Heterosexuality: A New Hate Crime

It is not just in the futurist, dystopian novels such as Brave New World and 1984 that the totalist state seeks to punish thoughts as well as actions. In real world dictatorships and totalitarian states the same attempt has been made. Certain thoughts and ideas are declared to be verboten with corresponding punishments for those daring to think them.

The tyrannical state determines what is acceptable thought, and woe to those who wish to remain a free thinker. Any recalcitrants are swiftly dealt with, and the full weight of the state apparatus is brought to bear on any offenders. Correct Speak and Correct Think are maintained by various measures, including re-education camps.

The really scary thing is that the free West is not all that far away from what we find in these novels and these police states. Increasingly Western nations are passing their own totalitarian ‘hate speech’ laws, vilification legislation, and so-called equal opportunity bills.

All these laws may seem like they were enacted with good intentions, and perhaps some were. But the outcome remains the same: a radical diminution of freedom of speech, increased powers of the State, and encroaching government-enforced Correct Think.

The number one expression of this in the West concerns the radical homosexual agenda. All over the West coercive legislation is being passed by activist governments to enforce the homosexual agenda. And there is good reason for this: the majority of the population simply do not accept the normalisation of homosexuality, nor see things like same-sex marriage as being in any way on a par with heterosexual marriage.

Therefore the only way complete submission on this matter can be achieved is by the heavy hand of the law and the threat of punishment for those who do not comply. The majority will simply be forced by increasingly hostile states to kowtow to the homosexual agenda or face the music.

Consider just two more examples of this, both of which appeared recently in the media. Add these two to the many dozens of other cases, and things are not looking very good for freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion.

The two examples should not come as a surprise, given where they originated. Canada and the UK have been world leaders in pushing a politically correct, pro-homosexual agenda, complete with government sanction. The first case has to do with a government proposal in Quebec to stamp out politically incorrect thinking on the issue of homosexuality.

It comes in the form of the “Quebec Policy Against Homophobia” released by Quebec’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Kathleen Weil. Journalist Drew Zahn explains. The policy is aimed at “eliminating all forms of ‘homophobia’ and ‘heterosexism’ – including the belief that homosexuality is immoral – from society as a whole.

“The text and specifics of the policy are steeped in vague bureaucratic language about ‘coordination’ and ‘synergy,’ but the goal is spelled out clearly: to enlist the government to normalize homosexuality in society and to quell common criticisms levied against ‘sexual minorities,’ a term the policy uses to inclusively describe ‘lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgenders.’

“‘An inclusive society such as ours must take the necessary steps to combat homophobic attitudes and behavior patterns and move towards full acceptance of sexual diversity,’ states the Premier of Quebec Jean Charest in a letter that serves as the policy’s introduction. ‘The policy sets out the government’s goal of removing all the obstacles to full recognition of the social equality of the sexual minorities, at all levels of society.’ The policy further defines the heterosexism that must be stomped out as ‘affirmation of heterosexuality as a social norm or the highest form of sexual orientation.’

“Furthermore, the policy laments, ‘It is still possible to hear people say that homosexuality is an illness, morally wrong or a form of deviant behavior, and that people choose their sexual orientation. These beliefs, often instilled in the past, tend to marginalize sexual minority groups and prevent full recognition of their social equality.’ Such ‘prejudice,’ the policy affirms, must be combated.”

Wow! Even if only a fraction of this is true, this is scary as all get out. This matches anything envisaged by Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, and other fiction writers warning of future totalistic regimes. This is mind moulding at its worst.

Imagine that! Anyone who even affirms that homosexuality is in any way other than absolutely hunky dory must be punished and re-educated. This is Big Brother at its worst. And get this: even to suggest that homosexuality is a choice will bring on the wrath of the state thought police. But what about the many homosexuals themselves who have suggested that choice plays an important role in their lifestyle? Will they be punished as well?

But wait, there’s more. In the UK an MP has actually said that his party would ensure that faith-based schools would be forced to comply with PC views on homosexuality. This is how one article describes this:

“UK Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg says his party (the third largest in the UK) would legislate to legally oblige faith schools to teach that homosexuality is normal and without risk to health. In a magazine interview, Clegg outlined proposals to advance ‘gay rights’, including forcing all schools to implement anti-homophobia bullying policies and to teach that homosexuality is ‘normal and harmless.’ He also proposed to end the ban on homosexual men being allowed to give blood, and to allow same-sex couples to marry with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.”

There you go: more coercive social utopianism. If the masses will not bend the knee to the extreme secular-left vision, then the totalist state will simply force all those unwilling scum to embrace the homosexual agenda. Using the force of the law to impose unpopular and draconian social engineering policies is always the stuff of ruthless dictatorships – it is never the stuff of genuinely free democracies.

But our coercive utopians really don’t give a rip about freedom, democracy and other hallmarks of civilised society. They are only interested in implementing their radical social engineering – at any cost. All opposition will swiftly and stiffly be dealt with.

Today the affirmation of heterosexuality is seen by many social engineers to be a hate crime. One can only speculate as to just how long it will be before heterosexuality itself becomes a punishable offence. Don’t laugh – who just a few short decades ago would ever have dreamed that to champion heterosexuality and criticise homosexuality would become a criminal offence?

The Western world is well on the way to complete self-immolation. The only thing that stands in the way of Big Brother dictatorship is an informed and concerned citizenry. And as Edmund Bourke so rightly warned, the only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122113
www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10011307.html

[1139 words]

111 Replies to “Heterosexuality: A New Hate Crime”

  1. Like the sabbath, heterosexual marriage is a creation ordinance. The loss of the one has paralleled the loss of the other in the West.

    John Nelson

  2. There is a strong flavor of insanity about this sort of thing.

    Why are homosexuals so incredibly thin skinned that they are unable to tolerate even the mildest criticism of their behavior?

    It would almost be enough to make you think that homosexuals are aware that they are transgressing the bounds of some unwritten law that is gnawing away in the backs of their minds and is inflamed and made louder by any sort of suggestion that their behavior is anything less than 100% benign.

    Any other suggestions for what fuels this sort of absolute rabid insanity on their part that says, “in order to avoid even mild criticism we must destroy the very institutions that give us the freedoms and protections in the first place”?

    And what exactly do they think is going to happen when the sorts of powers they are clambering to institute fall into the hands of people that disagree with them?

    Don’t they see how they are cutting their own throats?

    Jason Rennie

  3. Regarding not talking about any ‘risk to health’ from homosexual sex, as mentioned by the UK political leader:
    Even the homosexual health group GLMA – the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association – has documents that tell homosexuals of the increased health risks that they face and encourage them to tell their doctors.
    See Top 10 Things Gay Men Should Discuss with their Healthcare Provider
    Perhaps Mr Clegg thinks it is OK for them to say so – but not for anyone else to mention it!
    Jenny Stokes

  4. Thanks for that Jenny

    Yes that is one of the most incredible proposals being made here: not being allowed to discuss health risks. This is sheer madness, if not sheer evil. Imagine a government ruling that one cannot discuss the health risks of, say, cigarette smoking. I thought governments were supposed to look after the wellbeing and health of its citizens, not make things worse. The insanity of PC knows no bounds.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  5. With the push towards Islamisation of the western world I ponder as to the Muslim’s philosophy towards homosexual practices. Does their ethos accept such behaviours or if not then why do we not hear their voice articulating opposition. If they did voice oposition how would the politically correct protagonists handle this without being accused of religious hate related issues.

    We often focus on the Judeo Christian ethos in our deliberations but what of the microbiological, anatomical, histo-pathological issues relating to the use (or misuse) of their sexual organs. What of the costs in terms of physical, emotional & spiritual suffering; what of the tax dollars that are needed to support, care for & treat the ramifications.

    We need to have compassion on one hand, but also point out the longer term issues that our society will one day need to face rather than band aid. But how do we do this in an arena where free speech is increasingly being eroded for Orwellian reality. Then again it’s not only same-sex issues that need to be examined under the microscopy as many herterosexual oriented persons have behaviours & attitudes which are detrimental to a healthy society.

    Fundamentally it comes down to the spiritual aspect of personal rebellion towards our maker on one hand & social engineers pushing their own paridym on the other – or maybe both are part of the same equation but we use different language to discuss. I think the latter.

    David Squirrell

  6. When we deny that a man is a man and a women is a women which is what takes place when homosexual sex is enacted we have embraced a lie. When we make the lie legal and then vilify anyone that dares disagree with that lie we have embraced insanity. When the Government prosecutes those that disagree with the lie of Homosexuality we are only one step away from cultural suicide. Every child needs a mother and a father. Embracing the lie robs children of their biological birth right. Society collapses under the anarchistic cry of the fatherless children.
    Warwick Marsh

  7. Having a contact in a needle exchange agency, I was recently appalled to hear of the number and description of new exotic diseases originating from the various exchange of bodily fluids in the homosexual act of sex (sodomy etc.)
    In wanting to research further on the Web I discovered many sites being blocked or innundated with misinformation about possible infection risks to us in the larger heterosexual community.
    Also, this contact told me of an anal enlargement operation permitted through Medicare allowing the entry of a closed fist during the sex act (fisting).
    Is the mainstream media so controlled with hate-fear vetting from militant gay interests to deny us this vital information.
    Jonathan Foster

  8. Thanks Jonathan

    Yes there is a whole range of diseases and dangerous outcomes associated with the high-risk homosexual behaviour. Of course the MSM does not want us to know about them. Nor do certain politicians and political parties. Public health and safety is being put at risk in the interests of not offending radical minority groups.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  9. I didn’t laugh, but the arguments attempting to justify homophobia just get wilder and wilder.
    Murray Bentham

  10. Thanks Murray

    But if you are really suggesting that concern about possible government bans on any and all criticism of a dangerous and decidedly unbiblical lifestyle is somehow ‘homophobia’, then can I suggest that this simply tells us more about where you are coming from than anything else. Indeed, can I respectfully suggest that it may tell us that you are commonsense-phobic, rationality-phobic, morality-phobic and Bible-phobic!

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  11. People don’t want to be told how to conduct themselves sexually. They are taught that it is a personal decision.

    Unfortunately the consequences of various types of sexual relationships outside the God-created “one man and one woman for life in marriage” relationship are in plain view for all.

    I mean Herman Rockefeller’s murder is a fine example. If he were faithful to his wife and family, and not looking for the extra sexual thrill, that man would be alive today.

    Abortion, Alcohol abuse, depression, suicide, divorce – these can be linked in many cases to people disregarding God’s rules for marriage and sex.

    Be smart. Look at the writing on the wall. Live at your own risk, and take the consequences.

    Jane Petridge

  12. Thanks Jane

    Yes quite right about the tragic Rockefeller case. There was just a current events show segment on this. They had a “Swingers” group spokeswoman saying this was just normal, everyday behaviour. Sorry Jack – or Jackie – but this is not normal behaviour. Cheating on your wife, your children, and your family is not normal, nor is it moral, or safe, or healthy, or right.

