had been said before, we are creating a new class of ‘Stolen Generation’.

    Peter Newland

  • Thanks Peter

    Yes you are quite right. When we deliberate raise children without their own biological mother and father we are indeed creating a new Stolen Generation, one which will have much more serious impact I am afraid.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • First of all, I wish to congratulate Lou d’Apuget on the comments contained in his well written and accurate e-mail. I don’t live in Victoria, but I imagine the problems encountered with encouraging coalition politicians to stand up for moral values would be similar to those problems I’ve found here in Queensland. With 33 years experience in radio I had many opportunities to interview politicians of all persuasions. Unfortunately there are not enough Fred Niles on the scene. Apparently it has not dawned on most Coalition politicians that the vast majority of journalists, vote Labor or the Greens. Earlier many of them supported the Australian Democrats, before they disintegrated into oblivion.They are not objective commentators. Also, it is unfortunate that many politicians confuse media outrage with public opinion. They don’t need to crawl to the Left. Even under hypnosis, they wouldn’t vote for the Coalition. If the Coalition stood up to the trendies, more members of the public would be prepared to follow. This is happening in the USA now, where Obama, the worst president of all time, has slid down to an approval rating of 43%, because some Republicans have stood up for the family and publicly opposed his anti family “values”.
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  • Thanks Bill that helps.

    Another question.

    When you say this;

    “It matters little to the child who is shacking up in a household. What matters – in terms of medical history and other concerns – is who are the biological parents.”

    When you say “biological” I am assuming that you would include adopting mother and father couples under this banner?

    Damien Spillane

  • Thanks Damien

    Again, the ideal is two biological parents. Children need them for many reasons, including knowledge of their medical history. When a situation calls for adoptive parents, that may be the next best option, but it exists because of an emergency – for whatever reason, the biological parents are not able to look after the child. But the biological parents should be listed on the birth certificate if for no other reason than to provide the child (and his or her doctor) with vital medical information if the need arises. Listing some live-in lesbian lover offers no help at all to the child in this regard.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • They don’t seem to learn all this politically motivated social engineering has hitherto brought endless tragedies in split families, single parents, loneliness, mental illness, suicides, murders, homelessness, abandoned children and the the list goes one and yet they consider this latest change an achievement. Its like everything in life there is a price to pay. When the time comes its will be too late. It will be the inevitable question of if only…….. Men and women are living under a deception and think they are masters of their own destiny…….more like destruction.
    Pat Brams

  • Bill you ask, “Why are we allowing the democratic process to be subverted by radical minority groups? Since when do activist minorities get to railroad their agenda over the will of the majority of Victorians? Most important of all is why have we allowed the wellbeing of children to be stomped under foot so that radical homosexual activists can cater to their selfish interests? Why in the world do politically correct agendas take precedence over the right of every child to be raised by his or her own biological parents?”

    The primary answer is of course because the church has fallen asleep.

    Ewan McDonald.

  • Hello Bill
    We are blessed to have a system of government that is supposed to listen to the voice of the people, ‘for the people by the people’. The best way to be heard is to write to your local member of parliament and to all the other parliamentarians in your State until they have to listen. Get friends, family and churches involved, it worked stopping Mr K Rudd from being the big man at Copenhagen, although that fight is not over yet, while we still have this freedom we should use it or lose it if we do not use it.
    Jillian Lister

  • Thanks Jillian

    Yes quite right. We all need to get involved in these political debates and do our bit to make a stand, otherwise we only have ourselves to blame if this sort of rotten legislation keeps coming in.

    Having said that, however, it is also the case that on this particular issue many of us did in fact lobby, write letters and visit MPs last year. Despite all of our involvement, the vote went against us. And sadly, it went down to one Liberal who voted the wrong way.

    So sometimes we do all we can, yet still lose. But we must persist nonetheless. Indeed, we must redouble our efforts and work even harder. And needless to say, we need to pray more about these matters as well.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Ewan,
    I would say that unbelief also has a fair bit to do with it!

