CultureWatch

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

Thinking About the Greens

Feb 15, 2010

The weekend by-election held in Victoria resulted in a huge 12 per cent swing away from Labor to the Liberals. The Greens also made some gains, and have been stating that they are the wave of the future, with voters growing tired of the major parties.

Whether this in fact is the case remains to be seen. But with both a Victorian state election and a Federal election due at the end of this year, the Greens will certainly be fielding more candidates. Thus the electorate needs to be aware of just what they will be getting if they decide to vote for the Greens.

If this were merely a bunch of tree-loving folks who want to help us have a nice environment and such things, there may be a case for preferring them. But the Greens of course are far more than that. Indeed, they are involved in a whole range of radical politics and social engineering policies.

The easiest way to see why we should think twice about voting for the Australian Greens is to simply read their policy pages on their website. If anyone doubts the extreme leftist nature of the Greens, a few minutes reading will quickly dispel those doubts.

Indeed, in a short article like this, the best way to demonstrate the ultra-radical nature of this Party is to simply let their own words get a hearing. Thus what follows are large slabs taken directly from the Greens’ own website. It makes for scary reading.

Being a hard-left party with a homosexual leader, it is not surprising that their position on issues of gender and sexuality reads like a wish-list from the radical homosexual activist lobby. The following Goals and Measures come from their “Policy D8: Sexuality and Gender Identity”.

“Goals
The Australian Greens want:
6. legal and social environments free from harassment, abuse, vilification, stigmatisation, discrimination, disadvantage or exploitation on the basis of sexuality or gender identity.
7. the legalisation of marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sexuality or gender identity.
8. de facto relationships to have equal status in law and government policy regardless of sexuality and gender identity.
9. access, regardless of sexuality and gender identity, to adoption, fostering, artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation procedures.
10. the education system to provide age-appropriate information about the diversity of sexuality.
11. access to the full range of medical and health services required by people with needs related to their sexuality and gender identity.”

“Measures
The Australian Greens will:
12. legislate to remove discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender or Intersex (LGBTI) people in federal legislation.
13. require governments and their agencies to consult with LGBTI communities and representative groups on the development of policies and programs that affect LGBTI people.
14. initiate national anti-discrimination public education campaigns.
15. legislate to allow marriage regardless of sexuality or gender identity.
16. introduce legislation to ensure fair and equal treatment under Commonwealth law of all relationships regardless of sexuality and gender identity.
17. support nationally consistent age of consent laws.
18. remove convictions for consensual homosexual acts from legal records.
19. end the inappropriate application of offensive behaviour, indecent behaviour, ‘promotion’ and incitement laws to non-heterosexual acts.
20. fund services to support and protect LGBTI youth, in particular suicide prevention, peer support, coming out, counselling, and housing services and programs.
21. establish intersex as a gender recognised by the legal system.
22. support the provision of accurate information, counselling and referral for individuals with, and parents and carers of, infants with intersex conditions.
23. support gender assignment for people born with an intersex condition being made only when they are able to express personal sexual identity.
24. support the granting of political asylum on humanitarian grounds to people persecuted in their own countries on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity.”

There it is – the entire homosexual agenda all in one fell swoop. You have it all here: homosexual marriage and adoption rights, the targeting of our children for homosexual propaganda, and tax-payer funded campaigns to promote the homosexual lifestyle.

Of course the Greens are also fully in favour of the killing of unborn children. Abortion rights are mentioned in various places. For example, in the “Policy D5: Women” we find this measure: “20. ensure that all women have access to legal, free and safe pregnancy termination services including unbiased counselling.”

And in “Policy A7: Population” we find this measure: “15. ensure that Australian family planning programs, both domestically and overseas, are adequately funded to deliver services in the context of reproductive health programs which increase the power of girls and women to determine their own reproductive lives, and increase the understanding of men of their reproductive responsibilities.”

Of course “family planning programs” is a euphemism for abortion, and the Greens want this all tax-payer funded, both here and overseas.