    But of course we need to be careful here, or we might be accused of being guilty of Swing-o-phobia, or adultery-phobia, or promiscuity-phobia.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  13. Was my comment patronising? If it was, it was no-where-near the heights of your ability to be offensive and belittling, Bill. Your suggestion that human existance will grind to a halt through the criminilisation of heterosexuality is farcical, and just shows the desperation in attempts to still justify hatred of homosexuals. You’re against homosexuality? OK, but at least try to be civil. Are you really that concerned that acknowledging homosexuality is a threat to you that you have to resort to name-calling? You’re better than that. You’re playing the man, not the ball. Stick to the ball, you’re much better when you stick to the ball. Well I hope you are.
    Murray Bentham

  14. How many children are abused in homes where there is “one man married to one woman for life”???

    In my experience of the few homosexuals I know, while they exhibit the same personality traits as everyone else I know, they all possess a deep hatred for the “rules” that God has applied to the way they should live their lives sexually, and I see their sexual conduct as almost a way of rebelling God and His commandments. Only they can look into their own hearts to seek God’s forgiveness and make the decision to live in accordance with God’s law regarding sexuality.

    Jane Petridge

  15. Thanks Murray

    But let me again call your bluff here. Just where in this article or in my comments do I speak of, or in any way advocate, hatred of homosexuals? It seems you are the one who needs to play the argument, not the man. And I remind you that it was you who began with the silly name-calling. I again ask (and still await an answer): how does showing concern about the proposed prohibition of any critical discussion of homosexuality equate either to homophobia or, now, to hatred of homosexuals?

    By throwing out these emotive and useless red herrings you simply demonstrate the complete paucity of you arguments. And by the way, scholarly experts far more important than I have argued for the very thesis that you simply scoff and mock. Many historians, sociologists and anthropologists have argued that the evidence is in fact clear: when societies cast off all moral and social restraint on human sexuality, then yes, that does spell the end of civilisation.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  16. I never called a name. Your website has a focus on attacking homosexuality. It is your blog, and you can do so. Thanks for telling me that I was the one who started it, that didn’t make your comment sound childish at all. And now I answer your question: your blog is, amongst other issues, hostile to homosexuality. That is homophobia. Other sites may be Bible-phobic – but if two can play at games when you want them to, then two can play now. Of course, you will tell me that the term is false, or incorrect, which is highly convenient. Your concern about the proposed prohibition of any critical discussion is merited. Shock – yes, merited. Do I agree with it? Yes. If you were paying attention to my second comment (and I apologise for not outlining this in my first comment), you would have seen that my bone to pick was the biological dissertation on not-breeding ourselves out of existance. You constantly write about abortion, so I think you should be aware that heterosexual impulses will continue, even if evil governments decide we are the last generation to be here. I look forward to reading these credible, peer-reviewed articles you speak of. Sexual morality is important, and important to civilisation but you would be much more convincing if you approached one issue at a time and didn’t end your articles with the apocalypse. For now, that is all I have to write. You will have the final word on this article anyway. You always will, and that is how it should be. It’s your blog. God bless.
    Murray Bentham

  17. Thanks Murray

    There are not just articles, but whole books on the particular topic you question. But I actually do not think that is what you are really interested in. In fact, I think it is important that we cut to the quick here. And I mean that sincerely.

    It seems to me that only two things really matter here. Both have to do with you being honest – with yourself and with all of us. First, you need to be honest about your own lifestyle. I will leave it at that.

    Second, you need to be honest about your faith. You keep claiming to be a Christian, yet you keep denying what the Bible says about the subject. So which is it Murray? Who is the real you? I just leave these questions for you to ponder. Perhaps you need to stop playing games and be up front about these important issues. I continue to keep you in prayer.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  18. So Murray, from your knowledge, are there any medical risks associated with homosexual behaviour??
    Jane Petridge

  19. Murray, how exactly does being hostile towards homosexuality equate to fear of homosexuality? Does this mean that all people musn’t be allowed to disagree, sometimes very strongly with the opinions or position of any others, lest they be called phobic of one description or another?

    I just don’t get the logic!

    George Kokonis

  20. “The policy is aimed at “eliminating all forms of ‘homophobia’ and ‘heterosexism’ – including the belief that homosexuality is immoral – from society as a whole…to enlist the government to normalize homosexuality in society and to quell common criticisms levied against ‘sexual minorities,’ a term the policy uses to inclusively describe ‘lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgenders.”

    Perhaps this is what Victoria’s new minister for respect will do.

    “Today the affirmation of heterosexuality is seen by many social engineers to be a hate crime. One can only speculate as to just how long it will be before heterosexuality itself becomes a punishable offense.”

    This was the headline in the Guardian :
    POPE URGES DEFENSE OF HETEROSEXUALITY: The Pope sparks controversy by defending heterosexuality.

    Daniel Amos

  21. I found this quote from Spurgeon to be a good answer to what Murray is arguing:

    “Now-a-days, if a man is very reverent towards the word of God, and very desirous to obey the Lord’s commands in everything, people say, “He is very precise,” and they shun him; or, with still more acrimony, they say, “He is very bigoted: he is not a man of liberal spirit;” and so they cast out his name as evil.

    Bigotry, in modern parlance, you know, means giving heed to old truths in preference to novel theories; and a liberal spirit, now-a-days, means being liberal with everything except your own money—liberal with God’s law, liberal with God’s doctrine, liberal to believe that a lie is a truth, that black is white, and that white may occasionally be black. That is liberal sentiment in religion—the broad church school—from which may God continually deliver us.”

    Charles Spurgeon

    http://apprising.org/

    Lindsay Smail

  22. Murray

    Since when is Bill’s rational arguments against the homosexual life-style (actually, in this case it would be the legally enforced approval of such a life-style) “homophobia”?

    If what Bill is saying about the negative consequences, both for individuals and civilisation, of homosexuality is false then prove it so. But if what he is saying is correct then it is hardly “hate” or “homophobia”.

    You use the same methods that leftoids and the gaystapo lobby use; conflate reasoned arguments with “hatred” so as to shut-up debate and not have to engage the objections.

    Damien Spillane

  23. My linking of ‘homophobia’ to this article were wrong. I apologise to Bill and to anyone else who may have been riled.

  24. Yes, Nick Clegg’s promotion of the totally-false idea that homosexuality (ie. the actual sexual practices) are “harmless” is criminally dangerous, and his idea of promoting them in eduation is simply child abuse on a vast scale – but then, it’s governments who are responsible for the really really big destructions of human life, such as abortion and (soon to come) legal euthanasia. Everything bad in our society comes, or has come, from the top down.
    John Thomas, UK

  25. Heterosexuality needs no defence; nor does homosexuality. Neither exists at the expense of the other.

    ‘How many children are abused in homes where there is “one man married to one woman for life”???’ – Jane Petridge

    Quite a few, unfortunately.

    ‘When we deny that a man is a man and a women is a women which is what takes place when homosexual sex is enacted….’ – Warwick Marsh

    Poppycock. Just a silly non sequitur.

    William Fisher, UK

  26. Thanks Bill for bringing this to light and thank you to Jenny Stokes for pointing us to the GLMA’s top 10 things to share with Health Provider. I felt incredibly grieved when reading this and a deep sense of how debilitating this kind of lifestyle choice is. We so need to get on our knees and pray for those who are imprisoned in the gay lifestyle.

    As for UK Liberal Democratic Leader, Nick Clegg, I think he needs to get his facts straight before he starts sprouting off such garbage. Does this mean now if they legislate that homosexuality will be taught as the norm in “faith” schools it will also include Islamic schools?

    Francesca Collard

  27. Thanks William

    But you of course simply ignore the whole point of the article. Heterosexuality certainly is under threat by homosexual activists and their political and judicial supporters. And Jane is actually fully correct: the social science evidence overwhelmingly shows that the safest place a child can be is with his or her married mother and father. And Warwick Marsh has writen nothing amiss here, nor illogical. What is in fact “a silly non sequitur” is the notion of same-sex marriage, and related homosexual demands.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  28. Thanks Francesca

    Yes, very good question indeed. I’d like to see how far he gets in seeking to ram his activist agenda down the throats of the Muslim community. Somehow I just don’t think he will dare target Islamic schools.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  29. Hi Bill,

    It’s fair enough to highlight these two policy initiatives as examples of the extremes of how far the pendulum can swing. One of the policy initiatives is from a leftish UK minority party, the other is from a Canadian province well known for its history of socially radical policies, a bit like a North American Netherlands. But Orwellian parallels are over the top if you ask me, even if just for hyperbole.
    The number of people in history who have been murdered or persecuted for being gay or even just defying gender “norms” swamps the paltry number of people who have ever faced a court of law for contravening anti-discrimination legislation (so-called “gaystapo persecution” in the parlance of some). Gays are entitled to the same protection of the law as any other human. Any Christian who thinks otherwise needs to read the New Testament again.
    I am a believer in sexual purity as part of the Christian faith…and that means heterosexual purity. But I’m dead against turning back the clock and cringe when I hear Christians advocating as much – it certainly isn’t a Christian solution. Christians have to learn to live with gays in their communities just as the early church of the Roman Empire did. And the GLBT community has to respect conservative positions on sexual morality and that their lifestyle choices will not always be held up as ideal by others in society.
    Western society has more or less come to some kind of social arrangement where we respect religious differences. With the notable exception of some elements of Islam, people of different religions and no religion have learned how disagree without killing eachother. It’s not a perfect arrangement – especially if you’re a Christian who believes we should be turning others to Christ – but it’s the best place for us to work at this point in time. Freedom of conscience after all is fundamental to the Christian faith and we need to think about this in regards to dealing with issues of homosexuality. I have no doubt the Christian culture warriors and fundamentalists will be disgusted with such a notion but the truth is this is how most evangelicals already feel about this issue, though moderate theology seldom makes headlines.
    To date I haven’t encountered any issues in any of the gay-friendly secular workplace that require me to compromise my morals. Perhaps the greatest challenge for Christians in such situations is to treat homosexuals with human dignity and not indulge in making slanderous or crude comments about them. Is the Kingdom any poorer for that?

    Regards,
    Sam Hol

  30. Thanks Sam

    Sorry, but I don’t think I can accept much of what you have to say here. Indeed, many of your remarks simply leave me very puzzled and perplexed. But I will attempt some responses nonetheless.

    These are not mere “extremes”, but what are becoming increasingly common occurrences all over the Western world. And I fail to see how there is anything “over the top” about noting the Orwellian nature of these proposals. They have to do with coercive totalist states seeking to control not just actions, but thoughts and attitudes: exactly what these novels depict.

    And I must call your bluff on these murders. Please provide us with full documentation on all the numbers, the names, the circumstances, and so on. Simply throwing out a reckless charge with no substantiation at all just does not cut it.

    “Gays are entitled to the same protection of the law as any other human.” Yes quite right, and they already have all those protections under law, so what is your point? What the homosexual activists want of course are special rights, as in state recognition of same-sex marriage, adoption rights, and so on.

    Your appeal to the New Testament is somewhat curious as well. How you can get special rights for homosexuals from the NT is beyond me. I don’t see a hint of that anywhere. What I do read there, as but one example, is how Paul singles out homosexuality as a prime example of both sin and judgment (Rom. 1).

    And just what does warning others of proposed draconian laws which would turn Christians into criminals overnight have to do with “turning back the clock”. And just how exactly did “the early church of the Roman Empire” “live with gays in their communities”? Please inform us. By working for same-sex marriage rights? By allowing militant homosexuals and activist governments to make it a crime to discuss homosexuality?

    And what does “killing eachother” [sic] have to do with anything being said here?