    The church, at times, can be well awake, and attending to their task of witness and proclamation, yet still go unheeded. We all need to learn to live with the consequences of that. However uncomfortable, and disappointing it may be. Yet we are ever hopeful, for Christ reigns.

    (In some ways, the blessings of an overall Christian society, namely Christendom, with consistent godly laws in place, was an amazing era. One can begin to see that in hindsight).

    Trevor Faggotter

  • Thanks Ewan and Trevor

    Needless to say, I think you both are right. Ewan is right to suggest that we are losing time and time again because the church is asleep at the wheel, and really is apathetic and indifferent to all these political and social changes going on. As to this particular bill that we battled last year, I suspect that most Christians in Victoria did not even know about it, and of those who did, only a small percentage actually did something about it. (And sadly an even smaller percentage of believers would have in fact supported this anti-family and anti-child legislation!)

    Yet as I said to Jillian, many believers were involved in that particular battle, but we still lost. So Trevor is quite right to suggest that there certainly are groups and ideologies out there which are actively warring against us on all sorts of levels. We need to be aware of them and know how to counter them.

    So both fronts need to be targeted: the outward opposition which is so often anti-faith, anti-family and anti-life; and the inward apathy, indifference and carelessness of so many who call themselves followers of Christ.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • But Trevor, as Bill consistently reminds us, a radical minority is having a disproportionate influence on public policy for evil. Whilst the church with an ostensible majority is failing to counter this with an influence for good. “All that it takes for evil to flourish is for good men and women to do nothing.”

    Unbelief is only another symptom of the church’s failure especially when a once majority Christian nation backslides to the point where we are today. When you go into a darkened room and you turn on the light switch and the room stays dark, do you curse the darkness or try and fix the light?

    It’s not just proclaiming the Gospel (a role the church is doing very badly at present), but also being salt and light to society (a role that is virtually non-existent at present) that the church should be doing. So the buck really stops with all of us who make up the church.

    Ewan McDonald.

  • Thanks Ewan – you and I obviously think differently on several matters:

    To be salt and light is to proclaim Christ faithfully. To proclaim Christ, is to be salt and light. These are not really different operations.

    Unbelief is far more than a symptom of the church’s failure. There is the mystery of iniquity. There are the dynamics of the powers of darkness. Jesus himself marveled at the unbelief he found among his own people.

    So, I am not sure a lot is to be gained by passing ‘the buck’ to the church, or standing in judgment upon their failures. Christ ‘walks among’ the churches and deals with them. What happens to Christian nations, when they spiral downward, is lamentable. But it is also complex. Others who make up the nation are also responsible.

    Further, biblically we are all at worship, in one way or another – attending to idols, or to Christ’s action. So ‘doing nothing’ is … well, impossible. cheers.

    Trevor Faggotter

  • I agree Trevor that being ‘salt and light’ is a part of the Gospel not an additional role to it. I should have chosen my words better there, but I would still lay the greater portion of blame for the present backslidden state of our nation with the church rather than with the unbelievers. Of course unbelievers are responsible for the choices they make, but who is it that is in possession of the Truth? The world or the church?

    Ewan McDonald.

  • “I’m not in favour of gay couples seeking to adopt children because I question whether that is the right start in life. We should not see children as trophies. Children, in my judgement, and I think it’s the judgement of almost everyone including single parents, are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship. There’s no question about that. What we know from the evidence is that, generally speaking, that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married than where they are not.”

    This, by any current standards, would be deemed to be an offensive and homophobic statement. But who said it? None other than the present UK Lord Chancellor and Secretary of Statement for Justice, Jack Straw, back in 1998 on the BBC Today programme.

    Obviously he was not on the same page as the Marxist and anarchist moles burrowing quietly but oh so determinedly at the heart of Tony Blair’s government. But he soon caught up with the rest of them and sold his soul for a bowl of pottage. A man of Straw indeed.

    Tony Blair’s election slogan back in 1997 was Education Education Education. The populace naively thought he was talking about improving literacy and numeracy whilst all the time he was talking about Marxist re-education.