The Greens are also into radical globalism, with a heavy emphasis on unelected and unaccountable bodies like the UN. Consider what it says in “Policy E5: Global Governance”. It lists these six points under its section on Principles:

“1. global governance is essential to meet the needs of global peace and security, justice, human rights, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability.
2. effective means of global environmental governance are needed to halt and reverse the current trends towards environmental decline across the globe, especially with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to mitigate climate change.
3. the system of global governance must be reinvigorated.
4. major structural reform is needed to provide stronger, more effective and more representative multilateral institutions.
5. the leading role of the United Nations (UN) in the maintenance of international peace and security must be recognised and respected by all countries.
6. the international financial institutions that govern aid, development, trade, and transnational financial movements require extensive reform to enable them to provide global economic justice.”

All of which means less national sovereignty, less individual freedom, and more one-world government. We get more of the same in “Policy E4: Human Rights”. Here are some of the measures mentioned:

“7. adopt Australia’s international human rights obligations into domestic law and enact an Australian Bill of Rights.
8. fully resource the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, expand its mandate to reflect the full range of Australia’s international human rights undertakings and reinstate its capacity to determine Australian human rights complaints.
17. support, through the United Nations framework, socially just reform, including democratic and economic reforms, in countries where governments are engaged in human rights abuses.
18. promote and protect the role of the International Criminal Court and encourage all nations, particularly the US, to ratify its statute.
19. ratify all United Nations Human Rights Conventions, including their optional protocols.
20. progress the conclusion of an optional protocol to facilitate the examination of individual complaints of violations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
21. oppose the death penalty in all cases and support campaigns for its abolition.”

Once again, it is all about unrepresentative globalist bodies taking over from nation-states, including all the foolish groups we have long been fighting against, such as the ICC and the various human rights bodies, and the dangerous proposals, such as a Federal Bill of Rights. And of course get rid of the death penalty while you are at it.

There is really very little from the agenda of the radical left that is not found here. The Greens have clearly aligned themselves with the far left, and if elected in sufficient numbers, could cause real damage to this nation and its Judeo-Christian principles. What more can be said? Think twice before voting Green.

greens.org.au/policies

[1271 words]

46 Responses to Thinking About the Greens

  • Bill,

    Thanks for the rundown on Greens policies. Concerning, to say the least. I voted Greens in a recent election, simply because I wanted a minor party with some presence in the upper house. I regret that now, as I have grown in my understanding of Green politics. I would never vote for them now.

    Interestingly, Greg Barber, Greens MLC, was a guest lecturer in a Victorian Politics unit I did at university. He was less than convincing, I must say. He lacked substance, almost entirely. My peers asked some really good questions, and he answered with “Well, look at what we did at the City of Yarra….(blah blah blah)”. He also talked a lot about ‘values’. I didn’t get to ask him exactly what he bases his values on, and why. We ran out of time.

    My tip, though, is that the Greens will be replaced at some time in the future, by another left-wing party. They won’t have much traction soon, as the same thing will happen to them as to the Australian Democrats. They’ll lose their shine. We can only hope, I guess.

    Simon Kennedy, Victoria

  • In the same way that the current Labor Government is ‘branding’ Abbot as ‘Far Right’, which he clearly is not, there needs to be a concerted effort to brand the Greens and certain parts of the ALP as ‘Extreme Left’.
    Chris Dixon

  • Ironic that the Greens will support the removal of the death penalty for convicted criminals but are quite happy to murder innocent babies before they’ve taken their first breath.
    Glen Grady

  • Thanks Glen

    Yes very good point indeed.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • It will be even harder for professing Christians to stand as Green party candidates given such a christophobic official platform. But they will try anyway—we’ve had them on this site before.
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • Is there ayone out there yet who has not heard the exppression “watermelon” – green on the outside, red on the inside?

    Stan Fishley

  • Glen Grady
    You have said exactly what I was thinking. Remove the death penalty for murder but keep it for the most innocent. Hypocrisy at it’s worst.

    This information needs to get out there.

    Thanks Bill

    Dennis Newland

  • The popular stereotype of Greens as meddlesome, sometimes valiant tree huggers needs to be checked against actual policies. Thankyou for reminding us that the movement is sinister.

    Yes, Stan, I know that watermelon metaphor.

    John Snowden

  • Thanks Bill,

    Keep up the good work in providing information. I would like this sort of info published in the daily newspapers.