    And you go on about how “Freedom of conscience after all is fundamental to the Christian faith”. I fully agree. But the very point of this article is that this is exactly what is under threat by these hate crime laws and other bits of anti-Christian bigotry. Yet you take me to task for even raising these issues. So much for being worried about freedom of Christian conscience.

    And I would be rather intrigued to learn what you mean by “moderate theology”. Given your remarks so far, this sounds like a euphemism for liberal theology, and for simply not accepting the biblical version of events when it comes to homosexuality.

    Should we “treat homosexuals with human dignity”? Of course. Where do I suggest otherwise? And please inform us all how exactly I am “making slanderous or crude comments about them”. I know that telling the truth does not cut it in our PC courts and amongst the radical activist groups, but I would have thought that believers still value truth. Perhaps not all do.

    So as I say, I find your complaints somewhat hard to follow, and rather off the mark. I’m afraid you just have not really convinced me so far.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  31. Sorry, Bill, heterosexuality is not under threat by homosexual activists – or by anyone else, and your article has not demonstrated that it is. Heterosexuality is an essential part of nature which will not and cannot ever be eradicated. The same is true of homosexuality. The vast majority are heterosexual, and a minority are homosexual or bisexual. That’s the way it always has been and always will be. Homosexuality does not exist at the expense of heterosexuality any more than left-handedness exists at the expense of right-handedness or than contraltos and tenors exist at the expense of sopranos and basses.

    A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. Sex between two men or between two women neither changes that nor, as Warwick Marsh implies, is it a denial of it. That is why his comment was a silly non sequitur.

    As a resident in the UK, I have to agree that some stupid things have happened here, such as people being visited by the police and warned that they were in danger of committing a hate crime simply because they had talked ignorant tosh in public about homosexuality. I deplore this. People should be free to talk tosh to their hearts’ content, provided that they do not incite violence. Indeed, I would encourage them to do so, since they thereby show themselves up as the pillocks that they are.

    “…even to suggest that homosexuality is a choice will bring on the wrath of the state thought police.”

    People should be as free to suggest that homosexuality is a choice as they are free to suggest that left-handedness is a choice. The absurdity of the suggestion is sufficient self-refutation. If there really do exist homosexual or heterosexual people who have chosen their orientation, they are so rare that your chances of ever discovering them are minuscule.

    “But what about the many homosexuals themselves who have suggested that choice plays an important role in their lifestyle?”

    This is where things start to get murky. We’ve jumped from an orientation (homosexuality) to a lifestyle. Yes, homosexual people choose their lifestyle just as heterosexual people do. People can, of course, choose a lifestyle that contradicts their orientation, and pressure is often put on homosexual people to do so. No-one is thereby benefited.

    Whether same-sex marriage is an appropriate idea is debatable. My view – and I speak only for myself here – is that being, in one respect, different from the majority, we should never try to hide, deny or apologise for that difference, and therefore we should not pretend that our relationships are the same as heterosexual ones. They are good and fine precisely for what they are and don’t need to be “validated” by being presented as caricatures of heterosexual ones. Gay people should be given the same encouragement as is given to straight people to form stable and committed relationships, and we should have the option of receiving legal recognition for such relationships. As far as I’m concerned, the Civil Partnership legislation that we have here in the UK is satisfactory for this purpose. I regard using heterosexual terminology for these partnerships, e.g. a gay male couple describing themselves as “two husbands”, and aping such tiresome heterosexual customs as “stag nights” as absurd.

    William Fisher, UK

  32. Thanks again William

    Comments are meant to be short (as my rules state), and you raise too many points to properly cover here, although I have addressed these topics elsewhere on this site. So just a few short replies. Of course heterosexuality as such is not going to disappear, and I did not say it was. It is the very idea of heterosexuality which is under threat, including the foolish talk of “heterosexism” as I cite in this piece. It is the fact that simply to defend heterosexuality, and/or to critique homosexuality, is becoming not just politically incorrect but increasingly illegal around the Western world..

    As to choice, I again have dealt with this elsewhere. Plenty of your more honest homosexual mates have made clear the important role of choice, not just in action but in orientation as well. Indeed, of interest, I just read of yet another man deeply into the homosexual lifestyle who has now renounced it and moved on: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article6990013.ece

    And there is no reason whatsoever why governments or societies should confer special rights and privileges on to homosexual relationships. But again, all this I more fully argue elsewhere.

    And of course the great majority of homosexuals are not in the slightest bit interested in seeking “to form stable and committed relationships”. Let me offer just one representative quote from a leading homosexual activist: “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.”

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  33. Bill,
    I have just read some of the arguments here and sadly Murray, William & Sam seem to have completely misinterpreted your article by reading things into it that are just not there. I think that any rational person reading the original article will be hard pressed to find anything that advocated persecuting homosexuals. Once again the reactions to a well thought out and well written article just confirm to me that satan is alive and well in manipulating people’s thoughts to present “fine sounding arguments”. The article you presented was well written, thought provoking and did not in any way allude to the type of nonsense you were being accused of. Keep up the good writing!
    Steve Davis

  34. I think the Orwellian parallels are fair enough. No government should tell its citizens how to think. Whether we support the homosexual lifestyle or not we should stand against this oppression of freedom (and I am sure there are many homosexuals who would abhor this legislation as much as anyone). How about the radical social engineers showing more tolerance for those who disagree with them?
    Conor Ryan

  35. The heated arguments raised show how successful the homosexual lobby has become and the weakness that has inflitrated the Church. First, to be very clear, Jesus died for the forgiveness of all our sins, past and present. He was the final sacrifice and now he is our High Priest in Heaven. This includes all mankind. God’s Grace is sufficent. This includes homosexuals. However, where does that leave us? Does it mean that we are now free to do as we like? To go before the Lord pushing whatever agenda suits us? To sin or offend God? Who is this God that we treat him with contempt?
    The Word tells us much about the wishes of God and sometimes his wishes are not our wishes. The Word on homosexuality is pretty straight forward. If you don’t like food don’t become a chef.
    Too many Churches and Christians want to do things differently. Too many Churches lack the courage to follow the Word.
    To you people who cannot accept the Word, sorry but Almighty God made the rules and if he’s homophobic well he’s big enough to do what he likes. I don’t have the authority to change his rules.
    Steven Eldridge

  36. Interesting, the health risk thing. There has been a well documented explosion of Syphilis among homosexual men all over the Western world (including Australia). This is a disease that had been all but eradicated in most developed societies during the 1980s and 1990s. We in the medical profession are well aware of this epidemic and are trained to act accordingly (eg. screening gay men with syphilis tests) yet it seems the general population is not aware.

    The same goes for the current Australian epidemic of Chlamydia in young men and women under the age of 25, which will lead to a tsunami of infertility treatments in 10-20 years from now, with a massive bill picked up by the taxpayer. A total failure of the “safe sex”/”harm minimisation” ideology. Doctors know about it but it is well hidden from the general public.

    It makes me suspect there is some suppression of information going on.

    Jereth Kok

  37. Thanks for the links Jenny.
    David Squirrell, I have a petition running on the No 10 E-petitions site to remove an amendment to the UK equality bill that would itself remove any exemptions on the basis of religion: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/harryhammond/?showall=1

    In answer to your question, “Why do we not hear their voice articulating opposition (to these godless law)?” perhaps I am being uncharitable, but surely it stands to reason that the sooner we, in the decadent West destroy ourselves, the sooner they can fill the vacuum and thus claim the territory. By pressing the Control key, along with the “F” key, and by typing in either the name Mohammed or Mohammed, you will see, that out of the so far 34,653 names on the above petition, there only three such signatures – and even these are surnames, not forenames. No, the Muslims have to do nothing to take us over, except watch and wait – with the occasional frightener, just to remind us of their presence.

    David Skinner, UK

  38. Murray Bentham, Homo – phobia is the Greek for an irrational fear or hatred of the same (homo in Latin means man, but the Greek means the same). I find it very offensive to be accused of being fearful of gays. But if we are asked to play this daft game of homophiles and homophobes, then I will readily “out” myself, by declaring, yes, I am a proud homophobe. I was born a homophobe; it is in the genes and I have no choice. If you are allowed to play the “can’t-help-it” card, then so am I. That’s called “equality.”

    But the truth of the matter is that to be accused of being homophobic I don’t even have to physically attack, verbally assault, or even raise my eyebrow towards homosexual behaviour. I only have to sit on my hands and remain silent when asked to be in standing ovation mode when celebration and public affirmation of homosexuality is being demanded.

    When Tolerance Isn’t Enough: http://www.johncorvino.com/article_archive/31583.html

    David Skinner, UK

  39. This article reveals that there is an agenda in place by homosexuals and it will touch the very youngest and vulnerable of our society: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521209,00.html

    “But the school board says otherwise, and its attorneys say that if the curriculum is adopted, the parents will have no legal right to remove their children from class when the lessons are being taught.” This reveals that parents who do not wish their children to learn about this topic at this age will be discriminated against and bullied. If I don’t want my child to learn about homosexual activity at that age I WILL EXERCISE THAT RIGHT. In fact – I don’t wish my child to know anything about sexuality at that age.

    BUT….some radical groups are forcing crap down my throat and that of my children. I will not be tolerating this.

    Jane Petridge

  40. Murray Bentham,

    Lord Waddington, in the UK, in May 2009 managed to get the inclusion of a free speech amendment inserted into the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act that now forms section 29JA in the Public Order Act 1986 which reads as follows:

    “In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.” (homophobia)

    Dr Scott Ridley constructed a similar clause for Americans. He said, ”This policy shall not be construed to legitimise or protect any sexual conduct deserving of regulation in the public interest. The right to claim a sexual orientation should not automatically grant a license for limitless sexual conduct.”

    Murray, there are no such creatures, from the outer Homogalaxy. This is planet Earth, populated only by men and women. Are you saying that it is right and proper to criticise the earthling heterosexual for engaging in masturbation, fornication, adultery, sadomasochism, sodomy and same sex, because this is unnatural for him, but that we must not criticise the intergalactic homosexual because all of the aforementioned sexual behaviours and many others, such as scats and fisting are natural to him?

    David Skinner, UK

  41. Bill,
    I think you might have misread my main points so I’ll try again if you’ll permit.
    Respecting sexual diversity (where it involves mutually consenting adults) is not the same as condoning the lifestyle any more than respecting someone’s freedom to worship or not worship is a salute to what they believe. It’s called co-existence and rightly or wrongly it’s a fact of Christian life. The early church in the pagan Roman Empire did not have any mandate (spiritual or earthly) to DICTATE how society should be like an Islamic Caliph might – it had to learn to survive with God’s grace and effect change that way, in accordance with His will and often in the face of others who didn’t want coexistence with Christians. I don’t think this arrangement has changed since Pentecost. This is not an endorsement of gay marriage, adoption or “special rights” (I don’t support such campaignes) – it’s about basic principles of respect.
    If anything, Christians should build on efforts already made to teach people how to respect those they disagree with and to love those society considers “unclean”. If that’s “liberal theology” then so be it, just don’t call it un-Biblical.
    To the extent that the Quebec proposal seeks to control thought, it is a bridge too far – I agree. But until it’s black letter law in most western jurisdictions Orwellian comparisons are a bit thin and no reason to stand against other respect education campaigns…and woe betide any church or Christian lobby that tries to control the way people think.
    On murders – no need to get forensic on this to prove that homophobic violence is real. Let’s just start with the approx. 10,000 homosexuals killed in Nazi death camps (estimates vary, killed for their lifestyles…not their race, politics or religion). Take a look a long list of names since then like Matthew Sheppard, Jody Dobrowski, Gerry Edwards etc. Now compare that with the number of victims and the nature of so-called “gaystapo” persecution…you get my point.