    If there are any readers here with UK passports please sign the petition before Britain completely capsizes:

    Anglican Mainstream has also posted my petition which can be read more fully here:

    David Skinner, UK

  • Just a few thoughts. I believe that deliberately bringing a child into the world without a father is legalised child abuse. I wrote to every MP more than once to express this sentiment under the banner of STOPCAN (Stop Child Abuse Now). Any one is welcome to protect children under its banner.

    When ever I attend a medical appointment, I am asked do I have any history in the famly of this problem. My answer is always “I don’t know, I was adopted.”

    I have read many times that the world is a reflection of the church. Bearing in mind what the world is like at the moment, we are in a total mess because the leadership has lost the plot as in Jesus was loving and accepting so its OK to ordain practicing homosexuals.

    Another aspect is that doing the same thing every week and expecting a different result is insanity. There a very few churches that don’t do the same thing every week so it becomes a closed shop to those who are not interested in self serving banality.

    Even the evangelical/pentecostal expression is up the creek without a paddle because their main focus is themselves and that is anathama to God.

    Why do I say that? Because 95% of church income is spent on themselves. In the NT church, income was spent on others who had needs and evangelism.

    Finally in defense of the church, it has been said time and time again we have nothing to worry about because God is still in charge and he will win in the end and his church will be triumphant.

    I agree totally with that sentiment, but putting up a building, employing someone to run the organisation so we don’t have to get too committed, raising a cheer squad that will be entertained by a regular few every Sunday morning does not make you a church.

    A church is where two or three gather in His name, have died to self, take up their cross daily and are committed to the kingdom of God regardless of the consequences. It is organic, not organised. The guy in charge is Jesus himself and the chief operating officer is the Holy Spirit.

    How many so called churches operate like this? If they don’t, they are not the church so don’t put your hopes in a failed system.

    Roger Marks

  • In 2004, as casual teacher in the UK, I was asked to do a sex education lesson and to give out glossy little booklets to 13 year old boys and girls in a state school, in Dorset. Little did I realise at the time that these booklet were and are still supplied by the Family Planning Association that receives millions of pounds from the government. Below is an extract taken from “Is EveryBody Doing It? Your Guide to Contraception.”

    page 15, TRUE STORIES
    “My boyfriend wanted me to keep the baby, but my mum said that I was too young to settle down. Luckily I went to young people’s clinic and the counsellor helped me to think through how I felt and what I wanted Part of me did WANT the baby, but mainly to show my mum that I was grown up. I had an abortion because I didn’t think I should have a child until I could look after myself better. I think being a mother is just too important for it be something that just happens to you “
    SHONA 17

    David Skinner, UK

  • As an ACT resident, I am only irritated that the 2004 introduction of same-sex adoption in the ACT, together with the amendment of about 70 other Acts did not attract the much attention. ACT legislation under the Stanhope government should sound the warning tocsin for the rest of the nation.

    All government legislation, forms and documents have had words such as Mother, Father and Spouse removed; being replaced with Domestic Partner.

    A mother who relinquishes her child for adoption can specify the religion of the adopting couple, but not the sexual preferences.

    The use of facilities for the opposite sex at public baths in the ACT is no longer an offence, consequently the penalty was also removed.

    What I have mentioned is just the ‘tip of the iceberg’.

    Carolyn Mongan

  • Carolyn, the question is if a man can trans into a woman can the woman who has sex with a fence, trans into a fence and vice versa? Or for that matter a woman trans into a horse and a horse into a woman? Surely it is easier for a person to trans from homosexuality to heterosexuality than from being male to female, yet the homosexual, whilst claiming that homosexuality is immutable, accepts that it is possible to transgender.

    I identify myself as a welsh cross dresser transing into a lesbian poached egg. This is my human right

    David Skinner, UK

  • I feel that we should all know the names of the pollies who voted-in this Bill and this information should be available before the next election so voters can make up their minds who should represent their electorates on such matters. This might be one way of overcoming the secret manner in which this kind of social engineering can take place.
    Peter Rice

Leave a Reply