    Jane Petridge

  • Thanks Jane

    It is all a matter of public record – one simply needs to go to the Greens website. But given that the worldview of so many in the mainstream media is identical to that of the Greens, no wonder they will not volunteer to make this widely known. They would rather keep it quiet and not rock the boat.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • “the targeting of our children for homosexual propaganda”

    You do realise you can’t make people gay, right? People either are or aren’t.

    What would your policies be regarding homosexuals Mr Muehlenberg?

    Matthew Waterhouse

  • Hi Bill
    It is so important in this day and age to stay informed of what different movements believe – and promote – which is why your articles are so valuable.
    However, it is also important to add that the greens are not just at the radical left of politics – they are also underpinned by a religious belief which is antithetical to Christianity.
    Last year, my wife were in Vancouver when we saw a car, a VW bug, that was highly decorated with all sorts of items glued to its outside. Naturally, it was a crowd puller and lots of people were taking photos. However, seeing “Gaia” painted on the outside, I was not interested realising what was being promoted, but my wife had a chat with the owner who eventually gave her a pamphlet – the only one I saw him give away.
    When she sat down, I told her it was a new age thing and she was about to hand the pamphlet back, but I kept it so that I could read what was being pushed.
    Apart from several references to “I AM” (capitalised), the pamphlet contained the following:
    “The counter part to Gaia, ‘Mother of All,’ is the Green Man. He is Father Earth, the ancient pagan God of Vegetation and Fertility, the fruitful seasons. The Green Man symbolizes irrepressible life and the union of humanity with the vegetable world. After a long period of silence, the Green Man speaks to us again with the emergence of the green movement. He challenges man to work hand in hand with women and the Goddess, to heal our wounded earth and to find the truth of spirit and matter a flowering beauty of balance and peace.”
    It’s a shame some Christians who get attracted to the more admirable aspects of the green movement (basically, the bits about being good custodians of what we have been given) do not do more homework to see just what belief systems they are supporting.
    Roger Birch

  • Thanks Mathew

    Actually, just as some people have left the homosexual lifestyle, so some people have been seduced into it. I know some of them personally.

    As to your last question, why not ask what my policies are regarding stamp collectors or banjo players? No policy is needed for homosexuals as individuals, since they have the very same rights that everyone else has. But what so many are after, of course, is special rights, such as same-sex marriage rights. But there are no compelling reasons at all for governments to grant such special rights.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks Bill for cutting a hole in the watermelon and showing us the colour on the inside. Bob Brown is a formidable leader, the MSM seek his opinion on every topic and subject they cover. On the other hand we have three Christian/conservative parties all vying for a place in the sun and splitting the Christian vote. The CDP, DLP and Family First should be encouraged to amalgamate. We need one strong conservative party that truly represents that side of politics.
    Des Morris

  • Hi Matthew,

    This is deliberately cryptic for most readers of this blog, and might be a dumb question and completely off-topic, but If I mentioned things such as a cloister bell and a gold-edged badge, would that have any meaning for you? (Apologies if it doesn’t, but I grew up with certain influences and you sparked my interest in something… for those wondering, it’s nothing sinister, just trying to keep things civil.)

    But even if that question means nothing to you (in which case ignore it), I hope you’ll appreciate that our genes determine we are either born male or female and that what we do with that sexuality is mostly down to the environment we were raised and our own choices.

    As Bill has stated, this is greatly evidenced by those who have left the lifestyle – even some who were entrenched in it for many, many years – and I’m sure that before this they would’ve agreed with your statement (“People either are or aren’t.”) But if the cause really was solely genetic as you seem to be saying, that just simply couldn’t happen. Those people actually exist and number in the thousands. What does that say about what you believe? Please consider that.

    Mark Rabich

  • The only problem with your suggestion Des is that the FFP claims to be an explicitly “secular” political party and as such could not amalgamate with either the CDP or DLP as these two parties claim to base their policies on biblical principles.

    As for the Greens, no discerning Christian could possibly vote for them. As others have said above, they are the “watermelon party” – green on the outside but red (socialist) and pink (homosexual agenda) on the inside.

    The list of policies highlighted by Bill could be very useful. I will recommend to the CDP that it adopts policies of exactly the opposite of all that the Greens propose. This in itself should ensure a very sound policy platform!

    Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

  • Does the 7th goal includes adult consenting incestuous couples?
    Francis Kesina

  • Thanks Francis

    Kinda sounds that way, doesn’t it. Indeed, why aren’t they being consistent here? Since they want to gut marriage of its very core, then why still have silly restrictions on numbers? What if three people really love each other? Or four?

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi Bill
    There are several references to watermelon greenies here, but I like Lord Monckton’s comment about Traffic Light people – they claim to be green because they’re too yellow to admit they’re red!
    Roger Birch

  • I used to laugh at how the supposedly environmental Greens and their voters mostly congregated around inner city areas in Victoria. Evidently those living in the country/bush either didn’t see the environmental degredation or really didn’t think the Greens party were as environmentally concerned as they made out.
    Damien Spillane

  • It was announced in today’s Canberra Times that Lin Hatfield Dodds, National Director of UnitingCare has been endorsed as the ACT Greens Senate candidate for the up-coming federal election. I’ll leave it to readers to make their own judgements about this appointment . . .
    Ben Williams

  • Hi Bill,

    The Puritan ministers of New England had a great tradition of delivering an ‘election sermon’ in the weeks before an election to remind voters of their responsibility to elect godly leaders.

    This is a tradition I think we are sorely missing in Australia. In the lead up to our federal and state elections, churchgoers will be very unlikely to hear any mention of politics from the pulpit. Ministers seem happy to preach on some applications of Biblical texts such as loving your neighbour, submitting to legitimate authority etc, but one of the most important applications there is – how to wisely choose our leaders through the ballot box – is very rarely mentioned!

    What an opportunity an election sermon would be to expose the toxic, anti-Biblical policies of the Greens and other parties to churchgoers. I’m going to suggest this idea to the minister of my church. If any readers feel similarly, please bring it to the attention of your church leadership also.

    Mansel Rogerson

  • Thanks for the tip, Bill. I’d never vote for loons like the Green’s anyway, but it does provide a useful set of tips for talking to others about it.

    One thing that struck me, was their use of the acronym “LGBTI”. Wasn’t it just LGBT a little while ago ? How long is this thing going to get as they cram in every deviant activity under the sun ?

    Although there is another acronym that would seem to be appropriate to the Greens party platform.

    WTRBTCBMIP

    Which is short for “With The Right Boots They Could Be Marching Into Poland”, taken from a Red Dwarf episode, but it seems entirely appropriate here.

    Jason Rennie

  • Thanks Jason

    Yes you are right about the LGBT and the never-ending list of additions. They want to drag everyone into their orbit. The aim of course is to eventually suggest that everyone plus their uncle is homosexual. In this case the I’s are not happy. The ‘I’ here stands for Intersex, a rare condition in which there is genuine sexual ambiguity at a fundamental level – eg chromosomal. Turner Syndrome, for example, is one expression of this. The homosexual activists have tried to drag them into their camp, but most Intersex people strongly reject this.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Good article Bill. Lord Monckton told me a few weeks ago that he thinks the Greens suffer from ‘Traffic Light Syndrome’: Green but too yellow to admit they’re actually red!
    Paul Russell, Adelaide

  • Chris Dixon,

    There is only one problem with your attempted equivalence: the Greens Party is condemned out of its own mouth/website.

    John Angelico

  • But Bill!

    Doesn’t policy E5:8 say this…
    extensive structural reform to democratise the UN.

    That makes it all OK, doesn’t it?

    Doesn’t it?!

    and then of course G4:3 says this,
    global economic systems must be democratic, transparent and accountable.

    so there, Bill!

    (please don’t look at the preceding one though… “economic development must be compatible with, and subservient to, ecological sustainability.”

    Ah, yes, the gap between intentions and the reality of outcomes… with the Greens, they’re miles apart.

    Mark Rabich

  • This is kind of like playing battleships isn’t it? E5! D5! A7!

    …ok, time to do something else…

    Mark Rabich

  • “No policy is needed for homosexuals as individuals, since they have the very same rights that everyone else has.”

    I’m sorry but that simply isn’t true. What you are actually saying is that homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else so long as they don’t live their lives as homosexuals but become heterosexual. That’s hardly the same thing.