    Regards, Sam Hol

  42. Murray, forgive me if I have understood you, but you seem to suggest that the so called Earthlings, as opposed to those from the outer Homosphere are nothing more than dirty breeders who will cause overpopulation and thus the end of the world. But if you were really concerned about conservation you would take seriously the fact that homosexuals punch way above their weight with regards to spreading AIDs and HIV.

    Scott Lively has this to say about homosexuality and abortion: “In the same manner, the cause of sexual license is advanced by a successful abortion industry. The choice to kill their unborn children morally compromises both men and women (making them unwilling to criticize choices to engage in other forms of immoral behavior), and ensures that the outcome of an unwanted child will not be a lasting deterrent to those who have chosen sexual “freedom” over family. This explains why homosexuals, who by definition cannot conceive children together, are among the most militant advocates of abortion on demand. We can see, then, that at least in a conceptual sense, what seem like separate and independent battlefronts of the culture war are really a single one. The “gay” ethic is a Hydra whose many heads are “gay” rights, serial marriages, abortion, pornography and other sex-related social iniquities. Our task, as people who seek to restore the primacy of the family, is to slay this ideological serpent of sexual libertinism, even as we continue to battle each of its lethal heads. Why have we identified sexual license as the “gay” ethic, when its most destructive aspects seem to be associated with heterosexual behavior? It is because the culpability of “gays” relative to the spreading effects of sexual license in society is akin to that which we assign to drug pushers, even though it is the addicts themselves who destroy their own communities through criminal behavior.”

    Rev Scott Ridley: The Rainbow Redeemed: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/Redeeming_rainbow/Redeeming%20the%20Rainbow%20smaller%20file%20for%20e-mail.pdf

    David Skinner, UK

  43. Thanks Sam

    No, actually I have not misread your previous points. It is because I read them clearly that I so strongly rejected them. And I still do. Your latest attempts fare no better. Consider this: “It’s called co-existence and rightly or wrongly it’s a fact of Christian life.” Sorry, but try telling that to Wilberforce in regard to the slave owners of his day ‘Come on Wilby, slavery is a fact of life. Christians are called to co-exist with slave owners and not rock the boat. Lighten up Wilby. Don’t be so judgmental’. I am glad Wilberforce refused to listen to his critics. He would have refused to listen to your criticisms as well.

    Christians are called to be salt and light, not to just “get along” with every sinful lifestyle and activity around. I am glad Wilberforce took a stand, as are millions of blacks today. And many homosexuals who have been set free by the love of Christ are also glad they did not listen to those who said, ‘just learn to live with it. It is a fact of life’. They were challenged by biblical Christians to believe that change in Christ is possible, and they have passed from death to life. But you just want them to continue in their dead-end lifestyle, and head off to a lost eternity. There is nothing Christlike about that sort of position.

    And again I need to call your bluff here. Please tell us how telling people the truth about homosexuality is not showing them respect. You might as well say that Jesus was being disrespectful when he challenged sinners, pointed out their sin, and said that unless they repent, they will face a lost eternity. But again, the “moderate theology” types so often seem to think that they can be more moral and loving than Jesus.

    As to your last paragraph, no I don’t ‘get your point’ at all. In fact, please spare us this business about the Nazi murders of homosexuals. Once again you simply peddle the pro-homosexual propaganda here. You need to stop immersing yourself in the homosexual PR machine, and become more widely read. The truth is, there were plenty of homosexuals in the Nazi Party, and these so-called persecutions were more about dealing with political enemies. Since you need to read more widely here, why not start with this: http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id12.html

    And you need to do better than use people like Shepard as your examples. He was not killed for his homosexuality. His murderers were high on methamphetamine, and they were after drugs and money, and were not on an anti-homosexual mission.

    So I am afraid you have not moved one inch closer to making your case here. In fact, sadly, all you have done is dig yourself further in a hole, showing us how much you have succumbed to the misinformation campaigns of the homosexual activists.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  44. William Fisher of course most abuse takes place in so called heterosexual marriages, simply because 99.99% of marriages are heterosexual. Duh!!

    The truth is that every since the pervert and monster Alfred Kinsey and the extant, slobbering and decaying debauchee, Hugh Hefner of Playboy, decided to dismantle marriage by separating sex from familial relationships, marriages have gone on the rocks. If you take a beautiful car and remove its wheels, brakes and steering etc and then complain that it doesn’t drive anymore, you need more than a road test.

    David Skinner, UK

  45. Sam no one is threatening freedom of conscience except the liberals who in the name of tolerance are intolerant of moral absolutes. It is the liberals and secularists who are fundamentally changing the hearts, minds and, yes, consciences of our children. These are the extreme, fundamentalist and cultural Marxists.
    God allows us freedom of conscience and freedom of will, but this is not what Christ came to die for. He did not defend to the death our right to say and think those things that would lead to our own destruction.
    Neither do I subscribe to a quote attributed to Voltaire: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” Would I fight to the death to allow Hitler to say the things he had to say about the Jews? Not!!

    Listen to this biased report from the BBC on Newsnight where being a sincere Christian is equated with fundamentalism and extremism. Is the reporter a homosexual? I ask myself: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8497416.stm

    David Skinner, UK

  46. Jenny Stokes’ link was most informative: the homosexual medical association admitting that the sodomite lifestyle has huge health risks, both physical and mental. Tobacco was demonized and taxed for far less. This is a major hypocrisy of the Left.

    Another major hypocrisy was to major on the alleged “hate crime” of Matthew Shepard, who as Bill says was killed in a drug-related crime, but not on the christophobic hate crime against church-going mother-of-four Mary Stachowicz, brutally bashed to death by homosexual Nicholas Gutierrez; or Jesse Dirkhising, a 13yo boy raped and murdered by two homosexuals.

    About the Nazis, they would never have risen to power without the support of the SA (Sturmabteilung) or Blackshirts, led by Ernst Röhm (1887–1934). Yet in his huge volume on Nazi history, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, journalist and historian William Shirer (1904–1993) describes Röhm as ‘a stocky, bull-necked, piggish-eyed, scar-faced professional soldier…[and] like so many of the early Nazis, a homosexual.’

    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  47. So, Bill, you haven’t suggested that heterosexuality could ever be eradicated, but you say that the “idea” of heterosexuality is under attack. What is that supposed to mean? That you’re reducing heterosexuality, which everyone can see is an incontrovertible part of nature, to an idea or concept? Not very plausible, to put it politely.

    As to whether people choose their sexual orientation, I would say that anyone who says and really means that they have chosen their orientation must be bisexual. This is impossible to prove, of course, but sometimes just the facts of common observation are sufficient for any reasonable person who lives in the real world. If a homosexual orientation were the result of choice, those people who didn’t like it would simply “unchoose” it. Do you really think that they’d be resorting in desperation to “ex-gay ministries” and “reparative therapists” who con them into wasting years, even decades, of their lives and thousands of their hard-earned dollars (pounds, euros or whatever) on fruitless attempts to “convert” to heterosexuality?

    William Fisher, UK

  48. Thanks William

    But I am afraid your ‘arguments’ are getting more and more feeble and flimsy with each passing comment. Just why is it so hard to understand that there exist things in the world, and there exist ideas or concepts about them? This is second grade stuff William. Take the issue of marriage. There is such a thing as marriage, and there is also the idea of marriage. Both are under attack nowadays by homosexual activists. And as was made perfectly clear in the article, there are militant activists who are attacking the very idea of heterosexuality, complaining about “heterosexism” and the like. I will no longer belabour so obvious a point.

    And your second response is straight out of the top ten most common lulus of homosexual double speak. It is a classic. Whenever the evidence of homosexuals who have turned to heterosexuality is raised, you guys simply say, “No, they were never homosexuals to begin with. Maybe they were bisexuals”. It is laughable how often this chestnut is trotted out. It sure beats dealing with the actual facts.

    Never mind the many tens of thousands of people who certainly were homosexuals who have since left that lifestyle and have gone on to heterosexual marriage and family life. I know a number of them personally. But just live in denial William. That is always a whole lot easier than dealing with truth.

    And by the way, I think I will take up your tactic. It is a real winner. The next time a clergyman is accused of any sort of abuse, I will use your terrific line: “Oh, but he was never a Christian to begin with. Or at best, he was bi: half Christian and half secular.” What a great strategy. I can get away with murder using that one. Thanks for the tip.

    Seriously, if you cannot come up with something of real substance here, I suggest you go elsewhere to push your rather vacuous and nonsensical remarks. They simply make your cause look all the more desperate and irrational.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  49. Well this topic certainly created a lot of attention, but is that it. To wonder how such political support of homosexual behaviour can attract so much support we the majority have to ask what are we doing about it.
    The Americans are currently worried about their constitution being overridden and some states are even considering seceding from the federal conglomerate. In the main the reasons for this consideration are because laws are being enacted not only contrary to their constitution but also contrary to so-called democratic principles.
    Consider this if we were to have an election here in Australia with both the labour and the liberal parties holding most of the votes then we would expect one of them to be elected. But wait there’s this small vociferous and vocal party that has gained just five percent of the votes by saying that we should all be allowed to indulge in anything we want and it is not politically correct for anyone to say otherwise. They then appeal to the UN that all other parties are either Homophobic or have other hang-ups that are non PC at which point the UN declares them elected and that what they say will now be the norm.
    Effectively this is what is happening in many of the western governments where the extreme minority has all the power and the forcefulness to convince us that we are all either racist, sexist, Homophobic or Lesbophobic or any other phobia I could mention. However now that they are becoming ever more vitriolic in their aversion to the dirty breeders could it be they who are not being P/C and are themselves becoming Hetereophobic. Lets face it once they have come out i.e. blunted any form of conscience concerning their sexual use of the sewerage department, they do tend to regard heterosexuals with far greater hostility than we do them.
    And No I do not hate homosexuals but I do hate their sexual deeds it’s as simple as that.
    in a slightly different vein we (heterosexuals) are often called dirty breeders and the cause of the population explosion. If you know God you will know that there is a plan. To confirm this you only have to witness the evil taking hold in the world exactly as predicted. And yes the Christians will be persecuted and eventually killed as the devil makes war with the remnant of the woman’s seed who love Christ and that too is already happening. Unfortunately because most Christians know the ending of this first stage they are not resisting as forcefully as they should. We know that we will lose this first but inconsequential battle but we will win the greater war. In effect evil doers are consigning themselves to their own predetermined fate but they just can’t see beyond their own delusions.
    And yes here’s another thought since Roe Vs Wade 37 years of open abortion slather in just one country has stopped 52 million babies/people/souls (essentially a fight against God) from entering this world. And surprisingly most of the women who have had them have at least a faint strain of Christian family history. And yes certain faith bigotries did force this on many women.
    However 52 mil babies dead includes thousands of potential doctors, nurses, politicians, bus drivers, archaeologists, artists, teachers, police etc and yes even drug addicts and pimps but also world changers.
    Now consider that during this period other religions have populated at least five times that number and possibly more. So for every possible Christian being killed at birth at least another five or more of some other faith are taking their place. In essence the greatest friend offering the greatest forgiveness and unending love to the reformed Homosexual is the Christian.
    However if they continue down this slippery slope their fate will soon be in far less forgiving hands than ours. A destiny of their own making wouldn’t you agree.
    Dennis Newland

  50. Bill,

    You propose that the documented persecution and murder of homosexuals by the Nazis is “pro-homosexual propaganda” and support your contention by linking to a website which attempts to portray Adolf Hitler as a leftist.

    I will ask you this once, and only once: Are you being serious?

    Heather Bates

  51. I have a request: please write a blog post on how Christians should respond to homosexuality in our communities. No critiques of leftist policy initiatives, no commentary on liberal politics or theology, no fingerpointing at the hypocrisy Islam or other worldviews, just straight forward solutions from Bill Muehlenberg about how Christians should approach this issue, in particular how do we deal with homosexuals that don’t want to change?
    Many thanks, Sam Hol

  52. It seems to be the case that those who are arguing to protect the homosexual life style invariably do so by using terms such as ‘homophobic/homophobe’ etc as a form of ‘verbal barbed wire’, designed to stop people dead in their tracks, get them tied up in dealing with the semantics and so prevent further investigation and expose of this lifestyle which in reality is unnatural, unhealthy and unproductive.

    Emotive name calling seeks to entangle others in a war of words in order to deflect them from exposing the more seemy side of this ‘lifestyle’, perhaps not just from the wider community but from homosexuals themselves. It was interesting to read Jenny Stokes and Jereth Kok’s comments about the increasing health risks associated with the homosexual life style. Sadly it seems that all’s not so gay in the ‘gay’ community.

    We need to continue to cut through the verbal barbed wire of PC speak and speak the truth in love – as Jesus said, if we continue in His word then we are truly His disciples and we shall know the truth and the truth will set us free.

    Michelle Shave

  53. Thanks Heather

    One always gets a great laugh when the secular left feigns surprise and ignorance of obvious truths. But for the sake of other readers, who are open to historical fact and not just pushing ideological agendas, a few restatements of the obvious. Just what were the Nazis about? The name of course completely gives it away: “National Socialist German Workers Party”. That alone should suffice, but just a bit more of the obvious:

    The Nazis of course rose to power on anti-capitalist policies and rhetoric. Hitler, Goebbels and other Nazi leaders made quite clear their hatred of and total disdain for tradition, the bourgeoisie, capitalism, aristocracy, monarchism, and Christianity. Just how exactly does all that equate with the right?

    This was an ideology which treated whole groups of peoples as class enemies, and sought to create a new man and new utopian society – all perennial marks of the left. Hitler was a radical revolutionary who wanted to smash the status quo, not preserve it.

    The Nazis restricted private property, expropriated lands, centralised social life, and nationalised businesses and industry – again, hardly clear indications of the right. But Stalin of course sought to do just this, labelling the Nazis rightwing, knowing the embarrassment to Communism if the truth of the true sibling nature of these two totalist worldviews was more widely known.

    In fact in post-Cold War Russia, a Moscow exhibition compared Stalin and Hitler, pointing out all the obvious similarities between Communism and Nazism. Plenty of other evidence can be produced here. And I could of course suggest some further reading here, but somehow I just don’t think you would be all that interested.

    But given that Nazism has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but is yet another silly diversion and red herring from you guys, we need to get back on song here.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  54. Thanks Sam

    But I have already done this on numerous occasions, so there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. Just a short reply, and not following your artificial and unhelpful restrictions. We have to deal with whole people in their whole setting.

    On a personal level, Christians of course interact with homosexuals as with any other sinners (which we all are). As people made in God’s image, we treat one and all with respect and civility. We show them Christian grace and concern.

    Note that I have not yet used the word ‘love’ here, given how it has been so badly mangled by non-believers and believers alike. The biblical definition of love is of course a far cry from the sentimental and mushy notions so many hold to today. Simply put, biblical love is willing the highest good for the other person.

    Thus the most loving thing we can do for any sinner is show them a better way, and tell them of what Christ has done on their behalf. Christian love is not, for example, telling a drug addict that we respect him just as he is, and won’t dare to suggest he can and should change. That is neither loving nor respectful.

    All sin is an addiction, leading to a lost eternity. The homosexual is addicted to looking for love in all the wrong places, and his sexual addiction, like any other addiction – sexual or otherwise – needs to be broken, and he needs to be set free.

    Thus the most loving thing we can do for the homosexual is let him know that the lie he has believed in is just that – a lie. They do not need to be trapped in their dead-end sexuality, and have to endure this high-risk and dangerous lifestyle. They can be gloriously set free if they so desire. Christ is in the business of setting people free, not keeping them bound in their sins and addictions.

    Sure, the journey to wholeness and freedom is often lengthy and difficult. Why should we expect things to be otherwise? All sinful addictions are tough to overcome, but with God’s help they can be and are. As I say, I know many people personally who were once chained to their homosexuality, but have now been wonderfully and thoroughly transformed by the love of Christ. They are all so glad that people were loving enough to challenge them and show them a better way, and not just let them go their merry way, or make excuses for them and their behaviour.

    And of course if homosexuals do not wish to change, that is their choice. No one is forcing them to change. But this is where the public policy side of these matters comes into play and must be addressed. It is when homosexual activists seek to radically change society, impacting all of us, that I and everyone one else has the right – and duty – to enter into these debates.

    The truth is, there are no compelling reasons why governments or societies should confer special benefits and recognition onto same-sex relationships. And there is no reason why concerned citizens – whether Christian or not – cannot resist the militant demands of radical homosexuals which will affect all of society.

    I have every right to stand up in the public arena for such things as healthy lifestyles, heterosexual marriage, and God’s intentions for human sexuality. Why am I being unloving or un-Christian or even disrespectful to seek to voice my concerns here, and to resist these PC agendas and the radical social engineering being promoted here?

    So we deal with these folk as we deal with anyone else, on personal levels, as well as social, political and legal levels. All aspects must be addressed, and that I shall continue to do, since that is the work I have been called to do. Indeed, it would be great if you spent as much time praying for me and my ministry as you do in publicly attacking it.

    But on this issue it is looking like we may just have to agree to disagree here. Thanks for your thoughts.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  55. Hi Bill

    I think you are quite right to say that the way to love unrepentant sinners is to show them a better way. This is how, as individuals, we should respond. In addition to this, and particularly in a democratic country, I believe Christians also have a duty to love sinners by voting and lobbying for God’s (perfectly just) law to rule over our land.

    Jesus said the same thing in Matt 22: all of the OT law exists to facilitate loving God completely and loving our neighbours as ourselves. It is easy to see how the laws aimed at individuals achieve this (e.g. to be generous to the poor), but we must remember that the law also includes all those given by God for the civil government to uphold.

    Some sins are so damaging to the individual, family and society that it is the most loving thing for the civil government to provide a very strong and appropriate deterrent to this sort of behaviour. The capital crimes listed in the Old Testament by no means contradict God’s love to us or our love to each other; they exemplify this love perfectly. I therefore believe these laws are just as applicable today as they ever were, and it is unloving for Christians to be negligent in seeking their restoration through political means.

    Mansel Rogerson

  56. Thanks Damien

    Yes there is lots of good information out there on all this, even whole books, one of the most recent of which is Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism (Doubleday, 2007). In nearly 500 pages of carefully researched material, he demonstrates the leftist roots of, and connections with, modern fascism.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  57. Regarding Hitler being a lefty, I attended a LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual) conference in London, last week. This was called Schools Out and its aim was promote and celebrate homosexuality in UK schools. At the very beginning whilst we sat and waited for the conference to begin, the names and images of well known gays rolled past us on the screen. They included judges, those in the media, science and all who had or were making a contribution to society. I therefore could not believe my eyes when I saw not Hitler, but the next best thing, Ernst Roehm. Had the organisers of this conference not heard, had they not seen that Ernst Roehm was the most brutal of homosexuals and the founder of the Storm Troopers, the Brown Shirts who became the SS?

    And what about this for a socialist state control inherited from Hitler:
    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/german-home-schoolers-granted-asylum-in-usa/

    David Skinner, UK

  58. The problem with all people who seek to impose a socialist doctrine is that they hide behind socialism whilst actually creating Oligarchies and dicatatorships, i.e. Stalin and Hitler to name just two. Capitalists also hide behind democracy using the disguise of freedom which is just another way of creating and maintaining those who think they are born to rule. Rampant capitalism needs constant feeding by interest rates, inflation and sales to maintian share dividends. ergo vaccine manufacturers made billions during the supposed swine flue Pandemic “not” and the companies came close to monetarily forcing governments to make them compulsory. A feat actually achieved in some areas with the cervical cancer vaccine that has also flopped and may have killed a few err “susceptable” people in the process and recommended for use in girls as young as ten.
    However both capitalism and socialism in their current political forms use wealth and power to subdue real democracy and therefore the people.

    Dennis Newland

  59. May I say, Bill, with regard to what you have just said to Sam’s request: How do we respond to the homosexual? I attended a Gay conference last week. Some might regard this as reckless. But what happened when Jonah went to talk to the people of Nineveh? Was he rejected and stoned? I cannot claim that over a 100 gays repented, or that I was carried shoulder high, but I was surprised at their receptivity, especially when, it was on their own turf. Indeed, the organiser of the event saucily thrust an LGBT T-shirt into my bag. Am I now an honoury member? I ask myself.

    What I am trying to say is that a polarisation has developed with a sense of them and us. A great deal of suspicion and anger has built up. And yet when we as Christians go into their ”Nineveh” we find that they are human beings just like us. My experience is that they are needy people, needing affirmation and above all honesty and the Truth. What surprised me was that I was able to be honest with my views on homosexuality. I did not have to water anything down. Beneath their pride and strutting, there is deep hurt and insecurity. How can it be anything other than this? The real enemy are their political, puppet masters, those cultural Marxists who are manipulating their sense of grievance. I would reserve my “ cold steel” for them.

    We may criticise and judge from a distance but this event taught me that we have to follow the example of Christ and rub shoulders with homosexuals. Or rather we have to identify with the justified thief hanging on one side of the cross, talking to the thief, hanging on the other side of Christ. Let us engage. Love drives out fear.

    David Skinner, UK

  60. Thanks Dennis

    I don’t happen share all your negative views about the free market. But a reminder to all here: this post is about social engineering and the radical homosexual agenda, not competing economic systems. So we need to stay on focus here.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  61. Thanks David Skinner,

    I don’t share a lot of your views but I am heartened by what you wrote. It’s the sort of thing I’ve been wanting to read in a forum like this.
    Throughout my career I have had contact with a lot of GLBT (a product of the industry I’m in and family friends) but have been bereft of much sensible advice from the church as to how to deal with homosexuals on a purely practical basis – how to be a good friend without condoning the choice etc. I am married, heterosexual and an active member in a pretty conservative evangelical church. I don’t need to hear why homosexualtiy is wrong or how destructive it is – as a Christian I already know this. If sensible advice and support is out there, I’ve had to cut through a lot of phobia and paranoia to find it.
    I am politically moderate and shy away from extreme ends of the spectrum. I have obviously come to some different conclusions about how Christians should live in society to a lot of people here but I don’t think that makes me a peddler of any homosexual agenda.
    Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful post.