    Seriously, if you were in power, what would you do about homosexuals? How would you treat them? Do you have any homosexual friends?

    And as for those who’ve “left the homosexual lifestyle”, this is just hilarious. You don’t think social pressures have anything to do with it? A link between genes and sexuality has been determined and proven through study of identical twins. I get the impression you’re not much of one for science, but to say homosexuality is a choice that people could just leave and become heterosexual if they wanted to is so divorced from reality as to be quite scary, actually.

    Matthew Waterhouse

  • Thanks Mathew

    But I have already answered you. I would do nothing. More specifically, law does three things: it can prohibit, permit, or promote. The West has long ago moved out of any prohibitive laws on homosexuality, and is now in the permissive stage. The law in most Western countries now says homosexuals can do what they want in the privacy of their own home, and the state will not intervene. I can live with that.

    But as I already said, governments have no business whatsoever in promoting a dangerous and high-risk lifestyle like homosexuality. It is when they move into promotion and endorsement that I begin to air my concerns. And in a democracy I have the right to do that, even if you don’t want me to have that right.

    And as everyone can see I have nowhere here claimed that homosexuals must become heterosexual. That is their choice. I simply want to tell them the truth that genuine change is possible if they want it. Many thousands have changed, and I know many of these. Simply calling them liars makes no argument. Why are you afraid of letting people have full disclosure on this? Why do you want to keep the truth from people Matthew?

    As to twins’ studies, I am afraid you are out of your depth, and I need to call your bluff. All that the twins’ studies have done is confirm that homosexuality is not genetically-based. Let me make it very simple for you: Identical twins of course have identical genes. Therefore, if homosexuality was a genetically-based condition, then if one identical twin was homosexual, then the other twin would have to be homosexual as well. But the research tells us that only around 38 percent of the time is it the case that both are homosexual. This finding has been well established in the scientific community for decades now. The truth is, no reputable scientific study has ever found a genetic basis for homosexuality,.

    And even the more honest homosexuals admit as such. Indeed, one leading homosexual activist said such genetic theories were “crap”. Another major homosexual activist freely admits that “being gay is an identity that is socially determined and involves personal choice”. So are you simply calling these two leaders – and other like them – liars as well?

    And there is nothing scary about the truth that many homosexuals have left the lifestyle. What of course is scary is the person who lives in denial and refuses to face the facts on this. That is one way to live a sheltered life: deny all evidence to the contrary, and keep one’s head in the sand. But denying the truth will not make it go away I am afraid.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • I’m sorry to contradict you, Mr Muehlenberg, but it is you who is out of their depth here.

    You clearly don’t understand how genetics works. Yes, identical twins share the same genome, but the genome of all organisms is surprisingly short. This means that an organism’s behaviour and appearance is determined by the interaction of genes, and determined by which genes are switched on or off at any one time (i.e. genes for aging switch on and off at different stages of an organism’s life). Therefore the 38% you mention proves that there is a genetic link, not the reverse!

    I’m sorry to be the one to break that to you. The staggeringly high percentage of same sexuality amongst identical twins shows that there is a genetic link, and in instances where the sexualities differ, it is because different genes are switches on or off, sometimes depending on differing levels of hormones during foetal development. To have no genetic basis, it would have to be 5%, like the rest of the population. I could recommend a few good books on genetics for you if you’re interested. To suggest that there is no “reputable scientific study” suggesting a link between genes and sexuality is plain wrong, but it seems you are not willing to let the facts get in the way of your worldview.

    As for the “leading” homosexual, I think this speaks volumes about your mindset. Homosexuals are all different, it isn’t a country club, there are no leaders. Homosexual activists may be wrong about certain things some of the time, as apparently in this instance, but then we can all err, yes?

    I look forward to your considered response.