    Sam Hol

  62. Thanks Damien for this real nugget.
    Michelle Shave, when you say that one of the chief weapons used by the gay lobby is to accuse us of being homophobic and homophobes, well, then let us stand tall and declare proudly, “Yes, we are homophobic homophobes; that’s the way were born and we have no choice.” But let us see that this tactic of theirs is to use shame as a weapon. If we are ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we will be pushed in the direction that we naturally fall. Naturally we do not want to be seen to be identified with the hard sayings of Jesus Christ. We want only to say nice things that won’t disturb. After all aren’t Christians supposed to be tolerant and loving? Isn’t the greatest commandment to treat others as you would have them treat you? Well no it isn’t actually. The chief aim of man is to glorify God and this will most certainly mean pain and suffering.

    C.S. Lewis, talking about the Christian message, said: “….It does not begin in comfort; it begins in dismay…and it is no use at all trying to go on to that comfort without first going through that dismay. In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end. If you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth- only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.”

    Let us hate with an implacable hatred those things that God hates.

    -Revelations 2:6: “But you have this in your favour: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, (who practised unrestrained sexual perversions) which I also hate.”
    -1 Corinthians 6:9 ff: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
    -Proverbs 6:16: “There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.”
    -Romans 12:9: “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.”

    David Skinner, UK

  63. Sam, a phobia is an irrational fear. I have no irrational fear of homosexuals but I have a very rational fear of what homosexuality and Hegelian/Marxist ideology will do to our children, society and of course to homosexuals themselves. That alone should motivate us to get out of our comfort zones, get our heads out of the sand and engage with love and truth, salt and light.
    It is no good tut-tutting self-righteously or wringing our hands behind our church windows. Do we love the lost so much, or are we so lacking in confidence in the message of Jesus Christ, that we keep silent? Let us use freedom of speech whilst we still have it, before it is taken away.

    David Skinner, UK

  64. In regards to William’s comments:

    I think that the strength of sexual feelings and the confusing of that with the fundamental identity of a person is one of the issues at the heart of this subject. Homosexuality is not identity, it is behaviour, and it can be ‘unlearned’, so to speak, as thousands of people can testify, despite the difficulty of this process. Conversely, no matter how hard one tries, one cannot ‘unlearn’ skin colour or gender, even to the slightest extent. This is why I now refrain from calling people homosexual or heterosexual. It just perpetuates the confusing of the two and I also think it can facilitate a greater loss of hope in those who are attempting to exit the lifestyle but have a relapse. Such misleading labels surely cannot help them at all in this process. Better to just call them what they are – men and women, like everybody else. But nevertheless, those who have walked away from habitual homosexual sex exist, much to chagrin of the activists.

    So here is a clear dichotomy between cold-hard reality to the ideas like those of William’s (who actually admits that the idea of ‘former bisexual orientation’ is “impossible to prove”!!!) But there are many who hold to such ideas – all the while acting as if it was they who were the rational and morally superior ones and it is a sad example of the darkness and blindness of mankind. They actually attempt to belittle the idea that someone can walk away from a destructive lifestyle! So, apparently – you can give up drugs – fantastic! Lose weight? No problem. (We’ll even make a TV show about it!) But stop engaging in ‘sex’ with a member of the human race not equipped to complement you sexually? Baaaaad! And the charge of ‘homophobia’ is just a lame attempt to distract attention away from the issue and onto the character of those who are objecting to this outrageous agenda. William’s disparagement of ex-gay ministries and therapists is utterly contemptible as it is attitudes like those which also rob people of hope. Considering the health risks of long-term homosexual behaviour, it seems to me he would happily cheer as people deliberately destroy themselves, with all the collateral damage (family, friends, careers, etc.) that ensues. Never mind also the evidence from history on the consequences of attitudes to sexual morality that have not once been contradicted by any society.

    I’ve never heard Christians ever deny that there are people who perform homosexual acts. In fact, people who distort and misuse their God-given male and female sexuality in this way are mentioned in the Bible several times. Paul even offers them great hope in conjunction with repentance to God – “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed…” (1 Cor 6:11) In stark contrast, the fact that homosexual lobbyists deny the mere existence of certain people and then also claim to be mind-readers (of people they have usually never even met) – never mind also rejecting simple facts about human biology – tells you all you need to know about their view of reality.

    Maybe William needs to first address what level of evidence he considers good enough for an idea to be adopted by him as possible, probable, accurate, truthful, and/or self-evident. Because nothing seems to be getting through that fog, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. (for example, the link from Jenny Stokes is a good start.) Perhaps the same question needs to be put to others who post here who consistently ignore the evidence that Bill presents, marginalize whoever they wish, desire to force their unsubstantiated beliefs on the world and even applaud as they stuff freedom of speech down the toilet. None of them seem to appreciate that if the status quo is maintained a great deal of personal freedom – even for those who want to engage in homosexual activity – will not change. The same cannot be said for what they are selling.

    One final observation on the original article – contrasting the nonsensical notion of ‘homophobia’ with something obviously wrong like racism, why don’t the authorities first try to see if they can eliminate all forms of racist thought in a similar manner? Because somehow, despite the clearly superior motivation, I don’t think that would work either. It probably doesn’t mean they’re not gonna waste copious amounts of taxpayer’s money and ruining lives trying this one though… I mean, removing the ban on donating blood?!? Hands up those who can read Jenny’s link and then imagine they have a child in need of a blood transfusion being happy about that. I’d say the lunatics really are running the asylum, except I think most of the activists aren’t barking mad but actually profoundly evil.

    I would just remind readers here that people die as a result of homosexuality. Read that link. What else do you need to know? btw, I tip my hat to you, David Skinner, for your boldness. That’s not for everybody but I’m supportive you feel called to do that. May God bless you and lives be changed for eternity. I agree with you that the “them and us” mentality has grown greatly. But again I would direct people to reconsider their use of the words homosexual or heterosexual as identity. In terms of sexuality, God only created male and female – and I think that a fuller consideration of that simplicity helps enormously. Behaviour does not define identity. Those lost in this lifestyle are indeed capable of redemption. May they take that opportunity before it is too late forever.

    Mark Rabich

  65. To Mark Rabich – an excellent response. Done with respect to the dignity of all concerned. Well done mate. To David Skinner – do not lose hope mate – There are people all round the world praying for England – you and others like you will stand – why? Because God is able to make you stand. All the best.
    Steve Davis

  66. William Fisher, your post is very careless with the facts. Bill has adequately answered you but I would like to add a few points. It is a matter of record that some homosexuals are not at all happy with their condition and want to change. It would be inhumane to ignore them. Some psychotherapists have devised methods to help them change. There is some controversy over the effectiveness of these therapies but you could say the same about many other psychotherapies devised over the years. They don’t all work one hundred percent nor can you expect them to. After all, psychotherapists vary in their skills and efficiency and clients vary in motivation and ability to learn. And it is not easy to alter deeply ingrained thoughts and habits especially if you are surrounded by a culture that falsely tells you that these are ok.

    On the subject of homosexuals being unable to help the way they are that is plainly false. If you look at homosexuality in terms of actual behaviour and not merely as an abstraction, you’ll see them making any number of choices. Take for example the behaviour called cottaging, of picking up anonymous partners for casual, promiscuous sex in toilets. No one is compelling these men to do this. And they weren’t born that way. They even advertise via the Internet the “best” places to pick up men and boys. It’s all about choice facilitated by a sub-culture of approbation. The behaviour might become compulsive, like smoking, but it starts with a choice.

    John Snowden

  67. “The Western world is well on the way to complete self-immolation.”
    Yes, through the ignorance and stupidity of hatemongers like you. The arrogance and stupidity of you and your ilk is astounding- when it comes down to it, you really need to get a life. I’m afraid, bill, you are what is wrong with modern society.
    Chris

  68. Thanks Chris

    Comments such as yours normally go straight into the trash can, (and believe me, I get plenty of these sorts of comments – many of them being far worse than yours). But I thought I would allow yours through anyway. It serves as a good example of what many of us have been saying about how the other side does business. Indeed, it demonstrates several things. One, it shows us that your side cannot read very well, or at least follow simple instructions, given that my rules require full names here.

    But more importantly, it is a terrific example of how you folks so often operate. Do you present any arguments here? Nope. Do you offer any evidence? Nope. Do you utilise logic, reason or rationality here? Nope. Do you even try to deal with the discussion at hand, or offer a constructive alternative? Nope.

    So what do you do? In typical fashion, you simply lash out with ugly attacks, name-calling, and personal abuse. That is always so much easier than actually making an argument. But it does nicely show the whole world the incredible hypocrisy and double standards of your camp.

    You guys shout about tolerance, love and acceptance until you are blue in the face. But time and time again your comments reveal that you guys can be the most intolerant, unloving and un-accepting people around.

    If you think you can put together an actual argument with a bit of intelligent content, and without all the hatred and abuse, you might try again here. Otherwise, I am afraid you have had your last chance to post here.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  69. Chris,

    How exactly is Bill a hatemonger? Is it because he called attention to a trend to criminalize dissent from a certain fringe group’s political agenda and their attempts to get the state to enforce their will at gun point?

    Ok, if that is what it takes to be a hate monger, I for one would like to see more people concerned about this sort of dangerous precedent rather than less.

    When you put power like this into the hands of government, eventually it ends up in the hands of people you will disagree with, and on that day, the only person you’ll have to blame is yourself and your coreligionists who embraced this sort of dangerous idiocy in the first place.

    Jason Rennie

  70. I;m really sorry you feel this way. It is quite obvious that you and the people who subscribe to these views suffer from a mental disorder and should seek professional help immediately.

  71. Bill you are sick- the fact is the internet allows appalling trash like you to go unchecked. You are obvioulsy not an intelligent or well read man, but seem to think you can spout your umitigated filth without a second thought to who it might impact on.Reason is lost on the likes of you- you are appalling and, again, what is exactly wrong with modern society.

  72. Oh and well down trolling internet boards to make unrelated posts to topics. Just so you can espouse your braindead views. Tv tonight ring a bell? You obviously have too much time on your hands

  73. If you think you can put together an actual argument with a bit of intelligent content, and without all the hatred and abuse, you might try again here. Otherwise, I am afraid you have had your last chance to post here.

    i’m just fighting fire with fir. the fact you canmake a comment like that makes it all too clear that you have no idea what you are saying. You, my friend, are an idiot and a clueless poor excuse for a human being.

  74. Thanks guys

    My apologies to all my readers here. As I mentioned, I normally just bin such comments. And I promise I won’t do it again. But because this fellow so nicely keeps making my case, I have posted his most recent entries. I rest my case.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  75. Chris, abusing Bill won’t make him wrong and it won’t make you right, although you might feel that way. Put up a reasoned argument for your position if you value it. Give it your best shot.
    John Snowden

  76. To Chris, as long as you keep going with unsubstantiated vitriolic character assassinations, you are simply strengthening the claims of abuse and hatred towards anyone who dares to speak about homosexuality in it’s true light. I do not know your background but your reaction is no way to conduct an open discussion of a topic. Bill, believe me, you have absolutely nothing to apologise to anyone for, you are not the one in the wrong here!
    Steve Davis

  77. Clearly I want the government influenced by the likes of Chris.

    /sarcasm

    The sad thing is, there are Christians who want to lay down arms and just be ‘nice’. I would especially respectfully ask Sam Hol to consider the fact that if he truly lives by what he has written earlier – “I have obviously come to some different conclusions about how Christians should live in society to a lot of people here” – and by that I assume avoiding entering into the political arena – that he will only enable shrill hateful voices like the ones above to be heard, since his will not be.

    You can see for yourselves what we’re up against. Pray to God, and don’t let your faith become a spectator sport. I don’t know a single major biblical figure who was more concerned about being “moderate” over pleasing and serving God. The world will hate you, but that’s just how it is.

    Mark Rabich

  78. In support of Mark R’s comment 11.2.10 2pm, I recall a Rumpole story (John Mortimer) which involved Rumpole being nobbled in his defence by a prosecution barrister getting him drunk.

    The conclusion to the story was that Rumpole was too starry-eyed to recognise evil when he saw it.

    Unfortunately a lot of Christians are suffering from exactly that disease – ‘moral myopia’.

    We have enjoyed too much of a comfortable lifestyle, and have become like the nation of Israel, which failed to conquer all of the Promised Land, and allowed some of the Canaanites to remain. This meant that their sinful practices eventually grew back again.

    Sadly, I read Sam Hol’s comments as being in this category – well-meaning but short-sighted – and I want to check myself: am I also allowing sentimentality to obscure my moral vision?

    John Angelico

  79. From its origin comes the idea conscience is not a feeling but a form of knowing – an inward obligation to do ‘good’ or to eschew; evil’ even to one’s immediate hurt. So, if conscience, the power we have of passing moral judgement upon ourselves, is the Word of God within us and whose demands remain constant, those who sin or commit evil will be troubled by its pangs. In their trouble they have only three courses of action.
    They can conform their actions to the moral Law, conform the Law to their actions, or live as best they can with their guilt. The first calls for repentance; the second for rationalisation ideology and ultimately a social activism in which those who feel guilty will unite & try through political means to make ‘wrong’ right. Guilt over abortion is one engine – perhaps the main engine – that pulls the women’s movement; perhaps likewise the homosexual tirades. Subversion is the goal, and ruin the consequence for the country that lacks the will to conform itself to the moral Law.
    Third, for those for whom the primal annoyance of conscience is too powerful and persistent, there is, as among many lauded by our media, the anaesthetic effect of alcohol, drug dependence – and the types of dependence and the drugs involved are almost legion – and suicide.
    These are the only antidotes to conscience.
    Does this ‘explain’ many observed phenomena?
    Arthur Hartwig

  80. We all praise God for you Bill! You are an amazing warrior, an awesome role model for all of us! Your reward will be so great in Heaven! Keep up the good fight, Our Lord loves you!
    Jane Byrne

  81. There are moves afoot to criminalise anyone attempting to help restore someone from being bent to straight. No doubt it will also become illegal to try to change oneself. Doesn’t this remind one of what happens to those who attempt to leave Islam? I see many parallels between Islam and Marxism. Both are controlling ideologies and depend upon fear.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-exgay-files-the-bizarre-world-of-gaytostraight-conversion-1884947.html
    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/02/02/nhs-paying-for-ex-gay-therapy/

    But you can bet your bottom dollar that attempting to change someone from being straight to bent will only be applauded. What is more difficult to change, a man into a woman or to change someone’s sexual proclivity? And yet one can have a gender change on the National Health but it will soon be illegal to be restored to one’s original masculinity or femininity . The consequence is that we can have straight and bent trans sexuals.

    I wish to support Mark Rabich’s comments concerning the mythical existence of homosexuals. I too, when ever possible, try not to use either the nomenclatures “homosexual” or “heterosexual“. In the same way there never was a Darwinian, Aryan master race. Homsexuals and heterosexuals are the creations of Károly Mária Kertbeny, Krafft-Ebing and Karl Heinrich Ulrich, who, during the 19th century, in wanting to validate their own behaviour, tried give sexual orientation an evolutionary, pseudo scientific basis.

    How cruel to put someone into a box, to label them and then to keep them there. The British government, apparently in 2011 are going to get the British population to self-identify from a menu of God only knows how many sexual orientations. I think I shall identify as a welsh cross-dresser, transing into a lesbian poached-egg. The next step of course would be for social and welfare officers to label orphan babies and children in care. It is already happening.

    I believe we have must nothing but compassion for gays and lesbians but as for those who manipulate them for their own ends, the Marxists and ideologues, I believe we must save our powder until we can see the whites of their eyes. Bring it on.

    David Skinner, UK

  82. Regarding homosexuality I apologise for stating the blatently obvious in terms that may be too blunt for most.

    Firstly, there is no way that any person’s obsession with the human waste passage could even be equated with love and marriage, in spite of all the verbal semantics engaged in by some.

    Secondly, to say that this obsession with the human waste passage is genetically based is akin to arguing that certain people are genetically wired to compulsively carry milk bottles under their armpits, or genetically wired to place cloths pegs on their nose.

    Thirdly, even nature itself is resistant and opposed to sexual pomiscuity and homosexuality, and that is exactly why genetal infection, disease, and even AIDS itself is a “natural” outcome of such practices and conduct. This reality no one can refute; homosexuality and pomiscuity produces and spreads AIDS, and AIDS kills people – end of story!

    Sorry, someone had to say it – that’s the reality!

    John Heininger

  83. The problem we have with democratic societies is that in rececent years minority groups hold the balance of power instead of the old black or white choices. With say a 4% gay population the major parties try to win favour with them just for their own agenda wthout really thinking of the moral importance of any particular issue. To have an opinion of the issue instead of the people directly is to walk a fine line. Remember it is the sin and not the sinner that we oppose.
    Keep up the good work Bill.
    Thanks,
    Kevin Christensen

  84. Thanks Kevin

    One qualification: the percentage of homosexuals is really between 1 and 2 per cent. So we are allowing a tiny minority to hold the rest of society to ransom on some of these issues.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  85. Homosexuality is gaining public acceptance. Apparently in Britain only 36% of the population are still opposed to their lifestyle:
    http://www.pinke.biz/news/5500/Britons_Becoming_More_Tolerant_Towards_Homosexuality

    The 1-2% of the population who identify as gay are seen by many as being at the cutting edge of ‘personal liberatio’n. They are the avant-garde of breaking down old taboos and restraints stopping us from fulfilment. Endorsing their behaviour justifies our own lack of inhibitions regarding abortion, sodomy, masturbation, sado–masochism, promiscuity, adultery and even paedophilia. As I heard one gay man say, “Our liberation is your liberation.” In other words it is only ‘prejudice’ and ‘neurosis’ that stops people from affirming and even copying their behaviour. A nation is going to have to face up to its own behaviour, as it says in Romans 2, before it is going to be able to combat this evil. Humanly speaking there does not seem much likelihood of that happening.

    David Skinner, UK

  86. On the 19th of November I sat in on an all day conference, held in the British Museum London. This was called the pre launch to the 2010 LGBT History Month which is running in schools in the UK, even as I now type. The purpose of the event is to encourage teachers to bring school children to the British Museum, so as to show them evidence that homosexuality and lesbianism has always been with us and is therefore normal. What the organisers did not highlight was that the busts of Hadrian, the Roman emperor being juxtaposed with his boy lover, Antinous, plus another exhibit, the Warren cup, were examples of pederasty and unnatural acts. There was no mention of the fact that Hadrian has also conducted the first holocaust of Jews, way before Hitler.

    The following link is a recording of the entire afternoon conference. But just to listen to one of the contributors will show how far depravity and disorder have been officially sanctioned in Britain. The director of the British Museum, Neil Mcgregor, is also a homosexual. God have mercy on us.

    http://www.lgbthistorymonth.org.uk/events/preHM2010.htm

    David Skinner, UK

  87. Sounds like Britain will be gay and Muslim in the near future. Hang on, how does that work??!!
    Jane Petridge

  88. Thanks Jane. Like the pharisees, who were hot on the law for others but the worst of hypocrites in their own lives, so is the case of with Islam. When Churchill, referring to Islam, said, “A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement,” I believe he knew what he was talking about. Homosexuality will be the cause of our collapse, thus allowing Islam to fill the vacuum.

    David Skinner, UK

  89. Thanks Bill for this warning of the possible shape of things to come and the challenge and encouragement to do something about it and so be the salt and light Jesus calls us to be.

    Also thanks David for your comments and the quotes – david skinner – 10.2.10 / 8pm
    I agree and I think maybe we’re saying the same thing. My point, though maybe not too clearly expressed, was what you are saying. We mustn’t be intimidated by name calling as so many people seem to increasingly be. Being labelled a homophobe or a racist is seen as almost the cardinal cultural sin, the ultimate PC transgression and most people will do somersaults to avoid being so ‘labelled’. I’m saying to cut through or diffuse these ‘attacks’, agree with them as you suggest. I shared with someone recently when discussing Islam, that yes I am a racist – I’m against any race that wants to wipe out mine or any other race in order to extend their ‘religion’. I won’t kill them or wish them harm. I will seek to reach out in love and share with them the truth and hope of the Gospel but I will speak out about what I know to be wrong and refuse to be PC – but I will seek to be TC – Truth Correct.

    And yes I also believe we should reach out to homosexuals in love. My husband and I awhile back went to a ‘gay’ parade to hopefully be a Christian presence. We ended up supporting a Christian friend we met there, by carrying one of the placards he’d made and walked up the cleared road lined with people, ahead of the ‘parade proper’ arm in arm, declaring along the way to individuals/couples, that God loved them and He loved them enough to warn them about the dangers of pursuing a homosexual lifestyle. We were met with amusement, scorn, abuse and curiosity but later we had the opportunity to talk to one young man who approached us afterwards and wanted to know more and we were able to share Jesus with him. It’s not always easy to get out of your comfort zone, but it’s worth it.

    PS Regarding ‘homophobia’ – I read online the testimony of a now adult child raised by a same-sex couple say something to the effect that – ‘it’s not people being homophobic that are the problem – nature itself is homophobic’ – a pretty insightful comment.

    PPS Thanks too Mark for your comments – Mark Rabich 11.2.10 / 8am – about not labelling people as homo/heterosexual and ‘Homosexuality is not identity, it is behaviour’ – this brings fresh insight into what can be a difficult area to deal with, encouraging greater sensitivity and hope. Thanks

    Michelle Shave

  90. Thanks Mark Rabich, being politically moderate is fun – it means you get called a deceived heretic by the Christian right and a retrograde bigot by the secular left. You should try it some time.
    Trust me, there’s nothing nice or comfortable about it if you’re serious about your convictions. It’s got nothing to do with appeasement or being apolitical. In this context, it’s about speaking up against something I know I don’t agree with, even if it is packaged by its proponents as being “Christian truth”.
    You’re right when you say “there are Christians who want to lay down arms and just be ‘nice’”.
    I know plenty of conservative Christians who privately cringe when they hear some of the extreme things that have been said by the likes of James Dobson et al or perhaps some things written on this blog….yet they care too much about the body of Christ to let political differences cause divisions.
    Proudly Christian and proudly politically moderate, Mark. No apologies for that and don’t for a second think it would stop me telling anyone with a mind to talk politics “I think you’ve gone too far”.
    Don’t talk down the moderates – in the end, we’re the ones that determine the election results.

    Cheers,
    Sam Hol

  91. Thanks Sam

    So James Dobson, in his defence of marriage and family, is an ‘extremist’? Might not that tell us something about you and your supposed ‘moderation’?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  92. This might sound simplistic but doesn’t it all boil down to the fact that we and our children are being forced into accepting a lie, many lies. It is truth that is being turned into whatever a person wants; in this case whatever our political masters say.”O.K.” Well, no; it is not “OK.” As Christ was tempted to turn stones into bread, we are tempted exchange the truth for a lie. Thank God, we have been given the Word. And contrary to what many say, Christ had a great deal to say about sex.