    Matthew Waterhouse

  • Regarding Des Morris’s suggestion that the DLP, CDP and FF should amalgamate, I would point out that the preferential voting system makes the separate parties more powerful than one amalgamated party. In the 2007 federal election, the DLP in WA fielded a senate team for the first time in many years and with minimal advertising and no booth teams, received over 11,000 primary votes, without the CDP vote being reduced. In doing so, we came fifth, outpolling the Nationals, FF, ONP and others. We were next to last to be eliminated in the count, with over 20,000 votes, and these went mostly to the CDP, who were only beaten by the residual ALP votes going to the greens. In the recent state election, the four pro-life parties received over 58,000 votes, which was more than the difference between left and right wing major parties. This meant that the pro-life movement in WA held the balance of power without a single candidate being elected, because our preferences were not wasted, but wisely allocated. The first effect of this was the cancellation of the prostitution bill, which had not been passed before the election. I have recently written a paper called “united we stand, divided we win”, which gives more details. I have stood for the CDP once and the DLP twice, and will continue in whatever method advances the pro-life movement best. As I pointed out in another paper, the only way we will defeat abortion is to have a majority of pro-life members on the floor of parliament, and they can belong to any party as long as we work together to defeat this evil.
    Yours sincerely,
    Eric Miller
    Secretary, WA Branch, DLP

  • Hi Mathew,

    You say a number of things that strike me as fairly ill thought out. I was wondering if perhaps you could flesh a few things out for me.

    What you are actually saying is that homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else so long as they don’t live their lives as homosexuals but become heterosexual. That’s hardly the same thing.

    What exactly do you mean by this ? I’m guessing you think that “marriage” or a host of other things are “rights”. Could you please articulate what you mean by having a “right” to something and how you ground these notions of rights. I suspect when you say “right” you mean something like “wanting my own way without regard or thought to the needs of others” but i’ll leave you to articulate something different if you are able to.

    Seriously, if you were in power, what would you do about homosexuals? How would you treat them? Do you have any homosexual friends?

    I do, and there is nothing i’d do to homosexuals. I’d leave them to live their lives as they want to. If they want help in leaving the “lifestyle” then I’d be more than happy to help them do so, but beyond that i’d not force them to do anything.

    And as for those who’ve “left the homosexual lifestyle”, this is just hilarious. You don’t think social pressures have anything to do with it?

    Why are you so threatened by the idea that homosexual behavior is not some sort of immutable identity? Even a collection of sexual anarchists like the Kinsey insititute doens’t believe homosexual behavior is fixed the way you suggest.

    A link between genes and sexuality has been determined and proven through study of identical twins.

    Actually as Bill noted this is an entirely false claim that is at odds with all of the scientific research. Again, why are you so threatened by the idea that homosexual behaviour may have aspects of choice to it and not be immutable? Even to the point of denying strong scientific evidence to the contray.

    but to say homosexuality is a choice that people could just leave and become heterosexual if they wanted to is so divorced from reality as to be quite scary, actually.

    I’m pretty sure Bill said nothing of the sort. Based on the research done, homosexual behavior would seem to be more similar to addictive behaviour like alcholism or heroin addicition, in which a strong desire to leave is required to overcome, and is caused in part by damaging sexual experiences or abandonment as a child. But again, this is just the evidenece from research done, which you seem to reject out of hand because of your ideological commitment to the idea that homosexual behavior is some sort of immutable trait.

    Jason Rennie

  • Hi all,
    Two points seem to have been lost in all the argument:
    1. Bearing in mind the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, would we not want, out of Christian charity, our homosexual brethren to leave their lifestyle in order to avert God’s just punishment and see them make it to Heaven?
    2. No homosexual or deviate of any kind has a right to teach my children or grandchildren that their lifestyle is acceptable, no matter what laws may be enacted in our parliaments.
    Scientific research and surveys are just smokescreens. It is God’s law that we are talking about.
    Eric G Miller, Perth, WA

  • Thanks Matthew

    It is always entertaining to see how the other side “argues” here. When presented with evidence and data which contradicts their position – even if from people on their own side – they don’t actually rebut the evidence, they simply claim that these people ‘are wrong’ – end of discussion. I guess that is one way to proceed.

    And you are missing the point. No one is arguing that genetics has nothing to do with homosexuality. Genetics will have an impact on all aspects of life. But the issue is, do genes “make” one homosexual? I have simply been arguing that no studies show that genes make people be homosexual. People who know a whole lot more about genetics than you or I certainly understand this. Richard Dawkins, for example, should know a bit about this. This is what he says: “the body of genetic determinism needs to be laid to rest.” He continues, “Whether you hate homosexuals or whether you love them, whether you want to lock them up or ‘cure’ them, your reasons had better have nothing to do with genes. Rather admit to prejudiced emotion than speciously drag genes in where they do not belong.”

    A British-based homosexual activist argues that “an influence is not the same as a cause. Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that’s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things.”

    Whole books have been penned denouncing the concept that homosexuality is genetically determined. The work of Harvard University’s Ruth Hubbard, for example, comes to mind. And scientists who have closely examined the twins’ studies have found so much shoddy science and poor methodology that they are regarded as being far from much use here.

    I could go on and on with such authorities. But we already know what your response will be: ‘they are wrong’. So I suspect that that there is not much point going on with you, as your mind seems firmly closed on this. But for the sake of those who are open to the evidence, I cite one final authority, a longstanding biochemist and research scientist, Dr Neil Whitehead. His words are appropriate to this discussion:

    “Just about everything has some genetic component. Hence a link. But the crucial questions are two: is the influence overwhelming? Secondly is it even moderate?
    “The results of twin studies, when used to calculate this show (1) that the genetic influence is a long way removed from 100%; in other words homosexuality is definitely not “in the genes”, i.e overwhelmingly imposed, which is the impression most people get; (2) the influence (technically known as the heritability) is weak to modest. Various studies give in the of range 0-30%. This is below average. This figure of 30% is a maximum for reasons given on my site. The lowest was for adolescents: 0%. Ironically they are the ones who think they are overwhelmingly influenced. The only good longitudinal study shows that if a teenager is attracted to the same sex, next year he/she will almost certainly not be.

    “The assumption of twin studies backed up by actual measurements is that differences in gene expression are minimised. Direct measurement of gene expression in newborn twins shows that differences are very low indeed. Differences increase with time under the influence of the environment. But the discrepancies in sexual orientation in adult identical twins are large. To argue differences are due to differing hormonal influences is highly doubtful . Direct measurements of fetal circulating hormones have shown only a weak influence on subsequent gendered toy preference for example.”

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Actually Mathew this claim of yours is inaccurate:

    The staggeringly high percentage of same sexuality amongst identical twins shows that there is a genetic link

    Actually unless the study involves pairs of identical twins seperated at birth, then it doesn’t show any such thing. If homosexual orientiation is a result of some part of a childs development, then twins raised in the same household and typically in very similar conditions are going to be susceptible to whatever the enviromental influence might be.

    Do you know if the study(s) you are claiming that support this contention were done with identical twins raised in different households ? What about non-identical twins, or studies with adopted siblings ? Studies like these would actually be better at demonstrating your point about some sort of genetic causation to homosexual orietentation.

    Of course, the problem is that such research doesn’t substantiate your vacuous claims. Feel free to actually cite the papers you think make your case if you like. I’ve probably come across them before and would be interested to see any results the differ from the majority of papers I have seen over the years. I wont hold my breath as you are clearly blinding by ideology, but perhaps you will surprise me.

    Jason Rennie

  • Hi Eric,

    I’m not sure you are correct here. I agree with you that sodomites and their allies shoudn’t be teaching your kids/grandkids, but in terms of a smoke screen I think you are mistaken.

    If God’s Law is true (assume it is an open question for the sake of argument, I agree with you that it is not) then studies of homosexual individuals and groups in society can provide a test for claims like the ones Paul makes in Romans 1. If homosexual behavior is deviant behavior and something at odds with a humans design and Nature, then the science will bear this out as it overwhelmingly does.

    If homosexual behavior runs counter to mans design, then we would expect it to be radically destructive to its practitioners and something that can be found to be the result of various social pathologies. As we in fact do when you look at the data.

    Far from being a smokescreen the scientific evidence agrees with the idea that homsexual behavior is something at odds with mans Nature and design, just as God said it was. To someone who would dismiss God’s word as “irrelevant”, they might have a harder time (although as Mathew demonstrates, sadly not that hard a time) dismissing more “objective” evidence.

    It shouldn’t be surprising that God’s Law lines up squarely with the evidence from nature as the author of both is the same. Never be afraid to let God’s Law be tested by observations of the natural world, the two will be consonant if the author is the same.

    Jason Rennie

  • Thanks Eric

    Yes I too was going to briefly remark on your last comment. Certainly 50 years ago when there was more of a Christian consensus in the West, one might have been able to get away with comments like: “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it”. But we live in an overwhelming secular culture today, so in addition to proclaiming God’s truth we also need to engage with people where they are at. That involves seeking to speak to them on their own terms, and use, where possible, secular data and arguments.

    Thus there is a place for answering honest questions with honest answers (although I often wonder how honest some of these questions are coming from some of our opponents here). And since all truth is God’s truth, we can expect that the social science data, if conducted fairly and impartially, will line up with God’s word.

    There is a place for making secular arguments with secularists, as they do not accept the starting point of Scripture. Sure, there can be limits to this, but people like Paul for example (as in Acts 15) were not afraid to seek to build bridges to non-believers, using their own philosophers, poets and so on in the attempt to reach them, instead of citing passages from the Old testament as part of the argument. This is part of what we call apologetics.

    But I certainly share your passion about not letting radical social engineers ram their agendas down the throats of our children!

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • If you didn’t have the greens, who would you put last on the ticket?
    So they do have a very important role…….. that is the last place on any ballet paper.
    Tony Zegenhagegn

  • I saw a car sticker the other day – possibly on the car of a person who lived through a Black Saturday bushfire experience: “Green policies destroyed Victoria, let’s destroy the Greens at the election.”
    I count Colleen Heartland – the Greens MP who vehemently supported the removal of conscience for health preofessionals in the Abortion reform Act – to be a particularly vindictive and bigoted person. I hope that prolife people in her electorate organise and put up a suitable candidate at the State election.
    If she is an example of Geeen democracy then God help us.
    Wayne Pelling

  • On the subject of using either biblical or secular arguments, I believe we should use both. Just because a secularist rejects the Bible doesn’t mean Christians should confine themselves to playing by the secularist’s self-serving rules and “leave the Bible out of it” so to speak.

    For example, when it comes to prolife arguments, it’s difficult not to invoke the fact that human life is more valuable than animal life on the grounds that we have been made in the image of God rather than evolved from the apes as secularists believe. Many secularists have no ethical problem with abortion because according to their worldview they think that disposing of unwanted babies is no different to disposing of unwanted cats and dogs.

    Ewan McDonald, Victoria.

  • There is more to the Greens than their homosexuality/gender confusion preoccupation, and we need to be very thoughtful about casting our vote. I agree with the points about the Law..that it is to prohibit, permit or promote, and we are moving very rapidly towards the promotion of this whole new world of gender distortion. The Government makes the Law, the legal profession gets rich from deciphering it, the police are expected to uphold it, and honest, law abiding people are often the victims of it.
    What kind of laws would we have if the Greens were making them? As a democracy we are responsible for who governs us, and who has the Balance of Power.
    Take Care!!!
    Lorna Rogers

  • 12. legislate to remove discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender or Intersex (LGBTI) people in federal legislation.

    It used to be homosexuals; then it was gays; then it was gays and lesbians; then it became gays, lesbians and bisexuals; then they added transgender; now we have lesbian, gay, bisexuals, transgender and intersex people.

    I wonder what is gong to be next to add to the list…Rover the dog???

    Roger Marks

  • Thanks guys

    More good reasons to steer very wide of the Green loony toons: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/a-green-vote-is-madness/story-e6frfhqf-1225886881605

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Well now, the Watermelon party sure provoked a comment or twenty. It was good reading through the comments and seeing that there are Christians who can stand up for truth and argue from a thoughtful position. Keep it up guys.
    Dave Powell

  • An interesting discussion.

    Regarding the comment – ‘ the Greens MP who vehemently supported the removal of conscience for health preofessionals in the Abortion reform Act – ‘

    Just to highlight that any political party that proposes legislation that seeks to impose limits on our freedom to act in accordance with our conscience or faith values is highly dangerous and should not be supported.

    Also, the freedom to speak our beliefs openly, to comment on the beliefs of others AND allow them to comment on ours should be treasured and protected. Any legislation that seeks to limit this freedom should be opposed.

    George Morrison

Leave a Reply