    David Skinner, UK

  93. Dear Bill
    Thanks for standing strong for truth and what is right. There is only one right way, that is Gods right way.
    Mrs Judith Bond

  94. Sam Hol

    “I know plenty of conservative Christians who privately cringe when they hear some of the extreme things that have been said by the likes of James Dobson et al or perhaps some things written on this blog…”

    Sorry, but I need to correct you on this. People like James Dobson are preaching true to the Christian/Catholic faith. The ‘conservatives Christians” you speak of are actually “Christians” who do not essentially follow Christian teaching on this matter. If so, they would not be reacting in such a manner. They have to struggle with their own conscience on this one.

    I detest any form of sexual sin and homosexuality just happens to be one of them. It is, to be straightforward, sickening and physically harmful behaviour.

    Not once has any blogger on this site who is prepared to praise homosexuality yet addressed the issue of the medical risks regarding homosexuality.

    I assure you, I would fear for my health if I were dabbling in ‘homosexual sex’.

    Jane Petridge

  95. Hi Sam, let me ask you a few questions.

    1. Whose voice will be heard by politicians if extremists like Chris follow their modus operandi and you follow yours?

    2. Please name for me those major figures in Biblical history that were ‘politically moderate’ like you. Because when I think of guys like Moses, Jeremiah, David, Daniel, John The Baptist, Paul and others, it seems to me they caused a great deal of upheaval during their time. The phrase “proudly Christian (or Israelite) and proudly politically moderate” is one I simply can’t imagine being said by them. I would rather have them as my role models, wouldn’t you?

    3. When the ‘gay’ agenda (ie. ‘marriage’, teaching children about homosexual acts, donating blood, etc.) gets forced upon people by lawmakers, should Christians get involved before it gets that far that they get fined, lose their jobs or thrown into jail? You can lookup Ake Green, David Parker and Peter Vadala for starters. And where is your outrage about the possibility of blood transfusions having their safety diminished?

    In your first post you mentioned ‘equality’ as if that had not yet been reached. That tells me all I need to know. It’s pretty obvious your desire of appearing politically sophisticated is being used against you and you have discarded truth in this issue as any compass worthy of heeding. And what would happen if I were to detail for you the risks of homosexual sex for transmission of HIV compared to normal sex? Is that ‘cringe’worthy enough for you? I get the impression all somebody needs to do is make the truth unpopular and you will ‘moderate’ your view. That’s lame. People will die, don’t you care?

    If I may rephrase your last words: Don’t talk down the truth. It is what it is without regard to politics and will determine a lot more than just election results, but actually affect people’s lives greatly. What is more important?

    Mark Rabich

  96. Strange thing, Mark – I had a re-read of my first post and couldn’t see the word “equality” anywhere. You sure it was me you’re quoting or a straw man (there seem to be a lot of them around recently)? I read the words “respect” and “human dignity”. Perhaps a what-if test for everyone here to put to themselves – your homosexual neighbours ask you out for coffee one day. No doubt many of you would accept. I wonder how many wouldn’t and what their reasons would be. No need to be public about your answer – just think about it and be sure of your motives.

    But because you asked me, Mark:
    1. Chris and his modus operandi? You mean his missives on internet forums? Hateful trolling is not restricted to people on his side of the debate. I don’t intend to compete with any of these people on their terms. Forgive me for my lack of moral outrage but I’m not going to burn with righteous anger every time I see a bit of hateful scrawling on a lavatory wall.
    2. That’s really begging the question – you might as well ask how many would call themselves “politically conservative”? Such political labels are thoroughly contextual to a time and place as they relate to policy and ideology with respect to the broader body of thought. They are not measures of faith or their relationships with God, which are more what you’re referring to in reference to these characters. I prefer to look at these characters’ faith, lives and decisions for inspiration. It would be interesting to talk about how we would define these characters’ political postures in the context of their day but to be dogmatic about it is dangerous and pure isogesis.
    3. In relation to matters you’ve raised – HIV, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience are all important issues. Again, forgive me for not having a hot head about it as I think they’re very complex issues and I don’t think that is going to solve anything. On one thing though, am I outraged at the western church’s lukewarm response to the millions of Africans that die of AIDS each year – be it as a result of homosexual or heterosexual sex ? You bet.

    On your last point – I agree: truth is more important than politics. But somehow I doubt such a principle will cause anyone here to abandon their earthly political preferences in a hurry. The thing is there seems to be a lot of assumptions made about my Christian beliefs based purely on political preferences.
    Which leads me to address Jane Petridge’s point: I do disagree with many of James Dobson’s approaches to policy. If you think disagreeing with him makes me a heretic or brings into question whether I or others are Christians then you’ve only proven my point. How about letting God make the call on that?

    Ok, you’ll be pleased to know that I’m getting a bit weary of this thread. Feel free to have as many last words as you wish, I’ll be quietly shifting my attention elsewhere.

    Goodnight,

    Sam Hol

  97. It seems to me that we spend time fighting amongst ourselves and even demonise one another but it is only when we go like the reluctant Jonah or the willing Christ, out of our comfort zones, to the lost and meet them where they that politics disappears. Here we are faced with either declaring who we are or like Peter in a weak moment, denying who he was: http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=23186

    As for facts about homosexuality: http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=pUzt8U7HQrQ

    David Skinner, UK

  98. Sam, perhaps you meant to say “Pat Robertson” rather than “James Dobson”? I don’t think I’ve ever heard Dobson say anything remotely “extreme”. In fact he’s quite the moderate himself in some ways, which would put you well and truly on the left if it really was Dobson you had in mind.

    Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

  99. Hi Sam (if you happen to read this),

    “Gays are entitled to the same protection of the law as any other human” sounds like ‘equality’ to me. But my apologies for using it like a direct quote – I should’ve framed it as a summation, which I think is fair and hardly a “straw man”. You clearly think there is something unequal about the current situation, otherwise you would never have used that phrase.

    FYI, my workplace (23+ years) has a disproportionally high number of those who practice homosexuality – some of them have been my bosses or trained me on specific tasks. So what exactly is your point about having coffee? What we’re discussing here bears little relevance to everyday dealings with individual people but about radical agendas to fundamentally change societal norms for everybody. This is not mutually exclusive with treating people with “respect” or “human dignity”, btw – why would you think it is?

    1. My point with Chris is that it is people with his level of motivation who will beat down the authorities until they get their way. It’s already happened many times throughout the world in recent decades. Of course I agree, blog posts matter little, but unfortunately activists don’t stop with blogs. My problem is that you seem to be OK about people with that level of motivation and vacuous argumentation influencing the direction of politics unchallenged, regardless of the fact that it will kill people. You appear more concerned with being “moderate”. I don’t think that’s anything to display “proudly”.

    2. You’ve missed the point. (But then maybe I wasn’t being clear enough.) I wasn’t thinking of party affiliation or specific politics (you seem to be stuck on that more than me), merely the fact that because of their faith they were prepared to rock the boat, something you seem to be at pains to avoid because that would somehow “cause divisions” or not be “moderate”. I could care less about being “politically conservative” as much as I care about being faithful to God. You seem to care more what other people think. I’m simply pointing out that that’s not the pattern of major biblical figures and is indeed usually a very important factor in why they became ‘major biblical figures’.

    3. How “complex” is it to advocate those simple principles that save lives, Sam? Just where are coming from and why are you muddying the waters like this? Homosexuality often kills. Even more often it causes sickness. It is always infertile. That’s not complicated. Contrary to you, I think that that information would “solve” plenty and I don’t see how this would infringe upon freedom of speech or freedom of conscience to make it more widely known to the world. It is, after all, just truth. I just don’t see how your approach is going to do anything else but allow those with darkened consciences go about their business without being challenged or stopped.

    Also, I find your outrage at the situation in Africa in regards to AIDS a bit odd. I have a somewhat different view. For example, there’s more than enough evidence now to condemn the ‘condoms and education’ idea as a failure and the moral-based programs such as the ABC (Abstain, Be faithful, or for those who refuse to do either, use Condoms) one in Uganda as much more successful. What do you think Western churches are more likely to be supporting? I can remember the unhinged response at the Pope last year for daring to question the prevailing secular mindset about Africa even though what he was saying just sounded like common sense. I would agree of course there’s always more that can be done, but I get the very strong impression that you should check your sources more carefully.

    FYI, I don’t actually belong to any political party because I don’t think I am called to do that. Others here have a different view and I respect that some of that has to do with personal calling too. So you’re just making assumptions about my “earthly political preferences” and quite possibly many others here. But I do think that there is a minimum that any Christian should be prepared to do – to speak up from biblical principles, even if it is viewed as unpopular. Furthermore, it’s clear some parties more closely resemble Christian ideas than others. One only needs to look at the list of Australian Greens policies detailed as Principles, Goals and Measures (check Bill’s recent post) to see how far removed they are from Christianity.

    It seems to me that you think your position allows you to maintain the status quo of society because you think the ‘moderates’ won’t allow big changes if they are tabled. Allow me to point you to the 2008 Victorian Abortion Bill where 90% of submissions to the VLRC pleaded against it. What did we get? – only a minor detail less than open slather where the unborn are unprotected by law for the full 9 months. Pardon me if I don’t think much of the likely future success of your approach.

    And your point about disagreeing with Dobson making you a “heretic” is just pure theatre – I never said anything of the kind, neither did anybody else here. I merely point out that it was you who used him as an example of someone prone to be “extreme”, something quite unjustified given that so much of his work is informed by Christianity. God has already made “the call” on many issues (including homosexuality) – so the standard any Christian should employ here is to see how closely what Dobson says conforms to what the Bible says, not caring so much whether something makes you uncomfortable. All that’s being pointed out here is that you appear to be using the wrong yardstick.

    Finally, your last comment deserves a mention concerning the right to reply. Your tactic seems to be a Head you win (I don’t reply so you get last comment), Tails I lose (I do reply, but you’ve gone) proposition. This is not a proper way to conduct oneself in my view. My two cents. I would usually read what you wrote even if I didn’t reply. It wouldn’t bother me if you change your mind and reply this time either, btw. But thanks for the challenging discourse.

    Mark Rabich

  100. Fair enough, Mark. Being as compulsive as I am I was always going to read the replies. My apologies if it sounded like I was trying to water down anyone’s right of reply – just trying to tie things from my end as we could argue like this forever and I’m not sure it’s helpful. So take your reply as read. For what it’s worth it’s thought provoking but I’d better leave it at that!

    Thanks and take care for now,

    Sam Hol

  101. Hey Bill, Thanks for your article. It’s so good to see Christians standing up for righteousness and not being afraid to speak on important issues!!

    In regards to “Hate Crimes” laws which are currently under review at this stage until september in Victoria. With the recommendation that “harassment be defined as ‘conduct that offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person”. I’ve signed a petition, if anyone is interested here’s a link:
    http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/mccnphatecrimesreview/

    More info at salt shakers also (you’ll need to scroll down the page for the information)
    http://www.saltshakers.org.au/take-action/campaigns

    Keep up your good work Bill!!

    Many Blessings,
    Elisha McKenzie

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: